Refugee Resettlement Program; Proposed Availability of Formula Allocation Funding for FY 1996 Targeted Assistance Grants for Services to Refugees in Local Areas of High Need

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

Refugee Resettlement Program; Proposed Availability of Formula

Allocation Funding for FY 1996 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 1996 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.

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

[[Page 20261]]

SUMMARY: This notice announces the proposed availability of funds and

award procedures for FY 1996 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. This notice reflects the final rule published in the Federal

Register on June 28, 1995 (60 FR 33584) which was effective October 1,

1995. This rule established a new subpart L, providing regulations for

the Targeted Assistance Program (TAP) for the first time.

This notice proposes that the qualification of counties be based on

refugee and entrant arrivals during the 5-year period from FY 1991

through FY 1995, in keeping with ORR's new regulation, and on the

concentration of refugees and entrants as a percentage of the general

population. Under this proposal, 15 new counties would qualify for

targeted assistance and 19 counties which previously received targeted

assistance grants would no longer qualify for targeted assistance

funding. This notice also proposes a new allocation formula to reflect

the limitation on the use of targeted assistance funding for services

to refugees who have resided in the United States 5 years or less.

In addition, this notice replaces the schedule of allowable

administrative cost amounts for local administrative budgets that

appeared in previous notices with an allowable administrative cost

amount of up to 15% for all TAP counties for the purpose of increasing

local flexibility and oversight.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received before June 5, 1996.

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

Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and

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

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 $55,397,000

in FY 1996 funds for the targeted assistance program (TAP) as part of

the FY 1996 appropriation for the Department of Health and Human

Services (Pub. L. 104-134).

The FY 1996 House Appropriations Committee Report (H.R. Rept. No.

104-209) reads as follows with respect to targeted assistance funds:

This program provides grants to States for counties which are

impacted by high concentrations of refugees and high dependency rates.

The Committee agrees that $19,000,000 is available for targeted

assistance to serve communities affected by the Cuban and Haitian

entrants and refugees whose arrivals in recent years have increased.

The Committee has set-aside 20 percent of these funds for increased

support to communities with large concentrations of refugees whose

cultural differences make assimilation especially difficult justifying

a more intense and longer duration level of Federal assistance.

The Conference Report on Appropriations (H. Rept. No. 104- )

agrees with the allocation of targeted assistance contained in the

House Report.

The Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) proposes

to use the $55,397,000 appropriated for FY 1996 targeted assistance as

follows:

$25,317,600 will be allocated under the proposed 5-year

population 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 arrivals.

$11,079,400 (20% of the total) will be awarded under a

discretionary grant announcement that will be issued separately setting

forth application requirements and evaluation criteria. These funds

will be used to provide increased support to communities with large

concentrations of refugees whose cultural differences make assimilation

especially difficult, in accordance with the intent of Congress as

reflected in the House Appropriations Committee Report.

In addition, the Office of Refugee Resettlement will have available

an additional $5,000,000 in FY 1996 funds for the targeted assistance

discretionary program through the Foreign Operations, Export Financing,

and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1996 (Pub. L. 104-107). These

funds are to be used for grants to localities most heavily impacted by

the influx of refugees such as Laotian Hmong, Cambodians and Soviet

Pentecostals, and will be awarded under a 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

[[Page 20262]]

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 must be used to assist refugee families

to achieve economic independence. To this end, States and counties are

required to ensure that a coherent family self-sufficiency plan is

developed for each eligible family that addresses the family's needs

from time of arrival until attainment of economic independence. (See

Secs. 400.79 and 400.156(g) of the final rule.) Each family self-

sufficiency plan should address a family's needs for both employment-

related services and other needed social services. The family self-

sufficiency plan must include: (1) A determination of the income level

a family would have to earn to exceed its cash grant and move into

self-support without suffering a monetary penalty; (2) a strategy and

timetable for obtaining that level of family income through the

placement in employment of sufficient numbers of employable family

members at sufficient wage levels; and (3) employability plans for

every employable member of the family. In local jurisdictions that have

both targeted assistance and refugee social services programs, one

family self-sufficiency plan may be developed for a family that

incorporates both targeted assistance and refugee social services.

Services funded through the targeted assistance program 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. Effective October 1, 1995, under new regulations at

Sec. 400.315(b) published in the Federal Register on June 28, 1995, (60

FR 33584), States may not provide services funded under this notice,

except for referral and interpreter services, to refugees who have been

in the United States for more than 60 months (5 years). States may,

however, continue to provide employability services through September

30, 1996, or until the services are completed, whichever occurs first,

to refugees who have been in the U.S. for more than 60 months, who were

receiving employability services, as defined in Sec. 400.316, as of

September 30, 1995, as part of an employability plan.

In accordance with Sec. 400.314, States are 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) unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash

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

employment or to attain economic independence.

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, in accordance with Sec. 400.313, targeted assistance funds

must be used primarily for employability services designed to enable

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

targeted assistance program in order to achieve economic self-

sufficiency as soon as possible. Targeted assistance services may

continue to be provided after a refugee has entered a job to help the

refugee retain employment or move to a better job. Targeted assistance

funds may not 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.

In accordance with Sec. 400.317, if targeted assistance funds are

used for the provision of English language training, such training must

be provided in a concurrent, rather than sequential, time period with

employment or with other employment-related activities.

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. Allowable

services include those listed under 45 CFR 400.316.

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

``insure that women have the same opportunities as men to participate

in training and instruction.'' In addition, in accordance with

Sec. 400.317, services must be provided to the maximum extent feasible

in a manner that includes the use of bilingual/bicultural women on

service agency staffs to ensure adequate service access by refugee

women. The Director also strongly encourages the inclusion of refugee

women in management and board positions in agencies that serve

refugees. 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 for children

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 children.

For an employed refugee, TAP-funded day care should 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.

In accordance with Sec. 400.317 in the new regulations, targeted

assistance services must be provided in a manner that is culturally and

linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and cultural

background, to the maximum extent feasible. 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. Services funded under this notice must be

refugee-specific services which are designed specifically to meet

refugee needs and are in keeping with the rules and objectives of the

refugee program. Vocational or job-skills training, on-the-job

training, or English language training, however, need not be refugee-

specific.

When planning targeted assistance services, States must 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,

coordinated services to refugees that are not duplicative. See

Sec. 400.156(b).

ORR strongly encourages States and counties when contracting for

targeted assistance services, including employment services, to give

consideration to the special strengths of mutual assistance

associations (MAAs), whenever contract bidders are otherwise equally

qualified, provided that the

[[Page 20263]]

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 strongly encourages MAAs to

ensure that their management and board composition reflect the major

target populations to be served.

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

V. Eligible Grantees

Eligible grantees are those agencies of State governments that are

responsible for the refugee program under 45 CFR 400.5 in States

containing counties which qualify for FY 1996 targeted assistance

awards.

The Director of ORR proposes to determine the eligibility of

counties for inclusion in the FY 1996 targeted assistance program on

the basis of the method described in section VI of this notice.

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 the final notice, in

accordance with Sec. 400.319, the FY 1996 allocations proposed by the

State must be based on the State's population of refugees who arrived

in the U.S. during the most recent 5-year period. A State may use

welfare data as an additional factor in the allocation of its targeted

assistance funds if it so chooses; however, a State may not assign a

greater weight to welfare data than it has assigned to population data

in its allocation formula. In addition, if a State chooses to allocate

its FY 1996 targeted assistance funds in a manner different from the

formula set forth in the final notice, the FY 1996 allocations and

methodology proposed by the State must be included in the State's

application for ORR review and approval.

Applications submitted in response to the final 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

Beginning with FY 1996, ORR proposes to eliminate the formulas used

to date for qualification for, and allocation of, targeted assistance

funds and replace them with new formulas in keeping with Sec. 400.315

in ORR's final rule which limits the use of targeted assistance funds

to serving refugees who have been in the U.S. 5 years or less.

A. Qualifying New Counties

In order to qualify for application for FY 1996 targeted assistance

funds, a county (or group of adjacent counties with the same Standard

Metropolitan Statistical Area, or SMSA) or independent city, would be

required to rank above a selected cut-off point of jurisdictions for

which data were reviewed, based on two criteria: (1) The number of

refugee/entrant arrivals placed in the county during the most recent 5-

year period (FY 1991--FY 1995); and (2) the 5-year refugee/entrant

population as a percent of the county overall population.

Welfare dependency will no longer be used as a qualifying criterion

since welfare dependency data for refugee AFDC recipients have not been

available at the national level since FY 1989.

Each county would be ranked on the basis of its 5-year arrival

population and its concentration of refugees, with a relative weighting

of 2 to 1 respectively, because we believe that large numbers of

refugee/entrant arrivals into a county create a significant impact,

regardless of the ratio of refugees to the county general population.

Each county would then be ranked in terms of the sum of a county's

rank on refugee arrivals and its rank on concentration. To qualify for

targeted assistance, a county would have to rank within the top 38

counties. ORR has decided to limit the number of qualified counties to

the top 38 counties in order to target a sufficient level of funding to

the most impacted counties.

ORR has screened data on all counties that have received awards for

targeted assistance since FY 1983 and on all other counties that could

potentially qualify for TAP funds based on the criteria proposed in

this notice. Analysis of these data indicates that: (1) 23 counties

which have previously received targeted assistance would continue to

qualify; (2) 19 counties which have previously received targeted

assistance would no longer qualify; and (3) 15 new counties would be

qualified.

Table 1 provides a list of the counties that would remain qualified

and the new counties that would qualify, the number of refugee/entrant

arrivals in those counties within the past 5 years, the percent that

the 5-year arrival population represents of the overall county

population, and each county's rank, based on the qualification formula

described above. Table 2 lists the counties that have previously

received targeted assistance which would no longer qualify, the number

of refugee/entrant arrivals in those counties within the past 5 years,

the percent that the 5-year arrival population represents of the

overall county population, and each county's rank, based on the

qualification formula.

The ORR Director proposes to determine qualification of counties

for targeted assistance funds once every three years. Thus the proposed

counties listed in this notice as qualified to apply for FY 1996 TAP

funding would remain qualified for TAP funding through FY 1998. ORR

does not plan to consider the eligibility of additional counties for

TAP funding until FY 1999, when ORR will again review data on all

counties that

[[Page 20264]]

could potentially qualify for TAP funds based on the criteria proposed

in this notice. We believe that a more frequent redetermination of

county qualification for targeted assistance would not provide

qualifying counties a sufficient period of time within a stable funding

climate to adequately address the refugee impact in their counties,

while a less frequent redetermination of county qualification would

pose the risk of not considering new population impacts in a timely

manner.

B. Allocation Formula

Of the funds available for FY 1996 for targeted assistance,

$25,317,600 would be allocated by formula to States for qualifying

counties based on the initial placements of refugees, Amerasians, and

entrants in these counties during the 5-year period from FY 1991

through FY 1995 (October 1, 1990--September 30, 1995).

At this time, ORR entrant arrival data do not include Cuban

parolees who came to the U.S. directly from Havana in FY 1995 under the

U.S. Bilateral Agreement with Cuba. Reliable data on these parolees are

difficult to obtain since these parolees are not resettled through

sponsoring agencies. We hope to be able to establish a method for

obtaining reliable arrival data on these entrants in the future. States

that wish to receive credit for its Cuban parolee population that came

directly from Havana in FY 1995, may submit evidence to ORR during the

30-day comment period for consideration. Evidence should include the

parolee's name, alien number, date of birth, and date of arrival.

In the final notice, allocation amounts may reflect final

adjustments in FY 1995 arrival data in some States.

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

Arrivals

Allocations for recent Cuban and Haitian entrant arrivals are based

on entrant arrival numbers during the 5-year period beginning October

1, 1990 through September 30, 1995. Allocations are limited to targeted

assistance counties that received 900 or more Cuban and Haitian

arrivals during the 5-year period. We have limited allocations to

counties with at least 900 entrants to target these resources on the

most impacted counties.

VII. Allocations

Table 3 lists the proposed qualifying counties, the number of

refugee/entrant arrivals in those counties during the 5-year period

from October 1, 1990-September 30, 1995, the proposed amount of each

county's allocation based on its 5-year arrival population, the number

of Cuban and Haitian entrant arrivals in each county during FY 1991-FY

1995, the allocation amount for each county that received 900 or more

entrants during the 5-year period, and the total proposed FY 1996

allocation for each county.

Table 4 provides State totals for targeted assistance allocations.

Table 5 indicates the areas that each proposed qualified county

represents.

Table 1.--Top 38 Counties Eligible for Targeted Assistance

[Targeted Assistance Counties Proposed for Continuation]

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

5-year

County and state arrival Concentration Rank

pop. percent

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

Alameda, CA........................ 5,915 0.4624 24

Fresno, CA......................... 6,856 1.0271 7

Merced, CA......................... 1,885 1.0566 37

Orange, CA......................... 26,216 1.0876 4

Sacramento, CA..................... 12,967 1.2454 5

San Diego, CA...................... 13,571 0.5433 14

San Francisco, CA.................. 11,798 0.7357 11

San Joaquin, CA.................... 3,016 0.6275 28

Santa Clara, CA.................... 18,395 1.2283 3

Los Angeles, CA.................... 30,383 0.3428 20

Dade, FL........................... 45,405 2.3440 1

Palm Beach, FL..................... 3,517 0.4073 35

Cook/Kane, IL...................... 18,969 0.3498 1

Suffolk, MA........................ 6,298 0.9486 13

Hennepin, MN....................... 5,322 0.5155 22

Ramsey, MN......................... 4,811 0.9904 15

New York, NY....................... 87,553 1.1957 2

Multnomah, OR...................... 11,454 0.8110 9

Philadelphia, PA................... 8,642 0.5450 16

Dallas/Tarrant, TX................. 13,360 0.4420 17

Harris, TX......................... 11,328 0.4020 23

Fairfax, VA........................ 4,847 0.5054 25

King, WA........................... 17,618 0.8930 6

New Counties That Would Qualify:

District of Columbia........... 4,467 0.7360 18

Duval, FL...................... 3,267 0.4855 33

De Kalb, GA.................... 5,761 1.0554 1

Fulton, GA..................... 6,580 1.0139 10

Polk, IA....................... 2,784 0.8510 7

City of Baltimore, MD.......... 3,568 0.4848 29

Oakland, MI.................... 4,100 0.3784 38

City of St Louis, MO........... 5,442 1.3719 8

Lancaster, NE.................. 2,894 1.3546 19

Bernalillo, NM................. 2,776 0.5776 36

Broome, NY..................... 2,154 1.0153 34

Monroe, NY..................... 3,495 0.4895 30

Oneida, NY..................... 2,300 0.9169 43

Davidson, TN................... 3,308 0.6476 26

[[Page 20265]]

Richmond, VA................... 2,165 1.0662 31

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

Table 2.--Targeted Assistance Counties That Would No Longer Qualify

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

5-year

County and state arrival Concentration Rank

pop. percent

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

Contra Costa, CA................... 1,748 0.2175 87

Tulare, CA......................... 1,110 0.3559 85

Stanislaus, CA..................... 1,258 0.3395 81

Denver, CO......................... 5,472 0.3061 39

Broward, FL........................ 3,356 0.2673 51

Hillsborough, FL................... 2,610 0.3129 56

Honolulu, HI....................... 1,363 0.1630 110

Sedgwick, KS....................... 1,572 0.3894 67

Orleans, LA........................ 1,257 0.1330 118

Montgomery/Prince Georges, MD...... 4,528 0.3047 48

Middlesex, MA...................... 3,114 0.2227 62

Jackson, MO........................ 3,233 0.4066 41

Essex, NJ.......................... 2,088 0.2683 68

Hudson, NJ......................... 2,726 0.4929 45

Union, NJ.......................... 1,218 0.2466 101

Providence, RI..................... 1,389 0.2329 96

Salt Lake, UT...................... 2,957 0.2511 60

Arlington, VA...................... 1,468 0.8588 53

Pierce, WA......................... 2,825 0.4819 42

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

Table 3.--Proposed Targeted Assistance Allocations by County: FY 1996

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

Arrivals: $25,317,600 $19,000,000 $44,317,600

refugee + Proposed FY Entrants FY Entrants: more Proposed FY Total proposed

County, state entrant FY 1996 1991-1995 than 900 1996 C/H FY 1996

1991-1995 allocation allocation allocation

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

ALAMEDA, CA............................................. 5,915 $352,205 16 .............. .............. $352,205

FRESNO, CA.............................................. 6,856 408,236 0 .............. .............. 408,236

LOS ANGELES, CA......................................... 30,383 1,809,136 604 .............. .............. 1,809,136

MERCED, CA.............................................. 1,855 112,241 0 .............. .............. 112,241

ORANGE, CA.............................................. 26,218 1,561,134 30 .............. .............. 1,561,134

SACRAMENTO, CA.......................................... 12,967 772,112 3 .............. .............. 772,112

SAN DIEGO, CA........................................... 13,571 808,076 370 .............. .............. 808,076

SAN FRANSCISCO, CA...................................... 11,798 702,504 187 .............. .............. 702,504

SAN JOAQUIN, CA......................................... 3,016 179,586 2 .............. .............. 179,586

SANTA CLARA, CA......................................... 18,395 1,095,318 12 .............. .............. 1,095,318

DISTRICT OF COL......................................... 4,467 265,985 13 .............. .............. 265,985

DADE, FL................................................ 45,405 2,703,611 33,701 33,701 $16,666,294 19,369,905

DUVAL, FL............................................... 3,267 194,531 20 .............. .............. 194,531

PALM BEACH, FL.......................................... 3,517 209,417 2,757 2,757 1,363,430 1,572,847

DE KALB, GA............................................. 5,761 343,035 18 .............. .............. 343,035

FULTON, GA.............................................. 6,580 391,802 164 .............. .............. 391,802

COOK/KANE, IL........................................... 18,969 1,129,497 321 .............. .............. 1,129,497

POLK, IA................................................ 2,784 165,771 0 .............. .............. 165,771

BALTIMORE, MD \1\....................................... 3,568 212,454 1 .............. .............. 212,454

SUFFOLK, MA............................................. 6,298 375,010 270 .............. .............. 375,010

OAKLAND, MI............................................. 4,100 244,132 8 .............. .............. 244,132

HENNEPIN, MN............................................ 5,322 316,895 0 .............. .............. 316,895

RAMSEY, MN.............................................. 4,811 286,468 8 .............. .............. 286,468

ST LOUIS, MO \1\........................................ 5,442 324,040 1 .............. .............. 324,040

LANCASTER, NE........................................... 2,894 172,321 5 .............. .............. 172,321

BERNALILLO, NM.......................................... 2,776 165,295 950 950 469,807 635,102

BROOME, NY.............................................. 2,154 128,259 29 .............. .............. 128,259

MONROE, NY.............................................. 3,495 208,107 403 .............. .............. 208,107

NEW YORK, NY............................................ 87,553 5,213,286 1,012 1,012 500,469 5,713,755

ONEIDA, NY.............................................. 2,300 136,952 1 .............. .............. 136,952

MULTNOMAH, OR........................................... 11,454 682,021 320 .............. .............. 682,021

PHILADELPHIA, PA........................................ 8,642 514,582 65 .............. .............. 514,582

DAVIDSON, TN............................................ 3,308 196,973 1 .............. .............. 196,973

[[Page 20266]]

DALLAS/TARRANT, TX...................................... 13,360 795,513 441 .............. .............. 795,513

HARRIS, TX.............................................. 11,328 674,518 93 .............. .............. 674,518

FAIRFAX, VA............................................. 4,847 288,611 3 .............. .............. 288,611

RICHMOND, VA............................................ 2,165 128,914 82 .............. .............. 128,914

KING/SNOHOMISH, WA...................................... 17,618 1,049,052 12 .............. .............. 1,049,052

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

Total............................................. 425,189 25,317,600 41,923 38,420 19,000,000 44,317,600

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

\1\ The qualifying local jurisdiction is the independent City of Baltimore and the independent City of St. Louis.

Table 4.--Proposed Targeted Assistance Allocations by State: FY 1996

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

Arrivals: $25,317,600 $19,000,000 $44,317,600

Refugee + Proposed FY Proposed FY Total Proposed

State Entrant FY 1996 1996 C/H FY 1996

1991-1995 Allocation Allocation Allocation

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

CALIFORNIA...................................... 131,004 $7,800,548 .............. $7,800,548

DISTRICT OF COL................................. 4,467 265,985 .............. 265,985

FLORIDA......................................... 52,189 3,107,559 $18,029,724 21,137,283

GEORGIA......................................... 12,341 734,837 .............. 734,837

ILLINOIS........................................ 18,969 1,129,497 .............. 1,129,497

IOWA............................................ 2,784 165,771 .............. 165,771

MARYLAND........................................ 3,568 212,454 .............. 212,454

MASSACHUSETTS................................... 6,298 375,010 .............. 375,010

MICHIGAN........................................ 4,100 244,132 .............. 244,132

MINNESOTA....................................... 10,133 603,363 .............. 603,363

MISSOURI........................................ 5,442 324,040 .............. 324,040

NEBRASKA........................................ 2,894 172,321 .............. 172,321

NEW MEXICO...................................... 2,776 165,295 469,807 635,102

NEW YORK........................................ 95,502 5,686,604 500,469 6,187,073

OREGON.......................................... 11,454 682,021 .............. 682,021

PENNSYLVANIA.................................... 8,642 514,582 .............. 514,582

TENNESSEE....................................... 3,308 196,973 .............. 196,973

TEXAS........................................... 24,688 1,470,031 .............. 1,470,031

VIRGINIA........................................ 7,012 417,525 .............. 417,525

WASHINGTON...................................... 17,618 1,049,052 .............. 1,049,052

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

Total..................................... 425,189 25,317,600 19,000,000 44,317,600

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

Table 5.--Targeted Assistance Areas

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

Targeted assistance

State area \1\ Definition

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

CA............... ALAMEDA

CA............... FRESNO

CA............... LOS ANGELES

CA............... MERCED

CA............... ORANGE

CA............... SACRAMENTO

CA............... SAN DIEGO

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

MATEO COUNTIES

CA............... SAN JOAQUIN

CA............... SANTA CLARA

DC............... DISTRICT OF COL.

FL............... DADE

FL............... DUVAL

FL............... PALM BEACH

GA............... DEKALB

GA............... FULTON

IL............... COOK/KANE

IA............... POLK

MD............... CITY OF BALTIMORE

MA............... SUFFOLK

MI............... OAKLAND

MN............... HENNEPIN

MN............... RAMSEY

[[Page 20267]]

MO............... CITY OF ST. LOUIS

NE............... LANCASTER

NM............... BERNALILLO

NY............... BROOME

NY............... MONROE

NY............... NEW YORK BRONX, KINGS, NEW YORK,

QUEENS, & RICHMOND

COUNTIES.

NY............... ONEIDA

OR............... MULTNOMAH CLACKAMAS, MULTNOMAH, &

WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OR. &

CLARK COUNTY, WA.

PA............... PHILADELPHIA

TN............... DAVIDSON

TX............... DALLAS/TARRANT

TX............... HARRIS

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

INDEPENDENT CITIES OF

ALEXANDRIA, FAIRFAX AND

FALLS CHURCH.

VA............... RICHMOND

WA............... KING/SNOHOMISH

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

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

VIII. Application and Implementation Process

Under the FY 1996 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.

Pursuant to Sec. 400.210(b), FY 1996 targeted assistance 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.

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 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 discretionary portion of the targeted

assistance appropriation will be addressed separately in the grant

announcement for those funds.

IX. Application Requirements

In applying for targeted assistance funds, a State agency is

required to provide the following:

A. 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.

B. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used primarily

for the provision of services which 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 1996

targeted assistance formula allocation funds that are used for services

will be allocated for employment services.

C. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will not be used to

offset funding otherwise available to counties or local jurisdictions

from the State agency in its administration of other programs, e.g.

social services, cash and medical assistance, etc.

D. Identification of the local administering agency.

E. The amount of funds to be awarded to the targeted county or

counties. If a State with more than one qualifying targeted assistance

county chooses to allocate its targeted assistance funds differently

from the formula allocation for counties presented in the ORR targeted

assistance notice in a fiscal year, its allocations must be based on

the State's population of refugees who arrived in the U.S. during the

most recent 5-year period. A State may use welfare data as an

additional factor in the allocation of targeted assistance funds if it

so chooses; however, a State may not assign a greater weight to welfare

data than it has assigned to population data in its allocation formula.

The application must provide a description of, and supporting data for,

the State's proposed allocation plan, the data to be used, and the

proposed allocation for each county.

In instances where a State receives targeted assistance funding for

impacted counties contained in a standard metropolitan statistical area

(SMSA) which includes a county or counties located in a neighboring

State, the State receiving those funds must provide a description of

coordination and planning activities undertaken with the State Refugee

Coordinator of the neighboring State in which the impacted county or

counties are located. These planning and coordination activities should

result in a proposed allocation plan for the equitable distribution of

targeted assistance funds by county based on the distribution of the

eligible population by county within the SMSA. The proposed allocation

plan must be included in the State's application to ORR.

F. A description of the State's guidelines for the required content

of county targeted assistance plans and a description of the State's

review/approval process for such county plans. Acceptable county plans

must minimally include the following:

1. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used in

accordance with the new ORR regulations published in the Federal

Register on June 28, 1995. In particular, a description of a county's

plan to carry out the requirements of 45 CFR 400.156.

2. Procedures for carrying out a local planning process for

determining

[[Page 20268]]

targeted assistance priorities and service strategies. All local

targeted assistance plans will be developed through a planning process

that involves, in addition to the State Refugee Coordinator,

representatives of the private sector (for example, private employers,

private industry council, Chamber of Commerce, etc.), leaders of

refugee/entrant community-based organizations, voluntary resettlement

agencies, refugees from the impacted communities, and other public

officials associated with social services and employment agencies that

serve refugees. Counties are encouraged to foster coalition-building

among these participating organizations.

3. Identification of refugee/entrant populations to be served by

targeted assistance projects, including approximate numbers of clients

to be served, and a description of characteristics and needs of

targeted populations. (As per 45 CFR 400.314)

4. Description of specific strategies and services to meet the

needs of targeted populations. These should be justified where possible

through analysis of strategies and outcomes from projects previously

implemented under the targeted assistance programs, the regular social

service programs, and any other services available to the refugee

population.

5. The relationship of targeted assistance services to other

services available to refugees/entrants in the county including State-

allocated ORR social services.

6. Analysis of available employment opportunities in the local

community. Examples of acceptable analyses of employment opportunities

might include surveys of employers or potential employers of refugee

clients, surveys of presently effective employment service providers,

review of studies on employment opportunities/forecasts which would be

appropriate to the refugee populations.

7. Description of the monitoring and oversight responsibilities to

be carried out by the county or qualifying local jurisdiction.

8. Assurance that the local administrative budget will not exceed

15% of the local allocation. Targeted assistance grants are cost-based

awards. Neither a State nor a county is entitled to a certain amount

for administrative costs. Rather, administrative cost requests should

be based on projections of actual needs. Beginning with FY 1996 funds,

all TAP counties will be allowed to spend up to 15% of their allocation

on TAP administrative costs, as need requires. However, States and

counties are strongly encouraged to limit administrative costs to the

extent possible to maximize available funding for services to clients.

9. For any State that administers the program directly or otherwise

provides direct service to the refugee/entrant population (with the

concurrence of the county), the State must provide ORR with the same

information required above for review and prior approval.

G. All applicants must establish targeted assistance proposed

performance goals for each of the 6 ORR performance outcome measures

for each impacted county's proposed service contract(s) or sub-grants

for the next contracting cycle. Proposed performance goals must be

included in the application for each performance measure. The 6 ORR

performance measures are: entered employments, cash assistance

reductions due to employment, cash assistance terminations due to

employment, 90-day employment retentions, average wage at placement,

and job placements with available health benefits. Targeted assistance

program activity and progress achieved toward meeting performance

outcome goals are to be reported quarterly on the ORR-6, the

``Quarterly Performance Report.''

States which are currently grantees for targeted assistance funds

should base projected annual outcome goals on past performance. Current

grantees should have adequate baseline data for at least 3 of the 6 ORR

performance outcome measures (entered employments, 90 day retentions,

and average wage at placement) based on a long history (in some cases,

as much as 12 years) of targeted assistance program experience. Where

baseline data do not exist for a specific performance outcome measure,

current grantees should use available performance data from the current

targeted assistance funding cycle to establish reasonable outcome goals

for contractors and sub-grantees on all 6 measures.

States identified as new eligible targeted assistance grantees are

also required to set proposed outcome goals for each of the 6 ORR

performance outcome measures. New grantees may use baseline data, as

available, and current data as reported on the ORR-6 for social

services program activity to assist them in the goal-setting process.

Proposed targeted assistance outcome goals should reflect

improvement over past performance and strive for continuous improvement

during the project period from one year to another.

H. An identification of the contracting cycle dates for targeted

assistance service contracts in each county. States with more than one

qualified county are encouraged to ensure that all counties

participating in TAP in the State use the same contracting cycle dates.

I. A description of the State's plan for conducting fiscal and

programmatic monitoring and evaluations of the targeted assistance

program, including frequency of on-site monitoring.

J. Assurance that the State will make available to the county or

designated local entity not less than 95% of the amount of its formula

allocation for purposes of implementing the activities proposed in its

plan, except in the case of a State that administers the program

locally as described in item F9 above.

K. 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 that administer the

program locally in lieu of the county, through a mutual agreement with

the qualifying county, may add up to, but not exceed, 10% of the

county's TAP allocation to the State's administrative budget.

L. Assurance that the State will follow or mandate that its sub-

recipients will follow appropriate State procurement and contract

requirements in the acquisition, administration, and management of

targeted assistance service contracts.

X. Reporting Requirements

Effective January 1, 1996, States will be required to submit

quarterly reports on the outcomes of the targeted assistance program,

using Schedule A and Schedule C of the new ORR-6 Quarterly Performance

Report form which was sent to States in ORR State Letter 95-35 on

November 6, 1995.

Dated: April 29, 1996.

Lavinia Limon,

Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.

[FR Doc. 96-11145 Filed 5-03-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P