Refugee Resettlement Program: Allocations to States of FY 1996 Funds for Refugee Social Services

Department of Health and Human Services

Office of Refugee Resettlement

Refugee Resettlement Program: Allocations to States of FY 1996

Funds for Refugee Social Services

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

ACTION: Final notice of allocations to States of FY 1996 funds for

refugee\1\ social services.

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

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

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

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

Haitian entrants, under section 501 of the Refugee Education

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

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

of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs

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

Resolution (Pub. L. No. 100-202); and (3) certain Amerasians from

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

Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations

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

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

notice to encompass all such eligible persons unless the specific

context indicates otherwise.

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

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

served under the social service program (or under other programs

supported by Federal refugee funds) during their period of coverage

under their sponsoring agency's agreement with the Department of

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

obtain permanent resident alien status, whichever comes first.

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

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

SUMMARY: This notice establishes the allocations to States of FY 1996

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

This notice reflects the new social service provisions in the final

rule published in the Federal Register on June 28, 1995, (60 FR 33584)

which became effective October 1, 1995. This notice discontinues the

special discretionary funds set-aside for services to former political

prisoners from Vietnam.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toyo Biddle, Director, Division of

Refugee Self-Sufficiency, (202) 401-9250.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of the proposed social service

allocations to States was published in the Federal Register on May 6,

1996, (61 FR 20268). The population estimates that were used in the

proposed notice have been adjusted as a result of additional arrival

information.

I. Amounts For Allocation

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

in FY 1996 refugee social service funds as part of the FY 1996

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

104-134). We are discontinuing in FY 1996 the special $2,000,000

discretionary funds set-aside for services to former political

prisoners from Vietnam. However, ORR expects States to address the

special needs of former political prisoners from Vietnam through their

regular refugee social service funds as part of the States' 5-year

eligible service population.

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

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

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

providing social services to refugees.

Refugee Social Service Funds

The population figures for the social service allocation include

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

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

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

Haitian Entrant Program or indicate in its refugee program State plan

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

behalf of entrants as well as refugees.)

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

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

been in the U.S. 3 years or less as of October 1, 1995 (including a

floor amount for States which have small refugee populations).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the beginning of the fiscal year.''

As established in the FY 1991 social services notice published in

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

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

small refugee populations is

[[Page 38459]]

calculated as follows: If the application of the regular allocation

formula yields less than $100,000, then--

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

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

less; and--

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORR has consistently supported floors for small States in order to

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

the range in numbers of refugees in the small States, we have concluded

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

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

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

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

provide funds for individual projects intended to contribute to the

effectiveness and efficiency of the refugee resettlement program. Grant

announcements on discretionary initiatives have been issued separately.

Population To Be Served

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

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

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

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

only 3 years. However, effective October 1, 1995, under new regulations

published in the Federal Register on June 28, 1995, (60 FR 33584),

States may not provide services funded by 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. 400.154, as of

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

In accordance with Sec. 400.147, States are required to provide

services to refugees in the following order of priority, except in

certain individual extreme circumstances: (a) All newly arriving

refugees during their first year in the U.S., who apply for services;

(b) refugees who are receiving cash assistance; (c) unemployed refugees

who are not receiving cash assistance; and (d) employed refugees in

need of services to retain employment or to attain economic

independence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs

Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 100-461), services may be provided to an

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

after October 1, 1988.

Service Priorities

Refugee social service funding should be used to assist refugee

families to achieve economic independence. To this end, States 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).) 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.

Reflecting section 412(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA, and in keeping with

Sec. 400.145, States must ensure that women have the same opportunities

as men to participate in all services funded under this notice,

including job placement services. In addition, 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, particularly in the

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

assure the 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

refugee social services program. Refugees who are participating in

employment services or have accepted employment are eligible for day

care services for children. For an employed refugee, day care funded by

refugee social service dollars should be limited to one year after the

refugee becomes employed. States are expected to use day care funding

from other publicly funded mainstream programs as a prior resource and

are expected to work with service providers to assure maximum access to

other publicly funded resources for day care.

In accordance with Sec. 400.146 in the new regulations, social

service funds must be used primarily for employability services

designed to enable refugees to obtain jobs within one year of becoming

enrolled in services in order to achieve economic self-sufficiency as

soon as possible. Social 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. Social service 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. 400.156, refugee social services must be

provided, to the maximum extent feasible, in a manner that is

culturally and linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and

cultural background. In light of the increasingly diverse population of

refugees who are resettling in this country, refugee service agencies

will need to develop practical ways of providing culturally and

linguistically appropriate services to a changing ethnic population.

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

[[Page 38460]]

training, however, need not be refugee-specific.

English language training must be provided in a concurrent, rather

than sequential, time period with employment or with other employment-

related activities.

When planning State refugee 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.

In order to provide culturally and linguistically compatible

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

resources, ORR encourages States and counties to promote and give

special consideration to the provision of refugee social services

through coalitions of refugee service organizations, such as coalitions

of mutual assistance associations (MAAs), voluntary resettlement

agencies, or a variety of service providers. ORR believes it is

essential for refugee-serving organizations to form close partnerships

in the provision of services to refugees in order to be able to respond

adequately to a changing refugee picture. Coalition-building and

consolidation of providers is particularly important in communities

with multiple service providers in order to ensure better coordination

of services and maximum use of funding for services by minimizing the

funds used for multiple administrative overhead costs.

States should also expect to use funds available under this notice

to pay for social services which are provided to refugees who

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

provides that:

The Secretary [of HHS] shall develop and implement alternative

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

thirty-six months, under which refugees are provided interim

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

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

reduces welfare dependency, and fosters greater coordination among

the resettlement agencies and service providers.

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

Department has already issued a separate notice in the Federal Register

with respect to applications for such projects (60 FR 15766, March 27,

1995). The notice on alternative projects does not contain provisions

for the allocation of additional social service funds beyond the

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

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

planning its use of social service funds being allocated under the

present notice.

Funding to MAAs

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

associations as a separate component under the social service notice;

instead we have folded these funds into the social service formula

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

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

participants in refugee resettlement. ORR believes that the continued

and/or increased utilization of qualified refugee mutual assistance

associations in the delivery of social services helps to ensure the

provision of culturally and linguistically appropriate services as well

as increasing the effectiveness of the overall service system.

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

maximum extent possible. ORR strongly encourages States when

contracting for services, including employment services, to give

consideration to the special strengths of MAAs, whenever contract

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

capability to deliver services in a manner that is culturally and

linguistically compatible with the background of the target population

to be served. ORR also strongly encourages MAAs to ensure that their

management and board composition reflect the major target populations

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

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

refugee clients.

States may use a portion of their social service grant, either

through contracts or through the use of State/county staff, to provide

technical assistance and organizational training to strengthen the

capability of MAAs to provide employment services, particularly in

States where MAA capability is weak or undeveloped.

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.

II. Discussion of Comments Received

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

proposed FY 1996 allocations to States for refugee social services. The

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

Department's response.

Comment: One commenter opposed the use of 15 percent of social

service funds for discretionary grants. The commenter recommended that

these funds instead be distributed by formula to impacted areas with

the requirement that each area receiving funds do an ``initiative''

type project that could be expanded, if successful, to the larger

population.

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

portion of social service funds for discretionary use. The

discretionary grant process allows greater flexibility than does the

formula allocation process for carrying out national initiatives and

special projects that respond to changing needs and circumstances in

the refugee program.

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

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

particular, the commenter suggested that a floor for States with less

than 1,000 refugees should not be included in the allocation.

Response: We continue to believe that a minimum allocation for

social services is necessary to cover basic costs which a State incurs

in providing services, regardless of the number of refugees to be

served. Therefore, we view the establishment of a floor as a reasonable

approach to allocating funds to States with small refugee populations,

where the use of the formula alone would yield too small an amount to

be practical.

Comment: One commenter objected to unlimited State administrative

costs and recommended that State administrative costs be capped at 5

percent of the grant amount.

Response: Current regulations at 45 CFR 400.206 allow reimbursement

to States for 100 percent of their administrative costs. Therefore,

imposing an administrative cap would require a regulatory change and

could not be accomplished through a notice. All costs charged by States

to social services grants for administration must meet Federal grant

requirements and must be reasonable, necessary, and identifiable.

Further, there is no statutory limitation on the amount of social

services funds that can be used by States for administrative costs. We,

therefore, have no plans to impose a cap on what a State may charge for

[[Page 38461]]

administrative costs, choosing instead to allow States to make that

determination.

Comment: One commenter suggested that reductions in social services

funding in some States may impact performance outcomes in FY 1996. The

commenter further suggested that surpassing previous years' performance

may become increasingly more difficult for States that receive less

funds.

Response: States that receive reduced funding in comparison to

previous years are States that have also experienced reduced numbers of

refugee arrivals over the past three years. The performance measures

developed by ORR, in conjunction with States, take into consideration

the impact of reduced arrivals, and reduced funding, on performance

outcomes by looking not only at actual outcome figures but also at

outcomes in the context of total caseloads and as percentages of

caseloads. We believe, therefore, that reduced funding should not

impact the ability of States to continue to improve their performance

outcomes since changing caseloads are taken into consideration in

setting goals and assessing performance.

Comment: One commenter suggested that ORR should support a

statutory change to provide that social services funds be allocated

based on the five-year refugee population rather than the three-year

population that is currently used. The commenter suggested that such a

change would more equitably reflect State and local workloads.

Response: We do not believe there is a compelling enough reason to

seek a statutory change that would change the social service allocation

method from a three-year population base to a five-year population

base. An argument can be made that basing social service allocations on

a three-year population, by reflecting the pattern of more recent

refugee arrivals, ensures that funds are allocated to those States most

in need of additional funds in meeting the needs of new arrivals.

Comment: One commenter suggested that ORR is asking for an

inappropriate amount of detail in specifying what the family self-

sufficiency plan must include. The commenter suggested that the

information to be collected would not necessarily enable the refugee to

obtain a job earlier or for a longer period of time. The commenter

further suggested that the exercise of developing family self-

sufficiency plans would require more paperwork and staff time and would

result in increased administrative costs.

Response: We believe that social services providers should focus on

the family, not on the individual refugee, as the unit of intervention.

The purpose of the family self-sufficiency plan is to ensure that the

refugee family as a whole is enabled to become self-supporting as

quickly as possible. The plan, as described in the notice, ensures that

providers will make a determination of the total amount of income that

a family would have to earn to become self-sufficient. It also ensures

that a strategy and timetable will be developed for obtaining the

necessary level of income to move the family off assistance. Although

the additional information required for a family self-sufficiency plan

may not result in an individual refugee obtaining a job earlier or for

a longer period of time, there is evidence that the development of such

plans result in earlier family self-sufficiency through the attainment

of jobs for one or more wage-earners at self-supporting wages. We

believe that the long-term benefits of this approach to family self-

sufficiency will outweigh any additional paperwork or staff time that

may be required. Further, we believe that, by increasing the efficiency

and effectiveness of the refugee program in promoting family self-

sufficiency, this approach will result in decreased, rather than

increased, overall, long-term administrative costs.

III. Allocation Formula

Of the funds available for FY 1996 for social services, $68,681,700

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

A State's allowable allocation is calculated as follows:

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

available for this purpose; divided by--

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

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

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

the number of Amerasians from Vietnam eligible for refugee social

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

capita amount will be multiplied by--

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

October 1, 1995, adjusted for estimated secondary migration.

The calculation above yields the formula allocation for each State.

Minimum allocations for small States are taken into account.

IV. Basis of Population Estimates

The population estimates for the allocation of funds in FY 1996 are

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

adjusted as of October 1, 1995, for estimated secondary migration. The

data base includes refugees of all nationalities, Amerasians from

Vietnam, and Cuban and Haitian entrants.

For fiscal year 1996, ORR's formula allocations for the States for

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

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

during the preceding three fiscal years: 1993, 1994, and 1995, based on

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

of the numbers of refugees and entrants with arrival or resettlement

dates between October 1, 1992, and September 30, 1995, who are thought

to be living in each State as of October 1, 1995. Refugees admitted

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

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

private sponsoring organizations under an agreement with the Department

of State.

The estimates of secondary migration were based on data submitted

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

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

1995. The total migration reported by each State was summed, yielding

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

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

arrival figure, resulting in a revised population estimate.

Estimates were developed separately for refugees and entrants and

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

for each State. Eligible Amerasians are included in the refugee

figures.

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. One State, the State of Florida, was able to

provide appropriate documentation to ORR regarding the number of Havana

parolee arrivals to that State. We have adjusted the 3-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 State that received entrant arrivals during the 3-

year period from FY 1993-FY 1995 with a prorated share of the 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

3-year entrant population that each county received. The allocations in

this

[[Page 38462]]

notice reflect these additional parolee numbers.

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

October 1, 1995, of refugees (col. 1), entrants, including Havana

parolees (col. 2); total refugee/entrant population, (col. 3); the

formula amounts which the population estimates yield (col. 4); and the

allocation amounts after allowing for the minimum amounts (col. 5).

V. Allocation Amounts

Funding subsequent to the publication of this notice will be

contingent upon the submittal and approval of a State annual services

plan that is developed on the basis of a local consultative process, as

required by Sec. 400.11(b)(2) in the ORR regulations. The following

amounts are allocated for refugee social services in FY 1996:

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

Service Formula Amounts and Allocations for FY 1996

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

Total

State Refugees\1\ Entrants\1\ population Formula Allocation

(1) (2) (3) amount (4) (5)

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

Alabama................................... 618 79 697 $124,525 $124,525

Alaska\2\................................. 0 0 0 0 0

Arizona................................... 3,574 520 4,094 731,428 731,428

Arkansas.................................. 317 6 323 57,707 98,774

California................................ 78,043 1,194 79,237 14,156,375 14,156,375

Colorado.................................. 3,808 15 3,823 683,012 683,012

Connecticut............................... 2,903 269 3,172 566,705 566,705

Delaware.................................. 89 6 95 16,973 75,000

Dist. of Columbia......................... 1,746 12 1,758 314,082 314,082

Florida................................... 13,826 41,546 55,372 9,892,687 9,892,687

Georgia................................... 9,811 241 10,052 1,795,877 1,795,877

Hawaii.................................... 758 0 758 135,423 135,423

Idaho..................................... 1,090 5 1,095 195,631 195,631

Illinois.................................. 12,642 336 12,978 2,318,632 2,318,632

Indiana................................... 1,140 15 1,155 206,351 206,351

Iowa...................................... 3,461 5 3,466 619,231 619,231

Kansas.................................... 2,112 14 2,126 379,828 379,828

Kentucky\4\............................... 2,301 208 2,509 448,255 448,255

Louisiana................................. 2,030 286 2,316 413,773 413,773

Maine..................................... 724 1 725 129,528 129,528

Maryland.................................. 6,349 177 6,526 1,165,926 1,165,926

Massachusetts............................. 10,009 205 10,214 1,824,819 1,824,819

Michigan.................................. 7,725 235 7,960 1,422,123 1,422,123

Minnesota................................. 9,846 25 9,871 1,763,540 1,763,540

Mississippi............................... 111 41 152 27,156 75,000

Missouri.................................. 4,998 31 5,029 898,474 898,474

Montana................................... 182 0 182 32,516 75,000

Nebraska.................................. 1,847 7 1,854 331,233 331,233

Nevada\4\................................. 769 935 1,704 304,434 304,434

New Hampshire............................. 686 1 687 122,738 122,738

New Jersey................................ 6,371 1,481 7,852 1,402,828 1,402,828

New Mexico................................ 948 1,160 2,108 376,612 376,612

New York.................................. 60,179 1,409 61,588 11,003,229 11,003,229

North Carolina............................ 3,221 26 3,247 580,105 580,105

North Dakota.............................. 1,044 5 1,049 187,413 187,413

Ohio...................................... 5,094 25 5,119 914,554 914,554

Oklahoma.................................. 1,351 16 1,367 244,226 244,226

Oregon.................................... 5,149 343 5,492 981,193 981,193

Pennslyvania.............................. 9,759 175 9,934 1,774,795 1,774,795

Rhode Island.............................. 656 4 660 117,915 117,915

South Carolina............................ 503 2 505 90,223 100,000

South Dakota.............................. 658 0 658 117,557 117,557

Tennessee................................. 3,408 81 3,489 623,340 623,340

Texas..................................... 15,889 1,170 17,059 3,047,738 3,047,738

Utah...................................... 1,774 0 1,774 316,940 316,940

Vermont................................... 720 0 720 128,634 128,634

Virginia.................................. 5,905 220 6,125 1,094,284 1,094,284

Washington................................ 119,081 27 19,108 3,413,809 3,413,809

West Virginia............................. 27 1 28 5,002 75,000

Wisconsin................................. 5,095 16 5,111 913,124 913,124

Wyoming\2\................................ 0 0 0 0 0

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

Total................................. 330,347 52,576 382,923 68,412,503 68,681,700

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

\1\ Includes 8240 Havana Parolees (HP's) to Florida and Havana parolees credited to States other than Florida

based on States' proportion of the 3-year entrant population in the U.S.

\2\ Alaska and Wyoming on longer participate in the Refugee Program.

\3\ A portion of the California allocation is expected to be awarded to continue a Wilson/Fish project in San

Diego.

\4\ The allocation for Kentucky and Nevada is expected to be awarded to continue a Wilson/Fish project.

[[Page 38463]]

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

This notice does not create any reporting or recordkeeping

requirements requiring OMB clearance.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 93.566 Refugee

Assistance--State Administered Programs)

Dated: July 18, 1996.

Lavinia Limon,

Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.

[FR Doc. 96-18829 Filed 7-23-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P