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

Food and Drug Administration

Office of Refugee Resettlement

Refugee Resettlement Program; 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: Final notice of 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.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 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 announces that the qualification of counties is 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 notice, 15 new counties will qualify for

targeted assistance and 18 counties which previously received targeted

assistance grants will no longer qualify for targeted assistance

funding. This notice also establishes a new allocation formula to

reflect the limitation on the

[[Page 36740]]

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.

The final notice reflects an adjustment in final allocations to

States as a result of additional arrival data.

A notice of proposed allocation of targeted assistance funds was

published for public comment in the Federal Register on May 6, 1996 (61

FR 20260).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Toyo Biddle (202) 401-9250.

APPLICATION DEADLINE: The closing date for submission of applications

is August 12, 1996. Applications postmarked after the closing date will

be classified as late.

Mailed applications shall be considered as meeting an announced

deadline if they are either received on or before the deadline date or

sent on or before the deadline date to: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of

Refugee Resettlement, Division of Refugee Self-Sufficiency, 370

L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attention: Application

for Targeted Assistance Formula Program.

Applicants are cautioned to request a legibly dated U.S. Postal

Service postmark or to obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial

carrier or the U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks shall not

be acceptable as proof of timely mailing.

Applications handcarried by applicants, applicant couriers, or by

overnight/express mail couriers shall be considered as meeting an

announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date,

between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., at the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,

Office of Refugee Resettlement, Division of Refugee Self-Sufficiency,

ACF Mailroom, 2nd Floor Loading Dock, Aerospace Center, 901 D Street

SW., Washington, DC 20024, between Monday and Friday (excluding Federal

holidays). (Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail

services do not always deliver as agreed.)

ACF cannot accommodate transmission of applications by fax or

through other electronic media. Therefore, applications transmitted to

ACF electronically will not be accepted regardless of date or time of

submission and time of receipt.

To be considered complete, an application package must include a

signed original and two copies of Standard Form 424, 424A, and 424B,

dated April 1988. (We will provide copies of these materials to all

targeted assistance States.)

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON APPLICATION PROCEDURES: States should

contact their State Analyst in ORR.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Scope

This notice announces the availability of funds for grants for

targeted assistance for services to refugees in counties where, because

of factors such as unusually large refugee populations, high refugee

concentrations, and high use of public assistance, there exists and can

be demonstrated a specific need for supplementation of resources for

services to this population.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $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. 104-537)

agrees with the allocation of targeted assistance contained in the

House Report.

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

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

follows:

$25,317,600 will be allocated under the 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 has been 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 has been 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

[[Page 36741]]

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 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 of the final rule, 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 Sec. 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

resources 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

[[Page 36742]]

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 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. Discussion of Comments Received

Twenty-three letters of comment were received in response to the

notice of proposed availability of FY 1996 funds for targeted

assistance. The comments are summarized below and are followed in each

case by the Department's response.

Comment: Six commenters expressed concern about the Cuban entrant

figures being used to determine eligibility. Two commenters were

concerned about the accuracy of the data being used. Three commenters

were concerned about the fact that States were only given 30 days to

submit documentation to support the adjustment of county arrival

numbers to reflect parolees who originated in Havana. Two of these

commenters requested a 60-day delay to review the data. One commenter

objected to the fact that ORR was placing the onus on the States to

submit supporting documentation and recommended that the revised

allocation be circulated for comment before the notice is made final.

One commenter noted that the Cuban arrivals for October, November, and

December 1995 were significant but are not included in the TAP formula

for this year.

Response: The 5-year arrival data used to determine county

eligibility and targeted assistance allocations to counties are derived

from the ORR Refugee Data System. ORR refugee arrival data are based on

monthly refugee/Amerasian arrival data received from the Refugee Data

Center (RDC) in New York. These data are then matched with monthly

port-of-entry data received from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

to identify and correct discrepancies. Cuban/Haitian entrant data

received from the Community Relations Service (CRS) in the Department

of Justice, the agency responsible for the initial resettlement of

Cuban and Haitian entrants in the U.S., are merged with the refugee/

Amerasian data file, providing a complete refugee/entrant/Amerasian

arrival file. There is no other refugee/entrant arrival data system

that is as accurate and comprehensive as the ORR Data System.

However, as we acknowledged in the May 6 notice of proposed

allocations, ORR arrival data do not include Cuban parolees who came to

the United States directly from Havana in FY 1995. Because these

parolees were not resettled through any sponsoring agencies, there is

no reliable source of destination data for these parolees at this time.

We indicated in the Allocation Formula section of the May 6 notice that

States could receive credit for their Havana parolee population with

the submission of documented evidence. One State, Florida, where the

great majority of Cuban entrants and parolees resettle, submitted

documentation of Havana parolee arrivals to its counties. Florida's

arrival population has been appropriately credited.

In the case of qualified targeted assistance counties that were not

able to submit evidence of Havana parolee arrivals, we have devised a

method of crediting each county with a share of Havana parolees that we

believe is a reasonable proxy in the absence of hard data. ORR has

credited each qualified TAP county that received entrant arrivals

during the 5-year period from FY 1991 through FY 1995 with a prorated

share of the estimated 10,279 parolees who came directly from Havana

during FY 1995. The proration is based on the percentage of the total

5-year entrant arrival population that each qualified county received.

Thus, for example, San Diego County, which received 378 entrants during

the period from FY 1991-FY 1995, received 0.69 percent of the entrants

who resettled in the United States during the 5-year period. San Diego,

therefore, would be credited with the same percentage of the estimated

10,279 Havana parolees, or 71 parolees, increasing San Diego's 5-year

population from 13,579 to 13,650. These adjustments in county 5-year

refugee/entrant arrivals are reflected in the third column of table 3

in this notice.

Regarding the comment about Cuban parolees who arrived after FY

1995, the commenter is correct, Cuban arrivals for October, November,

and December 1995 are not included in the TAP formula this year because

FY 1996 allocations are based on arrivals during the 5-year period from

FY 1991 through FY 1995. Targeted assistance counties will be given

credit for Cuban parolees who arrived during FY 1996 in the targeted

assistance allocations for FY 1997

Comment: One commenter requested that ORR review the procedure for

awarding the $19 million Cuban/Haitian set-aside to only those counties

which qualify for targeted assistance to determine if deserving

counties are excluded from consideration for set-aside funds.

Response: After considering the commenter's request, we have

decided to include any county that received 900 or more entrant

arrivals from FY 1991 through FY 1995 for eligibility for Cuban/Haitian

set-aside funds, instead of limiting qualification for these funds only

to counties eligible for regular targeted assistance formula funds. In

reviewing congressional report language regarding the use of the

special set-aside funds (H.R. Rept. No. 104-209), we believe

congressional intent would be better served if eligibility for Cuban/

Haitian set-aside funds is open to all counties affected by recent

Cuban and

[[Page 36743]]

Haitian arrivals, regardless of their eligibility for regular targeted

assistance funds. We re-examined the eligibility of all counties that

received entrant arrivals over the past 5 years to identify all

counties with 900 or more entrant arrivals, based on documented arrival

data. Two additional counties, Broward County and Hillsborough County,

FL, were found to have 900 or more entrant arrivals and are, therefore,

eligible to receive set-aside funds.

Comment: Five commenters questioned the limiting of eligible

counties to the top 38 counties. One commenter wondered what the

rationale was for arriving at the cut-off of 38. Four commenters

questioned why the Denver metropolitan area, which ranked 39th with an

arrival population of more than 5,000 refugees, was not included among

the list of eligible counties and recommended including Denver in the

final notice. Two of these commenters recommended that we allow all

counties with 5,000 or more refugee arrivals to qualify. One commenter

who felt that refugee population is a much more significant factor than

concentration recommended that ORR assign 3 times as much weight to

population as to concentration. One commenter asked how many counties

were considered for qualification.

Response: ORR proposed to limit the number of qualified counties to

the top 38 counties in order to cover as many counties as possible

while still targeting a sufficient level of funding to the most

impacted counties. The decision to place the cut-off after the 38th

county was based on the fact that a sufficient point difference existed

in the sum of ranks between the 38th county and the 39th county, the

Denver metropolitan area, to constitute a natural break. In contrast,

the summed scores between the 39th county through the next several

counties were clustered within a very narrow point range.

In regard to the qualification of the Denver metropolitan area,

this metropolitan area, which is made up of 5 counties, does not

qualify for targeted assistance. While the Denver area had over 5,000

refugee arrivals, the percentage of refugees to the general population

was low. However, Denver County, which has over 62 percent of the

refugee arrivals in the 5-county area and a much higher refugee-to-

general population ratio than the 5-county area, when considered alone,

ranks as the 26th county. We have, therefore, decided to include Denver

County, as the 26th county, on the qualified county list. The addition

of Denver changes the rank of the subsequent counties on the qualified

list, shifting Oakland County, MI from 38 to 39, thereby increasing the

list of qualified counties to the top 39 counties.

We do not agree with the suggestion that ORR should allow all

counties with 5,000 or more refugees to qualify for targeted

assistance. Our statutory language requires ORR to take into account

refugee concentrations as well as refugee population numbers as factors

in qualifying counties for targeted assistance. A county with 5,000 or

more refugees may have a very low concentration rank that results in a

summed score that is not high enough to legitimately qualify the county

for targeted assistance. We also do not agree with the suggestion that

population should be given 3 times as much weight as concentration.

This weighting would reduce the factor of concentration to

insignificance, contrary to our understanding of congressional intent.

Regarding the number of counties that were considered for

qualification, 1,000 counties were considered.

Comment: One commenter requested clarification on the methodology

used to qualify counties. The commenter wondered whether assigning a

weight of 2 to the 5-year arrival population means that the number of

arrivals in each county were multiplied by two and then all counties

were ranked based on this number. The commenter also wondered whether

refugee concentration was calculated by computing a ratio of the number

of refugees to the total population and whether old refugees only or

old refugees plus new arrivals were divided by the total population.

The commenter wondered whether the final ranking was the sum of the

population ranking and the concentration ranking.

Response: In regard to the weight given to the factor of

population, a county's rank on arrivals from FY 1991 through FY 1995

was multiplied by 2. Thus, if county X had a rank of 4 for arrivals,

this rank was multiplied by 2, giving a total of 8. Refugee

concentration was calculated by dividing the number of refugee/entrant

arrivals to a county during the 5-year period by the county's general

population number, thus yielding the percentage that the 5-year

arrivals represent of the county's general population. The counties

were ranked on the basis of their refugee concentration, with the

county having the highest refugee concentration assigned a rank of 1. A

county's population rank (multiplied by 2) was then added to its

concentration rank for a summed rank score. Counties were then ranked

in order of their summed scores, with the county with the lowest summed

score given the rank of 1. If county X, mentioned earlier, ranked 1 on

concentration, its summed score would be 9 (8+1). If the score of 9

happens to be the lowest summed score, then county X would be ranked as

the top county, with a rank of 1.

Comment: Thirteen commenters expressed concerns about the factors

used in the formula to determine county qualification. Ten commenters

objected to the exclusion of secondary migrants in the population

count. Four commenters recommended that a State's secondary migration

numbers could be allocated to each county based on the proportion of

new arrivals going to those counties. Two commenters objected to the

fact that ORR is not taking welfare dependency into account when

determining eligibility. One commenter recommended that we use

population as the sole eligibility criterion, since we allocate TAP

formula funds according to population. Another commenter recommended

that we determine eligibility at the municipality level, instead of at

the county level.

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

include secondary migrants in the population count for targeted

assistance because secondary migration data are not available at the

county level. States report annually on in-migration at the State level

using the ORR-11. This reporting is based on the first three digits of

a refugee's Social Security Number (SSN). These digits identify the

State in which the SSN was issued which, with a few exceptions, is the

State of initial resettlement. This information enables ORR both to

credit the State of in-migration and to debit the State of out-

migration in developing State population estimates. Most States and

counties are not able to provide county secondary migration data, which

would involve tracking intrastate movement. Such data would be very

difficult to construct since it would be necessary to determine both

in-migration and out-migration for all targeted assistance counties in

order to arrive at adjusted population estimates.

The suggestion to allocate a State's secondary migration numbers to

each county based on the proportion of new arrivals in the State going

to those counties, is an idea that warrants some consideration. We can

see problems with using a proportion of State secondary migration data

as a proxy for actual data on county secondary migration because the

use of secondary migration data involves both credits and debits for

in- and out-migration. However, we are willing to look further

[[Page 36744]]

into the feasibility of using this method or some form of it in FY

1997.

Regarding the use of welfare dependency data, ORR no longer uses

welfare dependency as a qualifying factor because data that would

accurately reflect refugee dependency rates with any reasonable scope

do not exist. While some States collect refugee recipient data in the

AFDC program, many States and counties no longer collect such data.

Using these data for some counties and not for others would be

inequitable. As discussed in Section V, if a State with more than one

eligible targeted assistance county collects welfare dependency data,

such data may be used by the State to determine county allocations

differently from the allocations set forth in this notice.

Regarding the suggestion that we use population as the only

qualifying criterion, ORR must take into account all eligibility

factors which are outlined in the statute for which data are available.

In section 412(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the three

factors for targeted assistance are high population, high refugee

concentration, and high use of public assistance. While we do not have

available welfare dependency data, data are available on refugee

population and refugee concentration. Therefore, we are required to use

both factors in determining county qualification.

Regarding the suggestion that ORR determine eligibility at the

municipality level, ORR is required by statute to make grants to States

for assistance to counties and similar areas. Therefore, we do not

consider smaller municipalities, such as townships, for targeted

assistance eligibility.

Comment: Six commenters recommended that ORR determine country

eligibility on an annual basis instead of the proposed three-year

eligibility period. The commenters felt that the three-year eligibility

period does not account for fluctuations in arrivals.

Response: As the notice indicates, we proposed maintaining county

eligibility for three years in order to allow counties an adequate

period of time to address the refugee impact in their counties. An

annual redetermination of county qualification would not provide the

funding stability needed to sufficiently address refugee impact. If a

community experiences a new population impact, discretionary funds are

available through the unanticipated arrivals standing announcement to

address this issue.

Comment: Three commenters recommended that the 20 percent

discretionary funding be included in the targeted assistance formula

allocation to impacted areas. One commenter felt that this would result

in a more equitable distribution of funds and would avoid the

administrative costs involved in preparing a grant proposal.

Response: It is the intent of Congress that TAP 20 percent funds be

made available to all communities with large concentrations of refugees

whose cultural differences make assimilation especially difficult, not

just targeted assistance counties.

Comment: One commenter objected to the $19 million set-aside for

Cuban/Haitian Entrants, stating that this set-aside allows certain

counties to receive a disproportionate share of the funding.

Response: The allocation of Cuban/Haitian set-aside funds is in

accordance with Congressional intent as expressed in the Appropriation

Committee Reports.

Comment: Three commenters recommended that ORR consider the impact

that discontinuing funding will have on areas of high unemployment. Two

commenters expressed concern about the effect that the loss of TAP

funds will have on counties' abilities to serve refugees. In addition,

two commenters expressed concern that the loss of TAP funds will

decrease the county's ability to leverage other funds that have been

used to provide services to refugees.

Response: ORR understands that discontinuing funding in the

counties that no longer qualify for TAP will undoubtedly have an effect

on the services in those counties. It is time, however, to direct

targeted assistance funds to those counties that are the most impacted

by recent refugee arrivals. Over the past 13 years, the same counties

have been receiving targeted assistance, based on arrivals dating back

to FY 1980. New ORR regulations require that we now limit our focus on

the most recent 5-year arrival populations, which, not surprisingly,

shifts the funds to areas with more recent impacts. Such changes to the

targeted assistance formula have been discussed with States at a number

of meetings over the past two years to ensure that States would

understand the effect that the new formula would have and would prepare

for the possible loss of funds.

Counties losing targeted assistance formula funds may wish to apply

for ORR targeted assistance discretionary funds through their States.

Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns about the application

requirements. One commenter felt that offering the TAP funds to the

counties would lead the counties to merge TAP with other funds to

provide consolidated workforce programs; the commenter felt that such a

scenario would detract from the concept of refugee-specific services as

supported by ORR. Another commenter asked at what point States can stop

applying for TAP funds and have them allocated in the same manner as

social service funds. One commenter recommended that ORR allow for a

90-day application period; another commenter recommended that there be

a 60-day application period or that there be fewer application

requirements,

Response: Section 412(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act requires that 95 percent of targeted assistance funds

by made available to the county or similar local jurisdiction. States,

therefore, must pass the funding down to the qualified county unless

the county chooses to rely on the States to administer the targeted

assistance program.

Regarding the question about eliminating the need to apply for TAP

funds, we have no plans to eliminate this requirement. States that wish

to receive targeted assistance funding will continue to have to submit

an application for funding in accordance with the application content

requirements contained in this notice. Similarly, the receipt of social

services formula funds is contingent upon the submission of an approved

Annual Services Plan.

A full application is required this year because a number of new

counties are eligible for targeted assistance and because counties that

have received TAP funds in the past and will continue to qualify for

TAP have not been required to submit a full application since FY 1986.

Application requirements in the second and third year of a 3-year TAP

period will be less extensive. Regarding the time allowed to prepare

applications, we plan to allow a longer period of time beginning in FY

1997 for submission of applications.

Comment: One commenter was opposed to requiring the submission of

outcome goals in the TAP application since goals which reflect TAP

funding will be submitted to ORR every November as part of a State's

Annual Outcome Goal Plan. The commenter also felt that goals should

reflect changes in funding and other local factors such as the refugee

population. The commenter stated that outcomes will decrease if funding

decreases.

Response: It is necessary for targeted assistance counties to

establish outcome goals as part of their TAP application for two

reasons: Not all States that received TAP funds in FY 1995 included

TAP-

[[Page 36745]]

funded goals in their FY 1996 aggregated Annual Outcome Goal Plans; and

HHS grants policy requires grantees to set goals specific to each

funding source.

ORR understands that funding levels and other variables must be

taken into account when setting and meeting goals. For this reason, we

ask States and counties to set goals in terms of percentages of

caseload and real numbers. A decrease in funding will likely result in

a smaller caseload to be served, but need not necessarily result in a

smaller percentage of the caseload entering employment.

Comment: One commenter was opposed to the fact that the notice

specifies what must be included in family self-sufficiency plans. The

commenter stated that there is no evidence that gathering this

information leads to jobs any sooner.

Response: Sections 400.156 and 400.317 of ORR's final rule

stipulate that a family self-sufficiency plan must be developed for

anyone receiving employment services funded by social services and TAP

dollars. We received comments to the proposed rule requesting a

definition of a family self-sufficiency plan. Therefore, in response to

this request, we defined what we mean by a family self-sufficiency plan

in the preamble to the final rule, published on June 28, 1995. The same

definition is used in this notice. Contrary to the commenter's view,

while there may not be hard evidence that a family self-sufficiency

plan, as defined in this notice, leads to earlier employment, there is

abundant experiential evidence in the refugee program that the

development of such plans assists both the refugee family and the

employment counselor to focus more clearly on what steps need to be

taken to achieve self-sufficiency. Such plans result ultimately in

earlier family self-sufficiency through the attainment of jobs for one

or more wage-earners at self-supporting wages.

Comment: One commenter objected to ORR's encouraging States with

more than one funded county to place all counties on the same

contracting cycle. The commenter stated that until ORR allocates on a

Federal fiscal year funding cycle, ORR should not expect States to

require counties to operate on the same cycle. Another commenter stated

that while having the same start date for all counties would be nice,

it would not be able to be accomplished without additional funds in

order to avoid a reduction in services.

Response: We are encouraging uniformity of contracting cycles

within a State because we believe this makes good management sense and

makes reporting less complicated.

Comment: One commenter recommended that TAP funds be allocated to

counties within 5 months after being appropriated by Congress. The

commenter felt that releasing the funds later keeps counties from

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

impression that the counties do not really need the resources.

Response: We are looking into the feasibility of issuing targeted

assistance formula allocations on a quarterly basis, similar to the

quarterly allocation of social service formula funds, beginning in FY

1997. Next year, when county eligibility for targeted assistance will

not have to be re-determined, we should be able to issue the awards

earlier.

Comment: One commenter objected to increasing the county

administrative allowance to 15 percent. This commenter felt that

counties that have no experience working with refugees will contract

out the services to providers that already have contracts with the

State, resulting in the same services with added administrative costs.

Another commenter expressed support for the increase.

Response: County administrative costs vary in the targeted

assistance program. Some counties are able to operate an efficient

targeted assistance program with a minimum of administrative costs,

while other counties require a higher administrative level of funding

to properly manage their targeted assistance program. The increase to

15 percent simply allows for more flexibility in meeting differing

administrative cost needs. The increase, however, is not meant to

encourage counties to automatically increase their administrative

costs, regardless of need.

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 has determined the eligibility for 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 among for each qualified county

within the State. However, if a State chooses to determine county

allocations differently from those set forth in this 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 this 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 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

Beginning with FY 1996, ORR has eliminated the formulas used to

date for qualification for, and allocation of, targeted assistance

funds and replaced 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 is 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. County arrival numbers have

been adjusted based on

[[Page 36746]]

updated refugee and entrant arrival data.

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 was 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.

The rank of some counties changed slightly due to updated arrival

numbers. No county changed its rank sufficiently to change its status

from ineligible to eligible.

Each county was then 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 had to rank within the top 39 counties.

ORR has decided to limit the number of qualified counties to the top 39

counties in order to target a sufficient level of funding to the most

impacted counties. Denver County, which had been considered as part of

the Denver metropolitan area, in combination with 4 other counties, in

the May 6 notice, was ranked as a separate county in the final notice

and found to qualify in its own right as the 26th county. The addition

of Denver has increased the list of qualified counties from the 38

counties listed in the May 6 notice to 39.

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 in this notice.

Analysis of these data indicates that: (1) 24 counties which have

previously received targeted assistance continue to qualify; (2) 18

counties which have previously received targeted assistance no longer

qualify; and (3) 15 new counties qualify.

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

the new counties that 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 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 plans to determine qualification of counties for

targeted assistance funds once every three years. Thus the counties

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

will 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

could potentially qualify for TAP funds based on the criteria 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 is 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. Only one State was able to provide appropriate

documentation to ORR regarding the number of Havana parolee arrivals to

that State. We have adjusted the 5-year population to include Havana

parolees to that State based on the data it submitted. For those States

that were not able to submit documentation on Havana parolee arrivals,

we have decided, in the absence of actual data, to credit each

qualified TAP county that received entrant arrivals during the 5-year

period from FY 1991-FY 1995 with a prorated share of the estimated

10,279 parolees who came to the U.S. directly from Havana in FY 1995.

We believe it is a reasonable proxy to base the proration on the

percentage of the total 5-year entrant population that each county

received. The allocations in this notice reflect these additional

parolee numbers.

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 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.

Counties with 900 or more entrants are eligible for these special funds

regardless of whether they qualify for the regular targeted assistance

formula program.

VII. Allocations

Table 3 lists the qualifying counties, the number of refugee/

entrant arrivals in those counties during the 5-year period from

October 1, 1990-September 30, 1995, the prorated number of Havana

parolees credited to each county based on the county's proportion of

the 5-year entrant population in the U.S., the sum of the first two

columns, and the amount of each county's allocation based on its 5-year

total population.

Table 4 lists the number of Cuban and Haitian entrant arrivals in

each county during FY 1991-FY 1995, the prorated number of Havana

parolees credited to each county, the total number of entrants and

parolees, and the allocation amount for each county that received 900

or more entrants during the 5-year period.

Table 5 provides State totals for targeted assistance allocations.

Table 6 indicates the areas that each qualified county represents.

[[Page 36747]]

Table 1.--Top 39 Counties Eligible for Targeted Assistance, Targeted Assistance Counties Eligible for

Continuation

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

5-year arrival Concentration

County and state pop. percent Rank

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

Alameda, CA..................................................... 5,915 0.4624 23

Fresno, CA...................................................... 6,856 1.0271 8

Merced, CA...................................................... 1,885 1.0566 38

Orange, CA...................................................... 26,218 1.0876 4

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

San Diego, CA................................................... 13,579 0.5436 14

San Francisco, CA............................................... 11,798 0.7357 12

San Joaquin, CA................................................. 3,019 0.6281 28

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

Los Angeles, CA................................................. 30,395 0.3429 21

Denver, CO...................................................... 3,420 0.7314 26

Dade, FL........................................................ 54,386 2.8076 1

Palm Beach, FL.................................................. 3,715 0.4302 35

Cook/Kane, IL................................................... 18,979 0.3500 22

Suffolk, MA..................................................... 6,305 0.9497 13

Hennepin, MN.................................................... 5,324 0.5157 20

Ramsey, MN...................................................... 4,814 0.9910 15

New York, NY.................................................... 87,570 1.1959 2

Multnomah, OR................................................... 11,463 0.8116 9

Philadelphia, PA................................................ 8,643 0.5451 16

Dallas/Tarrant, TX.............................................. 13,371 0.4423 17

Harris, TX...................................................... 11,337 0.4023 24

Fairfax, VA..................................................... 4,848 0.5055 25

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

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

NEW COUNTIES THAT QUALIFY

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

District of Columbia............................................ 4,460 0.7349 19

Duval, FL....................................................... 3,282 0.4877 34

De Kalb, GA..................................................... 5,762 1.0556 11

Fulton, GA...................................................... 6,581 1.0141 10

Polk, IA........................................................ 2,784 0.8510 29

City of Baltimore, MD........................................... 3,568 0.4848 32

Oakland, MI..................................................... 4,100 0.3784 39

City of St. Louis, MO........................................... 5,442 1.3719 7

Lancaster, NE................................................... 2,894 1.3546 18

Bernalillo, NM.................................................. 2,828 0.5885 37

Broome, NY...................................................... 2,155 1.0157 36

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

Oneida, NY...................................................... 2,300 0.9169 33

Davidson, TN.................................................... 3,308 0.6476 27

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

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

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

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

5-year arrival Concentration

County and state pop. percent Rank

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

Contra Costa, CA................................................ 1,748 0.2175 85

Tulare, CA...................................................... 1,110 0.3559 87

Stanislaus, CA.................................................. 1,258 0.3395 82

Broward, FL..................................................... 3,703 0.2949 51

Hillsborough, FL................................................ 2,863 0.3433 52

Honolulu, HI.................................................... 1,363 0.1630 111

Sedgwick, KS.................................................... 1,572 0.3894 68

Orleans, LA..................................................... 1,259 0.1332 117

Montgomery/Prince Georges, MD................................... 4,530 0.3048 47

Middlesex, MA................................................... 3,114 0.2227 61

Jackson, MO..................................................... 3,234 0.4067 41

Essex, NJ....................................................... 2,100 0.2699 67

Hudson, NJ...................................................... 2,761 0.4992 44

Union, NJ....................................................... 1,221 0.2473 101

Providence, RI.................................................. 1,389 0.2329 95

Salt Lake, UT................................................... 2,957 0.2511 59

Arlington, VA................................................... 1,468 0.8588 54

Pierce, WA...................................................... 2,825 0.4819 46

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

[[Page 36748]]

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

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

Arrivals: Prorated \2\ $25,317,600

County, state Refugee+entrant Havana Total arrivals Total FY 1996

\1\ FY 1991-1995 Parolees allocation

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

ALAMEDA, CA................................. 5,915 3 5,918 $341,304

FRESNO, CA.................................. 6,856 0 6,856 395,400

LOS ANGELES, CA............................. 30,395 114 30,509 1,759,519

MERCED, CA.................................. 1,885 0 1,885 108.712

ORANGE, CA.................................. 26,218 6 26,224 1,512,394

SACRAMENTO, CA.............................. 12,967 1 12,968 747,892

SAN DIEGO, CA............................... 13,579 71 13,650 787,224

SAN FRANCISCO, CA........................... 11,798 35 11,833 682,434

SAN JOAQUIN, CA............................. 3,019 1 3,020 174,170

SANTA CLARA, CA............................. 18,395 2 18,397 1,060,994

DENVER, CO.................................. 3,420 1 3,421 197,296

DIST OF COLUMBIA, DC........................ 4,460 2 4,462 257,333

DADE, FL.................................... 54,386 0 54,386 3,136,556

DUVAL FL.................................... 3,282 0 3,282 189,280

PALM BEACH, FL.............................. 3,715 0 3,715 214,252

DE KALB, GA................................. 5,762 4 5,766 332,537

FULTON, GA.................................. 6,581 31 6,612 381,328

COOK/KANE, IL............................... 18,979 62 19,041 1,098,135

POLK, IA.................................... 2,784 0 2,784 160,559

BALTIMORE, MD \3\........................... 3,568 0 3,568 205,774

SUFFOLK, MA................................. 6,305 52 6,357 366,622

OAKLAND, MI................................. 4,100 2 4,102 236,571

HENNEPIN, MN................................ 5,324 0 5,324 307,046

RAMSEY, MN.................................. 4,814 2 4,816 277,749

ST LOUIS, MO \3\............................ 5,442 0 5,442 313,852

LANCASTER, NE............................... 2,894 1 2,895 166,961

BERNALILLO, NM.............................. 2,828 188 3,016 173,939

BROOME, NY.................................. 2,155 5 2,160 124,572

MONROE, NY.................................. 3,495 76 3,571 205,947

NEW YORK, NY................................ 87,570 193 87,763 5,061,479

ONEIDA, NY.................................. 2,300 0 2,300 132,646

MULTNOMAH, OR............................... 11,463 62 11,525 664,671

PHILADELPHIA, PA............................ 8,643 12 8,655 499,152

DAVIDSON, TN................................ 3,308 0 3,308 190,779

DALLAS/TARRANT, TX.......................... 13,371 85 13,456 776,036

HARRIS, TX.................................. 11,337 19 11,356 654,925

FAIRFAX, VA................................. 4,848 1 4,849 279,652

RICHMOND, VA................................ 2,165 15 2,180 125,725

KING/SNOHOMISH, WA.......................... 17,618 2 17,620 1,016,183

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

TOTAL................................. 437,944 1,048 438,992 25,317,600

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

\1\ Includes Havana parolees for counties in Florida.

\2\ Havana Parollees credited to non-Florida TAP counties based on counties' proportion of the 5 year entrant

population in the U.S.

\3\ The qualifying local jurisdiction is the independent City of Baltimore and the independent city of St.

Louis.

Table 4.--Targeted Assistance Alocations for Communities Affected by Recent Cuban and Haitian Arrivals: FY 1996

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

Entrants \1\+

Entrants \1\ Prorated \2\ Entrants \1\+Prorated Prorated \2\ $19,000,000

County, state FY 1991-1995 Havana \2\ Havana parolees Havana Par. total FY 1996

parolees more than 900 C/H allocation

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

ALAMEDA, CA.................................................... 16 3 19 .............. ..............

FRESNO, CA..................................................... 0 0 0 .............. ..............

LOS ANGELES, CA................................................ 608 114 722 .............. ..............

MERCED, CA..................................................... 0 0 0 .............. ..............

ORANGE, CA..................................................... 30 6 36 .............. ..............

SACRAMENTO, CA................................................. 3 1 4 .............. ..............

SAN DIEGO, CA.................................................. 378 71 449 .............. ..............

SAN FRANCISCO, CA.............................................. 187 35 222 .............. ..............

SAN JOAQUIN, CA................................................ 5 1 6 .............. ..............

SANTA CLARA, CA................................................ 12 2 14 .............. ..............

DENVER, CO..................................................... 3 1 4 .............. ..............

DIST OF COLUMBIA, DC........................................... 13 2 15 .............. ..............

DADE, FL....................................................... 42,679 0 42,679 42,679 $15,737,705

DUVAL, FL...................................................... 35 0 35 .............. ..............

PALM BEACH, FL................................................. 2,955 0 2,955 2,955 $1,089,644

DE KALB, GA.................................................... 19 4 23 .............. ..............

FULTON, GA..................................................... 165 31 196 .............. ..............

[[Page 36749]]

COOK/KANE, IL.................................................. 331 62 393 0 0

POLK, IA....................................................... 0 0 0 .............. ..............

BALTIMORE. MD \2\.............................................. 1 0 1 .............. ..............

SUFFOLK, MA.................................................... 277 52 329 .............. ..............

OAKLAND, MI.................................................... 8 2 10 .............. ..............

HENNEPIN, MN................................................... 0 0 0 .............. ..............

RAMSEY, MN..................................................... 8 2 10 .............. ..............

ST LOUIS, MO \2\............................................... 1 0 1 .............. ..............

LANCASTER, NE.................................................. 5 1 6 .............. ..............

BERNALILLO, NM................................................. 1,002 188 1,190 1,190 $438,808

BROOME, NY..................................................... 29 5 34 .............. ..............

MONROE, NY..................................................... 403 76 479 .............. ..............

NEW YORK, NY................................................... 1,029 193 1,222 1,222 450,607

ONEIDA, NY..................................................... 1 0 1 .............. ..............

MULTNOMAH, OR.................................................. 329 62 391 .............. ..............

PHILADELPHIA, PA............................................... 66 12 78 .............. ..............

DAVIDSON, TN................................................... 1 0 1 .............. ..............

DALLAS/TARRANT, TX............................................. 452 85 537 .............. ..............

HARRIS, TX..................................................... 99 19 118 .............. ..............

FAIRFAX, VA.................................................... 4 1 5 .............. ..............

RICHMOND, VA................................................... 82 15 97 .............. ..............

KING/SNOHOMISH, WA............................................. 12 2 14 .............. ..............

BROWARD, FL \3\................................................ 2,523 0 2,523 2,523 $930,346

HILLSBOROUGH, FL \3\........................................... 957 0 957 957 $352,890

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

TOTAL.................................................... 54,728 1,048 55,776 51,526 $19,000,000

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

\1\ Includes Havana parolees for counties Florida.

\2\ Havana Parolees credited to non-Florida TAP counties based on counties' proportion of the 5 year entrant population in the U.S.

\3\ Broward and Hillsborough counties only qualify for the C/H Allocation.

Table 5.--Targeted Assistance Allocations by State: FY 1996

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

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

State Total FY 1996 Total FY 1996 Total FY 1996

allocation C/H allocation allocation

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

California...................................................... $7,570,043 .............. $7,570,043

Colorado........................................................ 197,296 .............. 197,296

District of Col................................................. 257,333 .............. 257,333

Florida......................................................... 3,540,088 18,110,585 21,650,673

Georgia......................................................... 713,865 .............. 713,865

Illinois........................................................ 1,098,135 .............. 1,098,135

Iowa............................................................ 160,559 .............. 160,559

Maryland........................................................ 205,774 .............. 205,774

Massachusetts................................................... 366,622 .............. 366,622

Michigan........................................................ 236,571 .............. 236,571

Minnesota....................................................... 584,795 .............. 584,795

Missouri........................................................ 313,852 .............. 313,852

Nebraska........................................................ 166,961 .............. 166,961

New Mexico...................................................... 173,939 438,808 612,747

New York........................................................ 5,524,644 450,607 5,975,251

Oregon.......................................................... 664,671 .............. 664,671

Pennsylvania.................................................... 499,152 .............. 499,152

Tennessee....................................................... 190,779 .............. 190,779

Texas........................................................... 1,430,961 .............. 1,430,961

Virginia........................................................ 405,377 .............. 405,377

Washington...................................................... 1,016,183 .............. 1,016,183

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

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

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

Table 6.--Targeted Assistance Areas

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

State Targeted assistance area 1 Definition

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

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

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

[[Page 36750]]

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

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

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

CA......................................... SACREMENTO

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

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

MATEO COUNTIES

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

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

CO......................................... DENVER

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

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 eligible for the regular Targeted Assistance Formula Grant 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 have been 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

[[Page 36751]]

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 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 Sec. 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.

[[Page 36752]]

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

States are 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: July 8, 1996.

Lavinia Limon,

Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.

[FR Doc. 96-17808 Filed 7-11-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P-M