[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11927-11935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5954]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
