Refugee Resettlement Program; Proposed Availability of Formula Allocation Funding for FY 1999 Targeted Assistance Grants for Services to Refugees in Local Areas of High Need

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

Refugee Resettlement Program; Proposed Availability of Formula

Allocation Funding for FY 1999 Targeted Assistance Grants for Services

to Refugees in Local Areas of High Need

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed availability of formula allocation funding

for FY 1999 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.

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

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the proposed availability of funds and

award procedures for FY 1999 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 proposes that the qualification of counties be based on

refugee and entrant arrivals during the 5-year period from FY 1994

through FY 1998, and on the concentration of refugees and entrants as a

percentage of the general population. Under this proposal, 10 new

counties would qualify for targeted assistance and 7 counties which

previously received targeted assistance grants would no longer qualify

for targeted assistance funding.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by April 9, 1999.

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

Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and

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

APPLICATION DEADLINE: The deadline for applications will be established

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

this notice of proposed allocations.

[[Page 11928]]

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

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

Refugee Self-Sufficiency, (202) 402-9250.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Scope

This notice announces the proposed availability of funds for grants

for targeted assistance for services to refugees in counties where,

because of factors such as unusually large refugee populations, high

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

and can be demonstrated a specific need for supplementation of

resources for services to this population.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $49,477,000

in FY 1999 funds for the targeted assistance program (TAP) as part of

the FY 1999 appropriation for the Department of Health and Human

Services (Pub. L. 105-277).

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

to use the $49,477,000 in targeted assistance funds as follows:

$44,529,300 will be allocated to States under the 5-year

population formula, as set forth in this notice.

$4,947,700 (10% of the total) will be used to award

discretionary grants to States under separate grant announcements.

The purpose of targeted assistance grants is to provide, through a

process of local planning and implementation, direct services intended

to result in the economic self-sufficiency and reduced welfare

dependency of refugees through job placements.

The targeted assistance program reflects the requirements of

section 412(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),

which provides that targeted assistance grants shall be made available

``(i) primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment and

achievement of self-sufficiency, (ii) in a manner that does not

supplant other refugee program funds and that assures that not less

than 95 percent of the amount of the grant award is made available to

the county or other local entity.''

II. Authorization

Targeted assistance projects are funded under the authority of

section 412(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as

amended by the Refugee Assistance Extension Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-

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

Assistance Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-422), 8 U.S.C. 1522 note, insofar as

it incorporates by reference with respect to Cuban and Haitian entrants

the authorities pertaining to assistance for refugees established by

section 412(c)(2) of the INA, as cited above; section 584(c) of the

Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs

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

Resolution (Pub. L. 100-202), insofar as it incorporates by reference

with respect to certain Amerasians from Vietnam the authorities

pertaining to assistance for refugees established by section 412(c)(2)

of the INA, as cited above, including certain Amerasians from Vietnam

who are U.S. citizens, as provided under title II of the Foreign

Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Acts,

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

513).

III. Client and Service Priorities

Targeted assistance funding 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 45

CFR 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; (3)

employability plans for every employable member of the family; and (4)

a plan to address the family's social services needs that may be

barriers to self-sufficiency. 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. 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).

In accordance with 45 CFR 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 45 CFR 400.313, targeted assistance funds

must be used primarily for employability services designed to enable

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

targeted assistance program in order to achieve economic self-

sufficiency as soon as possible. Targeted assistance services may

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

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

funds may not be used for long-term training programs such as

vocational training that last for more than a year or educational

programs that are not intended to lead to employment within a year.

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

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

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

employment or with other employment-related activities.

A portion of a local area's allocation may be used for services

which are not directed toward the achievement of a specific employment

objective in less than one year but which are essential to the

adjustment of refugees in the community, provided such needs are

clearly demonstrated and such use is approved by the State. Allowable

services include those listed under 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

[[Page 11929]]

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 obtain day care services,

preferably subsized day care, for children in order to allow women with

children the opportunity to participate in employment services or to

accept or retain employment. To accomplish this, day care may be

treated as a priority employment-related service under the targeted

assistance program. Refugees who are participating in TAP-funded or

social services-funded employment services or have accepted employment

are eligible for day care services for children. For an employed

refugee, TAP-funded day care should be limited to one year after the

refugee becomes employed. States and counties, however, are expected to

use day care funding from other publicly funded mainstream programs as

a prior resource and are encouraged to work with service providers to

assure maximum access to other publicly funded resources for day care.

In accordance with Sec. 400.317, targeted assistance services must

be provided in a manner that is culturally and linguistically

compatible with a refugee's language and cultural background, to the

maximum extent feasible. In light of the increasingly diverse

population of refugees who are resettling in this country, refugee

service agencies will need to develop practical ways of providing

culturally and linguistically appropriate services to a changing ethnic

population. Services funded under this notice must be refugee-specific

services which are designed specifically to meet refugee needs and are

in keeping with the rules and objectives of the refugee program.

Vocational or job-skills training, on-the-job training, or English

language training, however, need not be refugee-specific.

When planning targeted assistance services, States must take into

account the reception and placement (R & P) services provided by local

resettlement agencies in order to utilize these resources in the

overall program design and to ensure the provision of seamless,

coordinated services to refugees that are not duplicative. See

Sec. 400.156(b) as referenced in Sec. 400.317.

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. Reserved for Discussion of Comments in the Final Notice

V. Eligible Grantees

Eligible grantees are those agencies of State governments that are

responsible for the refugee program under 45 CFR 400.5 in States

containing counties which qualify for FY 1999 targeted assistance

awards.

The Director of ORR proposes to determine the eligibility of

counties for inclusion in the FY 1999 targeted assistance program on

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

The use of targeted assistance funds for services to Cuban and

Haitian entrants is limited to States which have an approved State plan

under the Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program (CHEP).

The State agency will submit a single application on behalf of all

county governments of the qualified counties in that State. Subsequent

to the approval of the State's application by ORR, local targeted

assistance plans will be developed by the county government or other

designated entity and submitted to the State.

A State with more than one qualified county is permitted, but not

required, to determine the allocation amount for each qualified county

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

allocations differently from those set forth in the final notice, in

accordance with Sec. 400.319, the FY 1999 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 1999 targeted assistance funds in a manner different from the

formula set forth in the final notice, the FY 1999 allocations and

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

application for ORR review and approval.

Applications submitted in response to the final notice are not

subject to review by State and areawide clearinghouses under Executive

Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.''

VI. Qualification and Allocation

For FY 1999, ORR proposes to continue to use the formula that

limits the use of targeted assistance funds to serving refugees who

have been in the U.S. 5 years or less. The Director of ORR proposes to

determine the qualification of counties for targeted assistance once

every three years, as stated in the FY 1996 notice of proposed

availability of targeted assistance allocations to States which was

published in the Federal Register on May 6, 1996 (61 FR 20260). Since

the FY 1996-FY 1998 three-year period has expired, for FY 1999, ORR

[[Page 11930]]

has reviewed data on all counties that could potentially qualify for

TAP funds on the basis of the most current 5-year refugee/entrant

arrival data.

A. Qualifying Counties

In order to qualify for application for FY 1999 targeted assistance

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

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

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

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

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

year period (FY 1994--FY 1998); and (2) the 5-year refugee/entrant

arrival population as a percent of the county overall population.

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

population and its concentration of refugees, with a relative weighting

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

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

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

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

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

targeted assistance, a county would have to rank within the top 50

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

the top 50 counties in order to target a sufficient level of funding to

the most impacted counties.

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

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

potentially qualify for TAP funds based on the criteria proposed in

this notice. Analysis of these data indicates that: (1) 40 counties

which have previously received targeted assistance would continue to

qualify; (2) 7 counties which have previously received targeted

assistance would no longer qualify; and (3) 10 new counties would be

qualified.

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

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

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

the 5-year arrival population represents of the overall county

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

described above.

Table 2 lists the counties that have previously received targeted

assistance which would no longer qualify, the number of refugee/entrant

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

the 5-year arrival population represents of the overall county

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

The proposed counties listed in this notice as qualified to apply

for FY 1999 TAP funding would remain qualified for TAP funding through

FY 2001. ORR does not plan to consider the eligibility of additional

counties for TAP funding until FY 2002, when ORR will again review data

on all counties that could potentially qualify for TAP funds based on

the criteria contained in this proposed 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 1999 for targeted assistance,

$44,529,300 would be allocated by formula to States for qualified

counties based on the initial placements of refugees, Amerasians,

entrants, and Kurdish asylees in these counties during the 5-year

period from FY 1994 through FY 1998 (October 1, 1993-September 30,

1998).

With regard to Havana parolees, in the absence of reliable data on

the State-by-State resettlement of this population, we are crediting

13,442 Havana parolees who arrived in the U.S. in FY 1998 according to

the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), using the following

methodology. For FY 1995, FY 1996, and FY 1997, Florida's Havana

parolees for each qualifying county are based on actual arrival data

submitted by the State of Florida, while Havana parolees credited to

qualifying counties in other States were prorated based on the

counties' proportion of the 5-year entrant population in the U.S.

If a qualifying county does not agree with ORR's population

estimate and believes that its 5-year population for FY 1994-FY 1998

was undercounted and wishes ORR to reconsider its population estimate,

the county must provide the following evidence: The county must submit

to ORR a letter from each local voluntary agency that resettled

refugees in the county that attests to the fact that the refugees/

entrants listed in an attachment to the letter were resettled as

initial placements during the 5-year period from FY 1994-FY 1998 in the

county making the claim.

Documentation must include the name, alien number, date of birth

and date of arrival in the U.S. for each refugee/entrant claimed.

Listings of refugees who are not identified by their alien numbers will

not be considered. Counties should submit such evidence separately from

comments on the proposed formula no later than 30 days from the date of

publication of this notice and should be addressed to: Loren Bussert,

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

370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW, Washington, DC 20447, telephone: (202) 401-

4732. Failure to submit the required documentation within the required

time period will result in forfeiture of consideration.

VII. Allocations

Table 3 lists the proposed qualifying counties, the number of

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

from October 1, 1993-September 30, 1998, 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 third,

fourth, and fifth columns, and the proposed amount of each county's

allocation based on its 5-year arrival population.

Table 4 provides State totals for proposed targeted assistance

allocations.

Table 5 indicates the areas that each proposed qualifying county

represents.

Table 1.--Top 50 Counties Eligible for Targeted Assistance

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

5-Year arrival Concentration

County and state population percent Sum of ranks

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

Targeted Assistance Counties Eligible for Continuation

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

Dade County, FL................................................. 67,475 3.4833 3

Sacramento County, CA........................................... 11,795 1.1328 30

New York, NY.................................................... 55,434 .7570 30

[[Page 11931]]

City of St. Louis, MO........................................... 7,672 1.9340 32

Multnomah, OR................................................... 12,261 .8681 36

King/Snohomish, WA.............................................. 14,510 .7354 38

DeKalb County, GA............................................... 6,582 1.2059 41

San Francisco, CA............................................... 8,110 .5057 49

Oneida County, NY............................................... 4,125 1.6444 50

Fulton County, GA............................................... 5,690 .8768 55

Orange County, CA............................................... 12,856 .5333 58

Jefferson County, KY............................................ 5,161 .7761 65

Suffolk County, MA.............................................. 4,755 .7163 72

Dallas/Tarrant, TX.............................................. 12,684 .4196 77

Santa Clara County, CA.......................................... 10,902 .7280 78

Polk County, IA................................................. 3,435 1.0499 79

District of Columbia, DC........................................ 3,890 .6409 86

Hennepin County, MN............................................. 5,323 .5156 86

Cook/Kane, IL................................................... 17,379 .3205 90

Maricopa County, AZ............................................. 8,723 .4111 91

Duval County, FL................................................ 3,847 .5717 94

Monroe County, NY............................................... 3,888 .5446 94

San Diego County, CA............................................ 9,355 .3745 97

Bernalillo County, NM........................................... 3,286 .6837 101

Harris County, TX............................................... 9,387 .3331 103

Denver County, CO............................................... 3,246 .6942 104

Philadelphia County, PA......................................... 5,797 .3656 108

Davidson County, TN............................................. 3,252 .6367 109

Ingham County, MI............................................... 2,535 .8991 112

City of Richmond, VA............................................ 2,340 1.1526 113

Lancaster County, NE............................................ 2,337 1.0938 118

Hudson County, NJ............................................... 2,982 .5391 123

Los Angeles County, CA.......................................... 17,321 .1954 129

Ramsey County, MN............................................... 2,700 .5558 129

Fairfax County, VA.............................................. 3,609 .3763 129

Fresno County, CA............................................... 3,014 .4516 134

Cass County, ND................................................. 1,669 1.6225 139

Pierce County, WA............................................... 2,658 .4534 147

Cuyahoga County, OH............................................. 3,815 .2702 151

Broward County, FL.............................................. 3,440 .2740 155

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

New Counties That Qualify

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

Spokane County, WA.............................................. 3,009 .8327 98

Clark County, NV................................................ 3,517 .4743 114

Davis/Salt Lake, UT............................................. 4,605 .3911 114

Minnehaha County, SD............................................ 1,430 1.1550 154

Kent County, MI................................................. 2,374 .4742 155

Guilford County, NC............................................. 2,093 .6024 155

Erie County, PA................................................. 1,873 .6797 156

Yolo County, CA................................................. 1,434 1.0160 158

Hillsborough County, FL......................................... 2,946 .3532 158

Hampden County, MA.............................................. 2,239 .4907 158

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

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

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

5-year arrival Concentration

County and state population percent Sum of ranks

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

Alameda County, CA.............................................. 3,330 .2604 165

Oakland County, MI.............................................. 2,827 .2609 180

Palm Beach County, FL........................................... 2,410 .2791 186

City of Baltimore, MD........................................... 2,104 .2859 197

Broome County, NY............................................... 1,098 .5200 221

San Joaquin County, CA.......................................... 1,221 .2540 258

Merced County, CA............................................... 690 .3868 296

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

[[Page 11932]]

Table 3.--Targeted Assistance Proposed Allocations by County: FY 1999

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

$44,429,300

County State Refugees Entrants Havana Total total FY 1999

\1\ parolees arrivals allocation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\---------------------------------

Maricopa County.............................. Arizona.............................. 7,394 780 549 8,723 $983,963

Fresno County................................ California........................... 3,011 2 1 3,014 339,982

Los Angeles County........................... California........................... 16,581 434 306 17,321 1,953,825

Orange County................................ California........................... 12,817 23 16 12,856 1,450,169

Sacramento County............................ California........................... 11,788 4 3 11,795 1,330,487

San Diego County............................. California........................... 8,476 516 363 9,355 1,055,253

San Francisco................................ California........................... 8,028 48 34 8,110 914,816

Santa Clara County........................... California........................... 10,815 51 36 10,902 1,229,756

Yolo County.................................. California........................... 1,425 5 4 1,434 161,757

Denver County................................ Colorado............................. 3,241 3 2 3,246 366,152

District of Columbia......................... District of Col...................... 3,866 14 10 3,890 438,796

Broward County............................... Florida.............................. 977 1,548 915 3,440 388,035

Dade County.................................. Florida.............................. 8,427 33,143 25,905 67,475 7,611,244

Duval County................................. Florida.............................. 3,788 28 31 3,847 433,945

Hillsborough County.......................... Florida.............................. 1,525 767 654 2,946 332,312

DeKalb County................................ Georgia.............................. 6,562 12 8 6,582 742,456

Fulton County................................ Georgia.............................. 5,334 209 147 5,690 641,837

Cook/Kane.................................... Illinois............................. 16,699 399 281 17,379 1,960,368

Polk County.................................. Iowa................................. 3,433 1 1 3,435 387,471

Jefferson County \3\......................... Kentucky............................. 3,605 913 643 5,161 582,166

Hampden County............................... Massachusetts........................ 2,224 9 6 2,239 252,561

Suffolk County............................... Massachusetts........................ 4,648 63 44 4,755 536,368

Ingham County................................ Michigan............................. 1,785 440 310 2,535 285,950

Kent County.................................. Michigan............................. 2,304 41 29 2,374 267,789

Hennepin County.............................. Minnesota............................ 5,318 3 2 5,323 600,439

Ramsey County................................ Minnesota............................ 2,683 10 7 2,700 304,563

City of St. Louis............................ Missouri............................. 7,670 1 1 7,672 865,409

Lancaster County............................. Nebraska............................. 2,272 38 27 2,337 263,616

Clark County \4\............................. Nevada............................... 1,363 1,264 890 3,517 396,721

Hudson County................................ New Jersey........................... 1,605 808 569 2,982 336,372

Bernalillo County............................ New Mexico........................... 1,137 1,261 888 3,286 370,664

Monroe County................................ New York............................. 2,723 684 481 3,888 438,570

New York..................................... New York............................. 54,272 682 480 55,434 6,253,007

Oneida County................................ New York............................. 4,123 1 1 4,125 465,304

Guliford County.............................. North Carolina....................... 2,081 7 5 2,093 236,092

Cass County.................................. North Dakota......................... 1,664 3 2 1,669 188,265

Cuyahoga County.............................. Ohio................................. 3,805 6 4 3,815 430,336

Multnomah.................................... Oregon............................... 11,216 613 432 12,261 1,383,052

Erie County.................................. Pennsylvania......................... 1,873 0 0 1,873 211,276

Philadelphia County.......................... Pennsylvania......................... 5,708 52 37 5,797 653,907

Minnehaha County............................. South Dakota......................... 1,430 0 0 1,430 161,305

Davidson County.............................. Tennessee............................ 3,160 54 38 3,252 366,829

Dallas/Tarrant............................... Texas................................ 11,479 707 498 12,684 1,430,767

Harris County................................ Texas................................ 9,065 189 133 9,387 1,058,862

Davis/Salt Lake.............................. Utah................................. 4,603 1 1 4,605 519,448

Fairfax...................................... Virginia............................. 3,595 8 6 3,609 407,099

City of Richmond............................. Virginia............................. 2,153 110 77 2,340 263,954

King/Snohomish............................... Washington........................... 14,423 51 36 14,510 1,636,742

Pierce County................................ Washington........................... 2,641 10 7 2,658 299,825

Spokane County............................... Washington........................... 3,009 0 0 3,009 339,418

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

313,824 46,016 34,920 394,760 44,529,300

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

\1\ Refugees includes refugees, Kurdish asylees, and Amerasian immigrants from Vietnam.

\2\ For FY 1995, 1996 and 1997, Havana parolee arrivals to the qualifying Florida counties (18,538) are based on actual data while parolees in the non-

Florida counties (4,948) are prorated based on the counties' proportion of the five-year (FY 1994-1998) entrant population. For FY 1998, 11,434 Havana

parolees are prorated to all the qualifying counties based on their proportion of the five-year entrant population.

\3\ The allocation for Jefferson County, Kentucky will be awarded to the Kentucky Wilson/Fish project.

\4\ The allocation for Clark County, Nevada will be awarded to the Nevada Wilson/Fish project.

Table 4--Targeted Assistance Proposed Allocations by State: FY 1999

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

$44,529,300

State total FY 1999

allocation

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

Arizona................................................. $983,963

California.............................................. 8,436,044

Colorado................................................ 366,152

District of Columbia.................................... 438,796

Florida................................................. 8,765,536

Georgia................................................. 1,384,293

[[Page 11933]]

Illinois................................................ 1,960,368

Iowa.................................................... 387,471

Kentucky................................................ 582,166

Massachusetts........................................... 788,930

Michigan................................................ 553,740

Minnesota............................................... 905,002

Missouri................................................ 865,409

Nebraska................................................ 263,616

Nevada.................................................. 396,721

New Jersey.............................................. 336,372

New Mexico.............................................. 370,664

New York................................................ 7,156,881

North Carolina.......................................... 236,092

North Dakota............................................ 188,265

Ohio.................................................... 430,336

Oregon.................................................. 1,383,052

Pennsylvania............................................ 865,183

South Dakota............................................ 161,305

Tennessee............................................... 366,829

Texas................................................... 2,489,630

Utah.................................................... 519,448

Virginia................................................ 671,053

Washington.............................................. 2,275,985

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

Total........................................... 44,529,300

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

Table 5--Targeted Assistance Areas

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

State Targeted assistance area Definition

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

Arizona............................ Maricopa County ..............................................

California......................... Fresno County ..............................................

Los Angeles County ..............................................

Orange County ..............................................

Sacramento County ..............................................

San Diego ..............................................

San Francisco.............. Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties.

Santa Clara County ..............................................

Yolo County ..............................................

Colorado........................... Denver ..............................................

District of Columbia ..............................................

Florida............................ Broward County ..............................................

Dade County ..............................................

Duval County ..............................................

Hillsborough County ..............................................

Georgia............................ De Kalb County ..............................................

Fulton County ..............................................

Illinois........................... Cook and Kane Counties ..............................................

Iowa............................... Polk County ..............................................

Kentucky........................... Jefferson County ..............................................

Massachusetts...................... Hampden County ..............................................

Suffolk County ..............................................

Michigan........................... Ingham County ..............................................

Kent County ..............................................

Minnesota.......................... Hennepin County ..............................................

Ramsey County ..............................................

Missouri........................... City of St. Louis ..............................................

Nebraska........................... Lancaster County ..............................................

Nevada............................. Clark County ..............................................

New Jersey......................... Hudson County ..............................................

New Mexico......................... Bernalillo County ..............................................

New York........................... Monroe County ..............................................

New York................... Bronx, Kings, Queens, New York, and Richmond

Counties.

Oneida County ..............................................

North Carolina..................... Guilford County ..............................................

North Dakota....................... Cass County ..............................................

Ohio............................... Cuyahoga County ..............................................

Oregon............................. Multnomah.................. Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties,

Oregon, and Clark County, Washington.

Pennsylvania....................... Erie ..............................................

Philadelphia ..............................................

South Dakota....................... Minnehaha County ..............................................

Tennessee.......................... Davidson County ..............................................

Texas.............................. Dallas/Tarrant ..............................................

Harris County ..............................................

Utah............................... Davis/Salt lake............ Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties.

Virginia........................... Fairfax.................... Fairfax County and the cities of Falls Church,

Fairfax, and Alexandria.

City of Richmond ..............................................

Washington......................... King/Snohomish ..............................................

Pierce County ..............................................

Spokane County ..............................................

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

[[Page 11934]]

VIII. Application and Implementation Process

Under the FY 1999 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 1999 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 the State's

last filed report.

The requirements regarding the discretionary portion of the

targeted assistance program will be addressed separately in a grant

announcement for those funds. Applications for these funds are

therefore not subject to provisions contained in this notice but to

other requirements which will be conveyed separately.

IX. Application Requirements

In applying for targeted assistance funds, a State agency is

required to provide the following:

A. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used in

accordance with the requirements in 45 CFR part 400.

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 1999

targeted assistance formula allocation funds that are used for services

will be allocated for employment services.

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

offset funding otherwise available to counties or local jurisdictions

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

social services, cash and medical assistance, etc.

D. Identification of the local administering agency.

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

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

county chooses to allocate its targeted assistance funds differently

from the formula allocation for counties presented in the ORR targeted

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

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

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

additional factor in the allocation of targeted assistance funds if it

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

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

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

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

proposed allocation for each county.

In instances where a State receives targeted assistance funding for

impacted counties contained in a standard metropolitan statistical area

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

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

coordination and planning activities undertaken with the State Refugee

Coordinator of the neighboring State in which the impacted county or

counties are located. These planning and coordination activities should

result in a proposed allocation plan for the equitable distribution of

targeted assistance funds by county based on the distribution of the

eligible population by county within the SMSA. The proposed allocation

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

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

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

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

must minimally include the following:

1. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used in

accordance with the requirements contained in ORR regulations in 45 CFR

400.156 as incorporated by Sec. 400.317.

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 45 CFR 400.314)

4. Description of specific strategies and services to meet the

needs of targeted populations. These should be justified where possible

through analysis of strategies and outcomes from projects previously

implemented under the targeted assistance programs, the regular social

service programs, and any other services available to the refugee

population.

5. The relationship of targeted assistance services to other

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

allocated ORR social services.

6. Analysis of available employment opportunities in the local

community. Examples of acceptable analyses of employment opportunities

might include surveys of employers or potential employers of refugee

clients, surveys of presently effective employment service providers,

review of studies on employment opportunities/forecasts which would be

appropriate to the refugee populations.

7. Description of the monitoring and oversight responsibilities to

be carried out by the county or qualifying local jurisdiction.

8. Assurance that the local administrative budget will not exceed

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

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

for administrative costs. Rather, administrative cost requests should

be based on projections of actual needs. 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. Identification of the contracting cycle dates for targeted

assistance

[[Page 11935]]

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.

H. 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.

I. 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.

J. 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.

Results or Benefits Expected

All applicants must establish proposed targeted assistance

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 all of the 6 ORR

performance outcome measures based on a history of targeted assistance

program experience.

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.

New qualifying counties within States that are current grantees are

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

performance outcome measures. New counties 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.

Budget and Budget Justification

Provide line item detail and detailed calculations for each budget

object class identified on the Budget Information form (424A). Detailed

calculations must include estimation methods, quantities, unit costs,

and other similar quantitative detail sufficient for the calculation to

be duplicated. The detailed budget must also include a breakout by the

funding sources identified in Block 15 of the SF-424.

Provide a narrative budget justification that describes how the

categorical costs are derived. Discuss the necessity, reasonableness,

and allocability of the proposed costs. The Office of Refugee

Resettlement is particularly interested in the following:

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 request administrative costs that

add up to, but may not exceed, 10% of the county's TAP allocation to

the State's administrative budget.

States Administering the Program Directly

States that propose to administer the program locally or provide

direct service to the refugee population (with the concurrence of the

county) must submit a program summary to ORR for prior review and

approval. The summary must include a description of the proposed

services; a justification for the projected allocation for each

component including relationship of funds allocated to numbers of

clients served, characteristics of clients, duration of training and

services, and cost per placement. In addition, the program component

summary must describe any ancillary services or subcomponents such as

day care, transportation, or language training.

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.

XI. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13)

Based on historical experience, ORR anticipates fewer than ten

responses to this notice. An OMB control number is therefore not

required.

Dated: March 5, 1999.

Lavinia Limon,

Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.

[FR Doc. 99-5954 Filed 3-9-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P