Refugee Resettlement Program; Availability of Formula Allocation Funding for FY 1995 Targeted Assistance Grants for Services to Refugees in Local Areas of High Need

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of Refugee Resettlement

Refugee Resettlement Program; Availability of Formula Allocation

Funding for FY 1995 Targeted Assistance Grants for Services to Refugees

in Local Areas of High Need

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

ACTION: Final notice of availability of formula allocation funding for

FY 1995 targeted assistance grants to States 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.

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

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of funds and award

procedures for FY 1995 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. The formula has been updated to take into account FY 1994

arrivals.

A notice of proposed allocation of targeted assistance funds was

published for public comment in the Federal Register on April 17, 1995

(60 FR 19270).

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

APPLICATION DEADLINE: The deadline for applications from States for

grants under this notice is on August 25, 1995.

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

is postmarked indicating it 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

[[Page 38355]]

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 Refugee Self-Sufficiency, 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: RON MUNIA AT (202) 401-4559 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 1995 funds for the targeted assistance program (TAP) as part of

the FY 1995 appropriation for the Department of Health and Human

Services (Pub. L. 103-333).

The House Appropriations Committee Report reads as follows with

respect to targeted assistance funds (H.R. Rept. No. 103-553, 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

recommended for targeted assistance be provided to continue the

current program of support to communities affected as a result of

the massive influx of Cuban and Haitian entrants. 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 Senate Appropriations Committee Report (S. Rept. No. 103-318,

p. 154) is consistent with the above-quoted House Report.

The Conference Report on Appropriations (H. Rept. No. 103-733, p.

24) clarifies Congress' intent on the use of the $19 million for

communities affected by Cuban and Haitian entrants as follows:

The conferees are agreed that $19,000,000 of the $49,397,000

appropriated for targeted assistance is to serve communities

affected by the Cuban and Haitian entrants and refugees whose

arrivals in recent years have increased.

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

the $49,397,000 appropriated for FY 1995 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 serve communities most

heavily affected by recent Cuban and Haitian entrant and refugee

arrivals.

$4,939,700 (10% of the total) will be awarded as second-

year continuation grants in a two-year project period under a

discretionary grant announcement that was issued in FY 1994.

In addition, the Office of Refugee Resettlement has available an

additional $6,000,000 in FY 1995 funds to augment the targeted

assistance 10% program through the Foreign Operations, Export

Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 103-306).

These funds will be awarded under a separate discretionary grant

announcement which will be issued 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. 99-

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

Assistance Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 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. 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. 100-461), 1990 (Pub. L. 101-167), and 1991 (Pub. L. 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.

However, effective October 1, 1995, under new provisions in

Sec. 400.314 in the final rule published in the Federal Register on

June 28, 1995, (60 FR 33584), States will be required to provide

targeted assistance services to refugees in the following order of

priority, except in certain individual extreme circumstances: (a)

Refugees who are cash assistance recipients, particularly long-term

recipients; (b)

[[Page 38356]]

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

employed refugees in need of services to retain employment or to attain

economic independence. Effective October 1, 1995, States will also be

required, in accordance with Sec. 400.315, to limit the provision of

targeted assistance services, with the exception of referral and

interpreter services, to refugees who have been in the U.S. for 60

months or less.

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 Comment Received

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

proposed availability of FY 1995 funds for targeted assistance. The

comments are summarized below and are followed

[[Page 38357]]

in each case by the Department's response.

Comment: Five commenters opposed allowing States with more than one

eligible county to determine county allocations differently from those

specified in the targeted assistance notice. Four of those commenters

complained that their State's reallocation plan shifted resources from

counties with new arrivals to counties with long-term assistance users.

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.

Effective October 1, 1995, under the new rule, States with more

than one eligible targeted assistance county will be allowed to

allocate funds differently from the formula in the targeted assistance

notice only on the basis of its population of refugees who arrived in

the U.S. during the most recent 5-year period. States will be allowed

to use welfare data as a factor in its allocation formula, but only in

combination with arrival data, not as the only factor.

Comment: Two commenters questioned the 3 percent threshold for the

Cuban/Haitian special allocation. One commenter objected to the

exclusion of secondary migrants in the entrant population count. The

other commenter recommended that the threshold be lowered to 1 percent

to provide awards to more counties.

Response: As we have noted in previous years, we are not able to

include secondary migrants in the population count for targeted

assistance because secondary migration data are not available at the

county level.

In order to be consistent with the Conference Report on

Appropriations, we have established a 3 percent threshold for

allocations under the Cuban/Haitian special allocation in order to

target the communities most heavily affected by recent Cuban and

Haitian entrant and refugee arrivals. A lowering of the threshold would

disperse the available funds across more communities, which would

significantly reduce the grants to the communities which have the

greatest need.

Comment: One commenter objected to ORR's intention not to consider

data for the purpose of determining the eligibility of new counties for

participation in TAP in FY 1995.

Response: In FY 1996 we intend to re-examine the targeted

assistance program to determine what policies need to be updated or

revised. At that time, the eligibility of all counties will be reviewed

against the new qualifying criteria. We do not believe that it makes

sense to admit new counties to the program in FY 1995 when these

counties may become ineligible in FY 1996. We believe that funds are

best used for already established counties rather than for the start up

costs for new counties that may only receive funding for one year.

Comment: One commenter recommended that the 10% discretionary

program be eliminated because the program allows non-impacted counties

to receive grants which, in turn, reduces the grants to the impacted

counties.

Response: The communities which receive grants under the TAP 10%

discretionary program are impacted communities, even though they may

not receive grants under the targeted assistance formula program. The

TAP 10% program reflects Congressional intent as expressed in the House

Appropriations Committee Report which states: ``The Committee expects

these [TAP 10%] grants to be awarded to communities not presently

receiving targeted assistance because of previous concentration

requirements * * * as well as those who do currently receive targeted

assistance grants.''

Comment: One commenter recommended that TAP funds be allocated to

counties within 5 months after being appropriated by Congress. The

commenter felt that releasing the funds later keeps counties from

accessing funds when they are needed and gives Congress and OMB the

impression that the counties do not really need the resources.

Response: We hope to issue targeted assistance awards earlier in

the fiscal year than has been the case to date.

Comment: Two commenters recommended that the allowances for State

and county administrative costs, 5 and 10 percent respectively, be re-

examined. The commenters felt that the counties' allowance should be

increased. One commenter recommended that counties be allowed as much

as 15 to 20 percent in administrative costs since the counties are

responsible for directly administering the targeted assistance grants.

The other commenter recommended a sliding-scale for State allowances,

with a higher percentage for smaller States and a lower percentage for

larger States.

Response: Regarding State administrative allowances, section

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

retained by the State.

As we indicated earlier, in FY 1996 we intend to re-examine the

targeted assistance program to determine what policies need to be

updated or revised. This will provide an appropriate time to re-examine

the issue of allowable administrative cost levels.

Comment: One commenter requested that the application procedures

for the Cuban/Haitian special allocation be made available as soon as

possible if the procedures will be different from previous years.

Response: The application procedures for the Cuban/Haitian special

allocation will be provided to participating States shortly.

Comment: One commenter requested that counties receiving awards for

the first time under the Cuban/Haitian special allocation be awarded

grants from October 1995 through September 1996 to give the State

sufficient planning time.

Response: Awards will be made before the end of FY 1995. Counties

may obligate targeted assistance funds for up to one year after the end

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

Therefore, grants awarded this year may be obligated through September

30, 1996. Funds must be liquidated within two years after the end of

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

V. Eligible Grantees

The following requirements, which have previously applied to TAP,

will continue to apply with respect to FY 1995 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 1995 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

[[Page 38358]]

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

FY 1995 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 Formulas

A. Qualifying New Counties

ORR is not considering new counties for participation in TAP in FY

1995. The reason is that in FY 1996 we intend to modify the qualifying

criteria and allocations formula for targeted assistance. At that time,

the eligibility of all counties for participation in TAP will be

reviewed against the new qualifying criteria. We do not believe it

makes sense to invite new counties to submit evidence of eligibility in

FY 1995 when these counties may become ineligible in FY 1996 under the

new qualifying criteria.

B. Allocation Formula

The FY 1995 TAP formula allocations are based on the same formula

as in FY 1994, updated to reflect arrivals through September 30, 1994.

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 1994. The second portion of

the allocation is based on refugee and entrant placements in these

counties during calendar year (CY) 1983-September 30, 1994.

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

by formula is apportioned as follows:

a. $7,891,763 or 31%, 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. $17,565,537 or 69%, is allocated on the basis of arrivals during

CY 1983-September 30, 1994 (``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 31% of the total number of placements, during the old-

formula period; and 768,750 or 69%, during the new-formula period.

The old-formula allocation of $7,891,763 follows the same

distribution among counties as in the past.

The new-formula allocation of $17,565,537 is based on the number of

initial placements in each county during CY 1983-September 30, 1994.

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

the formula.

C. Allocation Formula for Communities Affected by Recent Cuban/Haitian

Arrivals

Allocations for recent Cuban and Haitian refugee and entrant

arrivals are based on arrival numbers during the 3-year period

beginning October 1, 1991 through September 30, 1994. Allocations are

limited to targeted assistance counties with 3 percent or more of the

total 3-year Cuban and Haitian arrival population (35,863 arrivals) in

the 42 targeted assistance counties. We have established a 3 percent

threshold for allocations in order to target the most impacted

communities.

VII. Allocations

Table 1 lists the participating counties, the number of placements

in each county during CY 1983-September 30, 1994, 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 1994 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 lists the participating counties, the number of Cuban and

Haitian refugee and entrant arrivals in each county during FY 1992-FY

1994, each county's percentage of the aggregate total Cuban/Haitian

arrivals in the 42 targeted assistance counties, and the allocation

amount for each county that has an arrival threshold of 3 percent or

above.

Table 3 provides State totals for targeted assistance allocations.

Table 4 indicates the areas that each participating county

represents.

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P

Table 1.--Targeted Assistance Allocations by County: FY 1995

Portion of FY Portion of FY

Arrivals Jan. 1995 1995

County State 1983-Sept. allocation allocation Total FY 1995

1994 under old under new allocation\1\

formula formula

.......... (A) (B) (C) (D)

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

Alameda........................... CA 15,342 $196,075 $350,380 $546,455

Contra Costa...................... CA 4,291 56,063 97,998 154,061

Fresno............................ CA 14,168 108,273 323,569 431,842

Los Angeles....................... CA 96,344 990,155 2,200,303 3,190,458

Merced............................ CA 4,419 132,156 100,921 233,077

Orange............................ CA 45,039 440,587 1,028,600 1,469,187

Sacramento........................ CA 17,687 167,821 403,935 571,756

San Diego......................... CA 25,368 328,383 579,354 907,737

San Francisco..................... CA 25,198 254,838 575,471 830,309

San Joaquin....................... CA 9,352 169,342 213,581 382,923

Santa Clara....................... CA 34,488 327,990 787,636 1,115,626

Stanislaus........................ CA 3,433 30,639 78,403 109,042

Tulare............................ CA 5,345 0 122,069 122,069

[[Page 38359]]

Denver............................ CO 9,865 66,147 225,297 291,444

Broward........................... FL 3,568 109,568 81,486 191,054

Dade.............................. FL 55,816 1,911,490 1,274,725 3,186,215

Hillsboro......................... FL 3,496 34,433 79,842 114,275

Palm Beach........................ FL 3,595 45,517 82,103 127,620

Honolulu.......................... HI 3,417 72,838 78,037 150,875

Cook/Kane......................... IL 36,430 342,151 831,988 1,174,139

Sedgwick.......................... KS 4,038 81,534 92,220 173,754

Orleans........................... LA 3,899 55,699 89,045 144,744

Montgomery/Prince Georges......... MD 8,851 67,761 202,139 269,900

Middlesex......................... MA 6,355 53,529 145,135 198,664

Suffolk........................... MA 16,114 122,853 368,011 490,864

Hennepin.......................... MN 10,446 86,311 238,566 324,877

Ramsey............................ MN 10,263 121,357 234,386 355,743

Jackson........................... MO 4,319 31,685 98,637 130,322

Essex............................. NJ 5,925 18,336 135,315 153,651

Hudson............................ NJ 2,941 122,698 67,167 189,865

Union............................. NJ 1,812 24,631 41,382 66,013

New York.......................... NY 135,631 273,761 3,097,538 3,371,299

Multnomah......................... OR 17,076 185,998 389,981 575,979

Philadelphia...................... PA 18,643 127,317 425,769 553,086

Providence........................ RI 4,850 90,936 110,764 201,700

Dallas/Tarrant.................... TX 26,002 0 593,833 593,833

Harris............................ TX 21,917 149,237 500,540 649,777

Salt Lake......................... UT 7,210 45,368 164,662 210,030

Arlington......................... VA 3,183 78,619 72,693 151,312

Fairfax........................... VA 9,006 94,800 205,679 300,479

King/Snohomish.................... WA 29,276 226,469 668,605 895,074

Pierce............................ WA 4,719 48,398 107,772 156,170

Total....................... ............ 769,137 7,891,763 17,565,537 25,457,300

\1\ Based on arrivals through September 30, 1994.

Table 2.--Targeted Assistance Allocations for Communities Affected by Recent Cuban and Haitian Arrivals: FY 1995

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

Amount to be

FY 92-94 total allocated:

Cuban & $19,000,000

Haitian % of total ---------------

County State refugee & arrivals Final

entrant Allocation: 3%

arrivals arrival

threshold

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

Alameda........................................... CA.......... 6 0.02 ..............

Contra Costa...................................... CA.......... 1 0.00 ..............

Fresno............................................ CA.......... 3 0.01 ..............

Los Angeles....................................... CA.......... 660 1.80 ..............

Merced............................................ CA.......... 0 0.00 ..............

Orange............................................ CA.......... 24 0.07 ..............

Sacramento........................................ CA.......... 13 0.04 ..............

San Diego......................................... CA.......... 199 0.54 ..............

San Francisco..................................... CA.......... 274 0.75 ..............

San Joaquin....................................... CA.......... 2 0.01 ..............

Santa Clara....................................... CA.......... 4 0.01 ..............

Stanislaus........................................ CA.......... 0 0.00 ..............

Tulare............................................ CA.......... 0 0.00 ..............

Denver............................................ CO.......... 58 0.16 ..............

Broward........................................... FL.......... 2,000 5.46 $1,237,866

Dade.............................................. FL.......... 24,932 68.10 15,431,234

Hillsboro......................................... FL.......... 832 2.27 ..............

Palm Beach........................................ FL.......... 2,621 7.16 1,622,223

Honolulu.......................................... HI.......... 0 0.00 ..............

Cook/Kane......................................... IL.......... 250 0.68 ..............

Sedgwick.......................................... KS.......... 6 0.02 ..............

Orleans........................................... LA.......... 94 0.26 ..............

Montgom./Pr. G.................................... MD.......... 59 0.16 ..............

Middlesex......................................... MA.......... 82 0.22 ..............

[[Page 38360]]

Suffolk........................................... MA.......... 392 1.07 ..............

Hennepin.......................................... MN.......... 51 0.14 ..............

Ramsey............................................ MN.......... 0 0.00 ..............

Jackson........................................... MO.......... 310 0.85 ..............

Essex............................................. NJ.......... 371 1.01 ..............

Hudson............................................ NJ.......... 1,079 2.95 ..............

Union............................................. NJ.......... 121 0.33 ..............

New York.......................................... NY.......... 1,145 3.13 708,678

Multnomah......................................... OR.......... 139 0.38 ..............

Philadelphia...................................... PA.......... 154 0.42 ..............

Providence........................................ RI.......... 11 0.03 ..............

Dallas/Tarrant.................................... TX.......... 349 0.95 ..............

Harris............................................ TX.......... 137 0.37 ..............

Salt Lake......................................... UT.......... 0 0.00 ..............

Arlington......................................... VA.......... 12 0.03 ..............

Fairfax........................................... VA.......... 3 0.01 ..............

King/Snohomish.................................... WA.......... 219 0.60 ..............

Pierce............................................ WA.......... 0 0.00 ..............

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

Total....................................... ............ 36,613 100.00 19,000,000

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

Table 3.--Targeted Assistance Allocations by State: FY 1995

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

FY 1995allocation

State \1\

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

California........................................... $10,064,542

Colorado............................................. 291,444

Florida.............................................. \2\ 21,910,486

Hawaii............................................... 150,875

Illinois............................................. 1,174,139

Kansas............................................... 173,754

Louisiana............................................ 144,744

Maryland............................................. 269,900

Massachusetts........................................ 689,528

Minnesota............................................ 680,620

Missouri............................................. 130,322

New Jersey........................................... 409,529

New York............................................. \2\ 4,079,977

Oregon............................................... 575,979

Pennsylvania......................................... 553,086

Rhode Island......................................... 201,700

Texas................................................ 1,243,610

Utah................................................. 210,030

Virginia............................................. 451,791

Washington........................................... 1,051,244

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

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

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

\1\ Based on arrivals through September 30, 1994.

\2\ The allocations for Federal and New York include $18,291,322 and

$708,678 respectively for communities affected by Cuban and Haitian

entrants and refugees. This is referred to in the Conference Report on

the appropriations: ``to serve communities affected by the Cuban and

Haitian entrants and refugees whose arrivals in recent years have

increased.''

[[Page 38361]]

Table 4.--Targeted Assistance Areas

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

Targeted assistance

State area \1\ Definition

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

CA ALAMEDA

CA CONTRA COSTA

CA FRESNO

CA LOS ANGELES

CA MERCED

CA ORANGE

CA SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO

CA

CA SAN FRANCISCO........ MARIN, SAN FRANCISCO, & SAN

MATEO COUNTIES.

CA SAN JOAQUIN

CA SANTA CLARA

CA STANISLAUS

CA TULARE

CO DENVER............... ADAMS, ARAPHOE, BOULDER, DENVER

& JEFFERSON COUNTIES.

FL BROWARD

FL DADE

FL HILLSBOROUGH

FL PALM BEACH

HI HONOLULU

IL COOK/KANE

KS SEDGWICK

LA ORLEANS.............. JEFFERSON & ORLEANS PARISHES.

MD MONTGOMERY/PRINCE

GEORGES

MA MIDDLESEX

MA SUFFOLK

MN HENNEPIN

MN RAMSEY

MO JACKSON.............. JACKSON COUNTY, MO. & WYANDOTTE

COUNTY KS.

NJ ESSEX

NJ HUDSON

NJ 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

TX HARRIS

UT SALT LAKE............ DAVID, SALT LAKE & UTAH

COUNTIES.

VA ARLINGTON

VA FAIRFAX.............. FAIRFAX COUNTY & THE

INDEPENDENT CITIES OF

ALEXANDRIA, FAIRFAX AND FALLS

CHURCH.

WA KINGS/SNOHOMISH

WA PIERCE

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

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

BILLING CODE 4184-01-M

VIII. Application and Implementation Process

Under the FY 1995 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.

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 1995 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 1996 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 additional funding to Florida and New York for communities

affected by Cuban and Haitian entrants and refugees whose arrivals in

recent years have increased is part of the appropriation amount for

targeted assistance, the scope of activities for these additional funds

will be administratively determined. Applications for these funds are

therefore not subject to provisions contained in this notice but to

other requirements which will be conveyed separately. Similarly, the

requirements regarding the 10% portion of the targeted assistance

appropriation as well as the supplemental funds to the 10% portion of

the targeted assistance appropriation that will be awarded separately

have been addressed in the grant announcements for those funds.

[[Page 38362]]

IX. Application Requirements

The State application requirements for grants for the FY 1995

targeted assistance formula allocation are as follows:

States that are currently operating under approved management plans

for their FY 1994 targeted assistance program and wish to continue to

do so for their FY 1995 grants may provide the following in lieu of

resubmitting the full currently approved plan:

The State's application for FY 1995 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 1995 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 1994 application content requirements to ensure complete

incorporation in the State's management plan.

B. Assurance that effective October 1, 1995, targeted assistance

funds will be used in accordance with the new ORR regulations published

in the Federal Register on June 28, 1995.

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 1995 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 1994, 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

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.

The new form will be available when reporting on FY 1995 grants begins,

which would be at the end of the first quarter of FY 1996.

Dated: July 19, 1995.

Lavinia Limon,

Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.

[FR Doc. 95-18335 Filed 7-25-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P