[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19270-19276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9365]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Refugee Resettlement
Refugee Resettlement Program; Proposed Availability of Formula
Allocation Funding for FY 1995 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 1995 targeted assistance grants to States for services to
refugees\1\ in local areas of high need.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In addition to persons who meet all requirements of 45 CFR
400.43, requirements for documentation of refugee status,
eligibility for targeted assistance includes Cuban and Haitian
entrants, certain Amerasians from Vietnam who are admitted to the
U.S. as immigrants, and certain Amerasians from Vietnam who are U.S.
citizens. (See section II of this notice on Authorization.) The term
refugee, used in this notice for convenience, is intended to
encompass such additional persons who are eligible to participate in
refugee program services, including the targeted assistance program.
Refugees admitted to the U.S. under admissions numbers set aside
for private-sector-initiative admissions are not eligible to be
served under the targeted assistance program (or under other
programs supported by Federal refugee funds) during their period of
coverage under their sponsoring agency's agreement with the
Department of State--usually two years from their date of arrival,
or until they obtain permanent resident alien status, whichever
comes first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the proposed availability of funds and
award procedures for FY 1995 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. The formula has been updated to take into account FY 1994
arrivals.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by May 17, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Address written comments, in duplicate, to: Toyo A. Biddle,
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and
Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 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.
CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (CDFA) NUMBER: 93.584.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toyo Biddle (202) 401-9250.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Purpose and Scope
This notice announces the proposed availability of funds for grants
for targeted assistance for services to refugees in counties where,
because of factors such as unusually large refugee populations, high
refugee concentrations, and high use of public assistance, there exists
and can be demonstrated a specific need for supplementation of
resources for services to this population.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $49,397,000
in FY 1995 funds for the targeted assistance program (TAP) as part of
the FY 1995 appropriation for the Department of Health and Human
Services (Pub. L. 103-333).
The House Appropriations Committee Report reads as follows with
respect to targeted assistance funds (H.R. Rept. No. 103-553, p. 93):
This program provides grants to States for counties which are
impacted by high concentrations of refugees and high dependency rates.
The Committee intends that $19,000,000 of the total recommended for
targeted assistance be provided to continue the current program of
support to communities affected as a result of the massive influx of
Cuban and Haitian entrants. The Committee also intends that 10 percent
of the total appropriated for targeted assistance be used for grants to
localities most heavily impacted by the influx of refugees such as
Laotian Hmong, Cambodians, and Soviet Pentecostals, including secondary
migrants who entered the United States after October 1, 1979. The
Committee expects these grants to be awarded to communities not
presently receiving targeted assistance because of previous
concentration requirements and other factors in the grant formulas, as
well as those who do currently receive targeted assistance grants.
The Senate Appropriations Committee Report (S. Rept. No. 103-318,
p. 154) is consistent with the above-quoted House Report.
The Conference Report on Appropriations (H. Rept. No. 103-733, p.
24) clarifies Congress' intent on the use of the $19 million for
communities affected by Cuban and Haitian entrants as follows:
The conferees are agreed that $19,000,000 of the $49,397,000
appropriated for targeted assistance is to serve communities affected
by the Cuban and Haitian entrants and refugees whose arrivals in recent
years have increased.
The Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) proposes
to use the $49,397,000 appropriated for FY 1995 targeted assistance as
follows:
$25,457,300 will be allocated under the updated formula,
as set forth in this notice.
$19,000,000 will be awarded to serve communities most
heavily affected by recent Cuban and Haitian entrant and refugee
arrivals.
$4,939,700 (10% of the total) will be awarded as second-
year continuation grants in a two-year project period under a
discretionary grant announcement that was issued in FY 1994.
In addition, the Office of Refugee Resettlement has available an
additional $6,000,000 in FY 1995 funds to augment the targeted
assistance 10% program through the Foreign Operations, Export
[[Page 19271]] Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act (Pub.
L. 103-306). These funds will be awarded under a separate discretionary
grant announcement which will be issued setting forth application
requirements and evaluation criteria.
The purpose of targeted assistance grants is to provide, through a
process of local planning and implementation, direct services intended
to result in the economic self-sufficiency and reduced welfare
dependency of refugees through job placements.
The targeted assistance program reflects the requirements of
section 412(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),
which provides that targeted assistance grants shall be made available
(i) primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment and
achievement of self-sufficiency, (ii) in a manner that does not
supplant other refugee program funds and that assures that not less
than 95 percent of the amount of the grant award is made available to
the county or other local entity.
II. Authorization
Targeted assistance projects are funded under the authority of
section 412(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as
amended by the Refugee Assistance Extension Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-
605), 8 U.S.C. 1522(c); section 501(a) of the Refugee Education
Assistance Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-422), 8 U.S.C. 1522 note, insofar as
it incorporates by reference with respect to Cuban and Haitian entrants
the authorities pertaining to assistance for refugees established by
section 412(c)(2) of the INA, as cited above; section 584(c) of the
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 1988, as included in the FY 1988 Continuing
Resolution (Pub. L. 100-202), insofar as it incorporates by reference
with respect to certain Amerasians from Vietnam the authorities
pertaining to assistance for refugees established by section 412(c)(2)
of the INA, as cited above, including certain Amerasians from Vietnam
who are U.S. citizens, as provided under title II of the Foreign
Operations, Export 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 should be used to assist refugee
families to achieve economic independence. To this end, ORR expects
States and counties to ensure that a coherent plan of services is
developed for each eligible family that addresses the family's needs
from time of arrival until attainment of economic independence. Each
service plan should address a family's needs for both employment-
related services and other needed social services. In local
jurisdictions that have both targeted assistance and refugee social
services programs, one plan of services may be developed for a family
that incorporates both targeted assistance and refugee social services.
Services funded under the targeted assistance allocations 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. The targeted assistance program, however, is not intended
to be limited to cash assistance recipients. TAP-funded services may
also be provided to other refugees in need of services, regardless of
whether the refugees are receiving cash assistance.
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 targeted
assistance funds must be used primarily for services which directly
enhance refugee employment potential, have specific employment
objectives, and are designed to enable refugees to obtain jobs with
less than one year's participation in the targeted assistance program.
Examples of these activities are: job development; job placement; job-
related and vocational English; short-term job training specifically
related to opportunities in the local economy; on-the-job training;
business and employer incentives (such as on-site employee orientation,
vocational English training, or bilingual supervisor assistance); and
business technical assistance. General or remedial educational
activities--such as adult basic education (ABE) or preparation for a
high school equivalency or general education diploma (GED)--may be
provided within the context of an individual employability plan for a
refugee which is intended to result in job placement in less than one
year. ORR encourages the continued provision of services after a
refugee has entered a job to help the refugee retain employment or move
to a better job. Targeted assistance funds cannot 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. If TAP funds are used for the provision of
English language training, such training should be provided
concurrently, rather than sequentially, with employment or with other
employment-related services, to the maximum extent possible.
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.
Reflecting section 412(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA, the Director of ORR
expects States to insure that women have the same opportunities as men
to participate in training and instruction. In addition, States are
expected to make sure that services are provided in a manner that
encourages the use of bilingual women on service agency staffs to
ensure adequate service access by refugee women. In order to facilitate
refugee self-support, the Director also expects States to implement
strategies which address simultaneously the employment potential of
both male and female wage earners in a family unit. States and counties
are expected to make every effort to assure availability of day care
services 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 an employed refugee, TAP-funded day care must 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.
Targeted assistance services should be provided in a manner that is
culturally and linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and
cultural background. In light of the increasingly diverse population of
refugees who are resettling in this country, refugee service agencies
will need to develop practical ways of providing culturally and
linguistically appropriate services [[Page 19272]] to a changing ethnic
population. To the maximum extent possible, particularly during a
refugee's initial years of resettlement, targeted assistance services
should be provided through a refugee-specific service system rather
than through a system in which refugees are only one of many client
groups being served.
ORR strongly encourages States and counties when contracting for
targeted assistance services, including employment services, to give
consideration to the special strengths of MAAs, whenever contract
bidders are otherwise equally qualified, provided that the MAA has the
capability to deliver services in a manner that is culturally and
linguistically compatible with the background of the target population
to be served. States may use a portion of their targeted assistance
funds, either through contracts or through the use of State/county
staff, to provide technical assistance and organizational training to
strengthen the capability of MAAs to provide employment services,
particularly in States where MAA capability is weak or undeveloped. If
a State chooses to use State employees to provide technical assistance
to MAAs, this would be an administrative cost which must be included
within the State administrative cost limit of 5% for the targeted
assistance program.
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 would be contingent
upon the completeness of a State's application as described in section
IX, below.
IV. [Reserved for Discussion of Comments in Final Notice]
V. Eligible Grantees
The following requirements, which have previously applied to TAP,
will continue to apply with respect to FY 1995 awards:
Eligible grantees are those agencies of State governments which are
responsible for the refugee program under 45 CFR 400.5 in States
containing counties which qualify for FY 1995 targeted assistance
awards. 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 this notice, the FY
1995 allocations proposed by the State must be included in the State's
application.
Applications submitted in response to this notice are not subject
to review by State and areawide clearinghouses under Executive Order
12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.
VI. Qualification and Allocation Formulas
A. Qualifying New Counties
ORR does not intend to consider data for the purpose of determining
the eligibility of new counties to participate in TAP in FY 1995. The
reason is that in FY 1996 we intend to modify the qualifying criteria
and allocations formula for targeted assistance. At that time, the
eligibility of all counties for participation in TAP will be reviewed
against the new qualifying criteria. We do not believe it makes sense
to invite new counties to submit evidence of eligibility in FY 1995
when these counties may become ineligible in FY 1996 under the new
qualifying criteria.
B. Allocation Formula
The FY 1995 TAP formula allocations are based on the same formula
as in FY 1994, updated to reflect arrivals through September 30, 1994.
Under this formula, one portion of the allocation is based on
refugee and Cuban/Haitian entrant arrivals during FY 1980-1982; funds
for this portion of the formula are allocated on the same proportionate
basis among participating counties as in FY 1994. The second portion of
the allocation is based on refugee and entrant placements in these
counties during calendar year (CY) 1983-September 30, 1994.
For the participating counties, the $25,457,300 which is allocated
by formula is apportioned as follows:
a. $7,891,763 or 31%, is allocated on the basis of the formula
which has been used for all previous targeted assistance allocations
(old formula) and which is based on initial placements during FY 1980-
1982 and other factors as described under Formula Used to Date in the
FY 1989 TAP notice published in the Federal Register on July 3, 1989
(54 FR 27944).
b. $17,565,537 or 69%, is allocated on the basis of arrivals during
CY 1983-September 30, 1994 (new formula).
The above percentages are based on the proportion of initial
placements in these counties during the two periods: 338,247 refugee
arrivals, or 31% of the total number of placements, during the old-
formula period; and 768,750 or 69%, during the new-formula period.
The old-formula allocation of $7,891,763 follows the same
distribution among counties as in the past.
The new-formula allocation of $17,565,537 is based on the number of
initial placements in each county during CY 1983-September 30, 1994.
Welfare dependency rates were not used as a factor in this portion of
the formula.
C. Allocation Formula for Communities Affected by Recent Cuban/Haitian
Arrivals
Proposed allocations for recent Cuban and Haitian refugee and
entrant arrivals are based on arrival numbers during the 3-year period
beginning October 1, 1991 through September 30, 1994. Allocations are
limited to targeted assistance counties with 3 percent or more of the
total 3-year Cuban and Haitian arrival population (35,863 arrivals) in
the 42 targeted assistance counties. We have established a 3 percent
threshold for allocations in [[Page 19273]] order to target the most
impacted communities.
VII. Proposed Allocations
Table 1 lists the participating counties, the number of placements
in each county during CY 1983--September 30, 1994, the amount of each
county's proposed allocation which is based on the old formula, the
amount of each county's allocation which is based on the new formula,
and the county's total proposed allocation.
Although Table 1 shows an amount for each county, the Director
proposes, in the case of a State which contains more than one qualified
county, to continue to permit the State to determine (in accordance
with the requirements set forth in this notice) the appropriate
allocation of the State's targeted assistance award among the qualified
counties in the State. If a State chooses to make allocations which are
different from the notice, the State, as in the FY 1994 TAP, would be
responsible for determining an appropriate and equitable basis for
allocating the funds among the qualified counties in the State and for
including in its application a description of this allocation basis,
the data to be used, and the allocation proposed for each county.
Table 2 lists the participating counties, the number of Cuban and
Haitian refugee and entrant arrivals in each county during FY 1992-FY
1994, each county's percentage of the aggregate total Cuban/Haitian
arrivals in the 42 targeted assistance counties, and the proposed
allocation amount for each county that has an arrival threshold of 3
percent or above.
Table 3 provides State totals for targeted assistance allocations.
Table 4 indicates the areas that each participating county
represents.
Table 1.--Proposed Targeted Assistance Allocations by County: FY 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portion of Portion of
Arrivals proposed FY proposed FY Total proposed
Jan. 1983- 1995 1995 FY 1995
County State Sep. 1994 allocation allocation allocation\1\
(A) under old under new (D)
formula (B) formula (C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda................................. CA 15,342 $196,075 $350,557 $546,632
Contra Costa............................ CA 4,291 56,063 98,047 154,110
Fresno.................................. CA 14,168 108,273 323,731 432,004
Los Angeles............................. CA 96,369 990,155 2,201,981 3,192,136
Merced.................................. CA 4,419 132,156 100,972 233,128
Orange.................................. CA 45,042 440,587 1,029,186 1,469,773
Sacramento.............................. CA 17,687 167,821 404,139 571,960
San Diego............................... CA 25,354 328,383 579,326 907,709
San Francisco........................... CA 25,207 254,838 575,967 830,805
San Joaquin............................. CA 9,352 169,342 213,688 383,030
Santa Clara............................. CA 34,492 327,990 788,124 1,116,114
Stanislaus.............................. CA 3,433 30,639 78,442 109,081
Tulare.................................. CA 5,345 0 122,130 122,130
Denver.................................. CO 9,863 66,147 225,364 291,511
Broward................................. FL 3,549 109,568 81,093 190,661
Dade.................................... FL 55,469 1,911,490 1,267,438 3,178,928
Hillsboro............................... FL 3,484 34,433 79,608 114,041
Palm Beach.............................. FL 3,574 45,517 81,664 127,181
Honolulu................................ HI 3,417 72,838 78,077 150,915
Cook/Kane............................... IL 36,432 342,151 832,452 1,174,603
Sedgwick................................ KS 4,038 81,534 92,266 173,800
Orleans................................. LA 3,902 55,699 89,159 144,858
Montgomery/Prince Georges............... MD 8,850 67,761 202,218 269,979
Middlesex............................... MA 6,357 53,529 145,254 198,783
Suffolk................................. MA 16,107 122,853 368,037 490,890
Hennepin................................ MN 10,446 86,311 238,686 324,997
Ramsey.................................. MN 10,263 121,357 234,504 355,861
Jackson................................. MO 4,320 31,685 98,710 130,395
Essex................................... NJ 5,925 18,336 135,383 153,719
Hudson.................................. NJ 2,946 122,698 67,315 190,013
Union................................... NJ 1,810 24,631 41,358 65,989
New York................................ NY 135,633 273,761 3,099,143 3,372,904
Multnomah............................... OR 17,069 185,998 390,018 576,016
Philadelphia............................ PA 18,645 127,317 426,028 553,345
Providence.............................. RI 4,850 90,936 110,820 201,756
Dallas/Tarrant.......................... TX 26,000 0 594,086 594,086
Harris.................................. TX 21,914 149,237 500,723 649,960
Salt Lake............................... UT 7,209 45,368 164,722 210,090
Arlington............................... VA 3,183 78,619 72,730 151,349
Fairfax................................. VA 9,011 94,800 205,897 300,697
KIng/Snohomish.......................... WA 29,264 226,469 668,667 895,136
Pierce.................................. WA 4,719 48,398 107,827 156,225
---------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. ............ 768,750 7,891,763 17,565,537 25,457,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Based on arrivals through September 30, 1994.
[[Page 19274]]
Table 2.--Proposed Targeted Assistance Allocations for Communities Affected by Recent Cuban and Haitian
Arrivals: FY 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount to be
FY 92-94 allocated:
total Cuban $19,000,000
and Haitian Percent ---------------
County State refugee and of total Proposed
entrant arrivals allocation: 3%
arrivals arrival
threshold
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda................................................... CA 6 0.02
Contra Costa.............................................. CA 1 0.00
Fresno.................................................... CA 3 0.01
Los Angeles............................................... CA 660 1.84
Merced.................................................... CA 0 0.00
Orange.................................................... CA 24 0.07
Sacramento................................................ CA 13 0.04
San Diego................................................. CA 191 0.53
San Francisco............................................. CA 274 0.76
San Joaquin............................................... CA 2 0.01
Santa Clara............................................... CA 4 0.01
Stanislaus................................................ CA 0 0.00
Tulare.................................................... CA 0 0.00
Denver.................................................... CO 56 0.16
Broward................................................... FL 1973 5.50 $1,247,695
Dade...................................................... FL 24,336 67.86 15,389,715
Hillsboro................................................. FL 800 2.23
Palm Beach................................................ FL 2601 7.25 1,644,833
Honolulu.................................................. HI 0 0.00
Cook/Kane................................................. IL 242 0.67
Sedgwick.................................................. KS 6 0.02
Orleans................................................... LA 94 0.26
Montgom./Pr. G............................................ MD 58 0.16
Middlesex................................................. MA 84 0.23
Suffolk................................................... MA 385 1.07
Hennepin.................................................. MN 51 0.14
Ramsey.................................................... MN 0 0.00
Jackson................................................... MO 310 0.86
Essex..................................................... NJ 368 1.03
Hudson.................................................... NJ 1058 2.95
Union..................................................... NJ 118 0.33
New York.................................................. NY 1135 3.16 717,757
Multnomah................................................. OR 132 0.37
Philadelphia.............................................. PA 156 0.43
Providence................................................ RI 11 0.03
Dallas/Tarrant............................................ TX 346 0.96
Harris.................................................... TX 132 0.37
Salt Lake................................................. UT 0 0.00
Arlington................................................. VA 12 0.03
Fairfax................................................... VA 2 0.01
King/Snohomish............................................ WA 219 0.61
Pierce.................................................... WA 0 0.00
---------------------------------------
Total............................................... ............ 35,863 100.00 19,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Proposed Targeted Assistance Allocations by State: FY 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1995
State allocation\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California............................................ $10,068,612
Colorado.............................................. 291,511
Florida............................................... \2\21,893,054
Hawaii................................................ 150,915
Illinois.............................................. 1,174,603
Kansas................................................ 173,800
Louisiana............................................. 144,858
Maryland.............................................. 269,979
Massachusetts......................................... 689,673
Minnesota............................................. 680,858
Missouri.............................................. 130,395
New Jersey............................................ 409,721
New York.............................................. \2\4,090,661
Oregon................................................ 576,016
Pennsylvania.......................................... 553,345
[[Page 19275]]
Rhode Island.......................................... 201,756
Texas................................................. 1,244,046
Utah.................................................. 210,090
Virginia.............................................. 452,046
Washington............................................ 1,051,361
-----------------
Total........................................... 44,457,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Based on arrivals through September 30, 1994.
\2\The allocations for Florida and New York include $18,282,243 and
$717,757 respectively for communities affected by Cuban and Haitian
entrants and refugees. This is referred to in the Conference Report on
the appropriation: ``to serve communities affected by the Cuban and
Haitian entrants and refugees whose arrivals in recent years have
increased.''
Table 4.--Targeted Assistance Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Targeted assistance area\1\ Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Alameda
CA Contra Costa
CA Fresno
CA Los Angeles
CA Merced
CA Orange
CA Sacramento
CA San Diego
CA San Francisco............... Marin, San Francisco and San
Mateo Counties.
CA San Joaquin
CA Santa Clara
CA Stanislaus
CA Tulare
CO Denver...................... Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,
Denver and Jefferson
Counties.
FL Broward
FL Dade
FL Hillsborough
FL Palm Beach
HI Honolulu
IL Cook/Kane
KS Sedgwick
LA Orleans..................... Jefferson and Orleans
Parishes.
MD Montgomery/Prince Georges
MA Middlesex
MA Suffolk
MN Hennepin
MN Ramsey
MO Jackson..................... Jackson County, Mo and
Wyandotte County KS.
NJ Essex
NJ Hudson
NJ Union
NY New York.................... Bronx, Kings, New York,
Queens, and, Richmond
Counties.
OR Multnomah................... Clackamas, Multnomah and
Washington Counties, OR and
Clark County, WA
PA Philadelphia
RI Providence
TX Dallas/Tarrant
TX Harris
UT Salt Lake................... Davis, Salt Lake and Utah
Counties.
VA Arlington
VA Fairfax..................... Fairfax County and the
indep. cities of
Alexandria, Fairfax and
Falls Church.
WA King/Snohomish
WA Pierce
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Consists of named county/counties unless otherwise defined.
VIII. Application and Implementation Process
Under the FY 1995 targeted assistance program, States would apply
for and receive grant awards on behalf of qualified counties in the
State. A single allocation would be made to each State by ORR on the
basis of an approved State application. The State agency would, in
turn, receive, review, and determine the acceptability of individual
county targeted assistance plans.
TAP funds will be awarded through a more streamlined grant process
similar to that used for the ORR social services formula grant program.
An application [[Page 19276]] and assurances are still required of the
States eligible to receive TAP funding. FY 1995 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. There will be no
carryover of unobligated funds into the FY 1996 grant award. Funds must
be liquidated within two years after the end of the Federal fiscal year
in which the Department awarded the grant. A State's final financial
report on targeted assistance expenditures must be received no later
than two years after the end of the Federal fiscal year in which the
Department awarded the grant. If final reports are not received on
time, the Department will deobligate any unexpended funds, including
any unliquidated obligations, on the basis of a State's last filed
report.
Although additional funding to Florida and New York for communities
affected by Cuban and Haitian entrants and refugees whose arrivals in
recent years have increased is part of the appropriation amount for
targeted assistance, the scope of activities for these additional funds
will be administratively determined. Applications for these funds are
therefore not subject to provisions contained in this notice but to
other requirements which will be conveyed separately. Similarly, the
requirements regarding the 10% portion of the targeted assistance
appropriation as well as the supplemental funds to the 10% portion of
the targeted assistance appropriation that will be awarded separately
have been addressed in the grant announcements for those funds.
IX. Application Requirements
The proposed State application requirements for grants for the FY
1995 targeted assistance formula allocation are as follows:
States that are currently operating under approved management plans
for their FY 1994 targeted assistance program and wish to continue to
do so for their FY 1995 grants may provide the following in lieu of
resubmitting the full currently approved plan:
The State's application for FY 1995 funding shall provide:
A. Assurance that the State's current management plan for the
administration of the targeted assistance program, as approved by ORR,
will continue to be in full force and effect for the FY 1995 targeted
assistance program, subject to any additional assurances or revisions
required by this notice which are not reflected in the current plan.
Any proposed modifications to the approved plan will be identified in
the application and are subject to ORR review and approval. Any
proposed changes must address and reference all appropriate portions of
the FY 1994 application content requirements to ensure complete
incorporation in the State's management plan.
B. Assurance that, for each qualified local area, targeted
assistance funds will be used primarily for, but not limited to,
services to cash assistance recipients.
C. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used primarily
for the provision of services which directly enhance refugee employment
potential, have specific employment objectives, and 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 1995 targeted assistance formula allocation funds that
are used for services will be allocated for employment services.
D. 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 administering the program locally: States that have
administered 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, projected outcomes, 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.
States with two or more counties receiving targeted assistance
funds: As in FY 1994, a State with two or more local areas which
qualify for the program may choose to determine respective county
allocations. If the State chooses to determine county allocations
differently from those set forth in Table 1 of this notice, the State
must provide a description of the State's proposed allocation plan and
the basis for the proposed allocations. The application must contain a
description of the allocation approach, data used in its determination,
the calculated allocation amount for each county, and the rationale for
the proposed allocations. States are encouraged to revise allocation
formulas to assure appropriate funding among eligible counties for the
duration of the grant such that targeted assistance activities within
the State conclude simultaneously. Where the State chooses not to
determine county allocation amounts, the State must provide the
allocations which are specified in this notice.
X. Reporting Requirements
States will be required to submit quarterly reports on the outcomes
of the targeted assistance program, using the same form which States
use for reporting on refugee social services formula grants. This is
Schedule A and Schedule C of the ORR-6 Quarterly Performance Report
form. ORR is no longer using the ORR-12 form which was originally used
to report on the outcomes of the targeted assistance program. ORR is
consolidating its reporting requirements. The new reporting form will
consolidate social services and targeted assistance performance
reporting in one format in order to simplify and coordinate reporting.
The new form will be available when reporting on FY 1995 grants begins,
which would be at the end of the first quarter of FY 1996.
Dated: April 10, 1995.
Regina Lee,
Deputy Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[FR Doc. 95-9365 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
