Refugee Resettlement Program; Proposed 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; Proposed 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: Notice of proposed 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 proposed 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.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by May 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Address written comments, in duplicate, to: Toyo A. Biddle,

Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and

Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20447.

APPLICATION DEADLINE: The deadline for applications will be established

by the final notice; applications should not be sent in response to

this notice of proposed allocations.

CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (CDFA) NUMBER: 93.584.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Scope

This notice announces the proposed 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) proposes

to 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

[[Page 19271]] 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.

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 [[Page 19272]] 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 would be contingent

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

IX, below.

IV. [Reserved for Discussion of Comments in Final Notice]

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 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 does not intend to consider data for the purpose of determining

the eligibility of new counties to participate 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 FR 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

Proposed 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 [[Page 19273]] order to target the most

impacted communities.

VII. Proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed allocation.

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

proposes, 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 proposed

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.

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

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

Portion of Portion of

Arrivals proposed FY proposed FY Total proposed

Jan. 1983- 1995 1995 FY 1995

County State Sep. 1994 allocation allocation allocation\1\

(A) under old under new (D)

formula (B) formula (C)

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

Alameda................................. CA 15,342 $196,075 $350,557 $546,632

Contra Costa............................ CA 4,291 56,063 98,047 154,110

Fresno.................................. CA 14,168 108,273 323,731 432,004

Los Angeles............................. CA 96,369 990,155 2,201,981 3,192,136

Merced.................................. CA 4,419 132,156 100,972 233,128

Orange.................................. CA 45,042 440,587 1,029,186 1,469,773

Sacramento.............................. CA 17,687 167,821 404,139 571,960

San Diego............................... CA 25,354 328,383 579,326 907,709

San Francisco........................... CA 25,207 254,838 575,967 830,805

San Joaquin............................. CA 9,352 169,342 213,688 383,030

Santa Clara............................. CA 34,492 327,990 788,124 1,116,114

Stanislaus.............................. CA 3,433 30,639 78,442 109,081

Tulare.................................. CA 5,345 0 122,130 122,130

Denver.................................. CO 9,863 66,147 225,364 291,511

Broward................................. FL 3,549 109,568 81,093 190,661

Dade.................................... FL 55,469 1,911,490 1,267,438 3,178,928

Hillsboro............................... FL 3,484 34,433 79,608 114,041

Palm Beach.............................. FL 3,574 45,517 81,664 127,181

Honolulu................................ HI 3,417 72,838 78,077 150,915

Cook/Kane............................... IL 36,432 342,151 832,452 1,174,603

Sedgwick................................ KS 4,038 81,534 92,266 173,800

Orleans................................. LA 3,902 55,699 89,159 144,858

Montgomery/Prince Georges............... MD 8,850 67,761 202,218 269,979

Middlesex............................... MA 6,357 53,529 145,254 198,783

Suffolk................................. MA 16,107 122,853 368,037 490,890

Hennepin................................ MN 10,446 86,311 238,686 324,997

Ramsey.................................. MN 10,263 121,357 234,504 355,861

Jackson................................. MO 4,320 31,685 98,710 130,395

Essex................................... NJ 5,925 18,336 135,383 153,719

Hudson.................................. NJ 2,946 122,698 67,315 190,013

Union................................... NJ 1,810 24,631 41,358 65,989

New York................................ NY 135,633 273,761 3,099,143 3,372,904

Multnomah............................... OR 17,069 185,998 390,018 576,016

Philadelphia............................ PA 18,645 127,317 426,028 553,345

Providence.............................. RI 4,850 90,936 110,820 201,756

Dallas/Tarrant.......................... TX 26,000 0 594,086 594,086

Harris.................................. TX 21,914 149,237 500,723 649,960

Salt Lake............................... UT 7,209 45,368 164,722 210,090

Arlington............................... VA 3,183 78,619 72,730 151,349

Fairfax................................. VA 9,011 94,800 205,897 300,697

KIng/Snohomish.......................... WA 29,264 226,469 668,667 895,136

Pierce.................................. WA 4,719 48,398 107,827 156,225

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

Total............................. ............ 768,750 7,891,763 17,565,537 25,457,300

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

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

[[Page 19274]]

Table 2.--Proposed Targeted Assistance Allocations for Communities Affected by Recent Cuban and Haitian

Arrivals: FY 1995

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

Amount to be

FY 92-94 allocated:

total Cuban $19,000,000

and Haitian Percent ---------------

County State refugee and of total Proposed

entrant arrivals 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 1.84

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

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

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

San Diego................................................. CA 191 0.53

San Francisco............................................. CA 274 0.76

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

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

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

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

Denver.................................................... CO 56 0.16

Broward................................................... FL 1973 5.50 $1,247,695

Dade...................................................... FL 24,336 67.86 15,389,715

Hillsboro................................................. FL 800 2.23

Palm Beach................................................ FL 2601 7.25 1,644,833

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

Cook/Kane................................................. IL 242 0.67

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

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

Montgom./Pr. G............................................ MD 58 0.16

Middlesex................................................. MA 84 0.23

Suffolk................................................... MA 385 1.07

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

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

Jackson................................................... MO 310 0.86

Essex..................................................... NJ 368 1.03

Hudson.................................................... NJ 1058 2.95

Union..................................................... NJ 118 0.33

New York.................................................. NY 1135 3.16 717,757

Multnomah................................................. OR 132 0.37

Philadelphia.............................................. PA 156 0.43

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

Dallas/Tarrant............................................ TX 346 0.96

Harris.................................................... TX 132 0.37

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

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

Fairfax................................................... VA 2 0.01

King/Snohomish............................................ WA 219 0.61

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

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

Total............................................... ............ 35,863 100.00 19,000,000

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

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

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

FY 1995

State allocation\1\

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

California............................................ $10,068,612

Colorado.............................................. 291,511

Florida............................................... \2\21,893,054

Hawaii................................................ 150,915

Illinois.............................................. 1,174,603

Kansas................................................ 173,800

Louisiana............................................. 144,858

Maryland.............................................. 269,979

Massachusetts......................................... 689,673

Minnesota............................................. 680,858

Missouri.............................................. 130,395

New Jersey............................................ 409,721

New York.............................................. \2\4,090,661

Oregon................................................ 576,016

Pennsylvania.......................................... 553,345

[[Page 19275]]

Rhode Island.......................................... 201,756

Texas................................................. 1,244,046

Utah.................................................. 210,090

Virginia.............................................. 452,046

Washington............................................ 1,051,361

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

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

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

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

\2\The allocations for Florida and New York include $18,282,243 and

$717,757 respectively for communities affected by Cuban and Haitian

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

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

Haitian entrants and refugees whose arrivals in recent years have

increased.''

Table 4.--Targeted Assistance Areas

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

State Targeted assistance area\1\ Definition

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

CA Alameda

CA Contra Costa

CA Fresno

CA Los Angeles

CA Merced

CA Orange

CA Sacramento

CA San Diego

CA San Francisco............... Marin, San Francisco and San

Mateo Counties.

CA San Joaquin

CA Santa Clara

CA Stanislaus

CA Tulare

CO Denver...................... Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,

Denver and Jefferson

Counties.

FL Broward

FL Dade

FL Hillsborough

FL Palm Beach

HI Honolulu

IL Cook/Kane

KS Sedgwick

LA Orleans..................... Jefferson and Orleans

Parishes.

MD Montgomery/Prince Georges

MA Middlesex

MA Suffolk

MN Hennepin

MN Ramsey

MO Jackson..................... Jackson County, Mo and

Wyandotte County KS.

NJ Essex

NJ Hudson

NJ Union

NY New York.................... Bronx, Kings, New York,

Queens, and, Richmond

Counties.

OR Multnomah................... Clackamas, Multnomah and

Washington Counties, OR and

Clark County, WA

PA Philadelphia

RI Providence

TX Dallas/Tarrant

TX Harris

UT Salt Lake................... Davis, Salt Lake and Utah

Counties.

VA Arlington

VA Fairfax..................... Fairfax County and the

indep. cities of

Alexandria, Fairfax and

Falls Church.

WA King/Snohomish

WA Pierce

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

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

VIII. Application and Implementation Process

Under the FY 1995 targeted assistance program, States would apply

for and receive grant awards on behalf of qualified counties in the

State. A single allocation would be made to each State by ORR on the

basis of an approved State application. The State agency would, 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 [[Page 19276]] 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.

IX. Application Requirements

The proposed 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, for each qualified local area, targeted

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

services to cash assistance recipients.

C. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used primarily

for the provision of services which directly enhance refugee employment

potential, have specific employment objectives, and are designed to

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

in the targeted assistance program. States must indicate what

percentage of FY 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: April 10, 1995.

Regina Lee,

Deputy Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.

[FR Doc. 95-9365 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P