[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 88 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20260-20268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11145]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
Refugee Resettlement Program; Proposed Availability of Formula
Allocation Funding for FY 1996 Targeted Assistance Grants for Services
to Refugees in Local Areas of High Need
AGENCY: Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), ACF, HHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed availability of formula allocation funding
for FY 1996 targeted assistance grants to States for services to
refugees \1\ in local areas of high need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to persons who meet all requirements of 45 CFR
400.43, ``Requirements for documentation of refugee status,''
eligibility for targeted assistance includes Cuban and Haitian
entrants, certain Amerasians from Vietnam who are admitted to the
U.S. as immigrants, and certain Amerasians from Vietnam who are U.S.
citizens. (See section II of this notice on ``Authorization.'') The
term ``refugee'', used in this notice for convenience, is intended
to encompass such additional persons who are eligible to participate
in refugee program services, including the targeted assistance
program.
Refugees admitted to the U.S. under admissions numbers set aside
for private-sector-initiative admissions are not eligible to be
served under the targeted assistance program (or under other
programs supported by Federal refugee funds) during their period of
coverage under their sponsoring agency's agreement with the
Department of State--usually two years from their date of arrival,
or until they obtain permanent resident alien status, whichever
comes first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20261]]
SUMMARY: This notice announces the proposed availability of funds and
award procedures for FY 1996 targeted assistance grants for services to
refugees under the Refugee Resettlement Program (RRP). These grants are
for service provision in localities with large refugee populations,
high refugee concentrations, and high use of public assistance, and
where specific needs exist for supplementation of currently available
resources. This notice reflects the final rule published in the Federal
Register on June 28, 1995 (60 FR 33584) which was effective October 1,
1995. This rule established a new subpart L, providing regulations for
the Targeted Assistance Program (TAP) for the first time.
This notice proposes that the qualification of counties be based on
refugee and entrant arrivals during the 5-year period from FY 1991
through FY 1995, in keeping with ORR's new regulation, and on the
concentration of refugees and entrants as a percentage of the general
population. Under this proposal, 15 new counties would qualify for
targeted assistance and 19 counties which previously received targeted
assistance grants would no longer qualify for targeted assistance
funding. This notice also proposes a new allocation formula to reflect
the limitation on the use of targeted assistance funding for services
to refugees who have resided in the United States 5 years or less.
In addition, this notice replaces the schedule of allowable
administrative cost amounts for local administrative budgets that
appeared in previous notices with an allowable administrative cost
amount of up to 15% for all TAP counties for the purpose of increasing
local flexibility and oversight.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be received before June 5, 1996.
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.
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 $55,397,000
in FY 1996 funds for the targeted assistance program (TAP) as part of
the FY 1996 appropriation for the Department of Health and Human
Services (Pub. L. 104-134).
The FY 1996 House Appropriations Committee Report (H.R. Rept. No.
104-209) reads as follows with respect to targeted assistance funds:
This program provides grants to States for counties which are
impacted by high concentrations of refugees and high dependency rates.
The Committee agrees that $19,000,000 is available for targeted
assistance to serve communities affected by the Cuban and Haitian
entrants and refugees whose arrivals in recent years have increased.
The Committee has set-aside 20 percent of these funds for increased
support to communities with large concentrations of refugees whose
cultural differences make assimilation especially difficult justifying
a more intense and longer duration level of Federal assistance.
The Conference Report on Appropriations (H. Rept. No. 104- )
agrees with the allocation of targeted assistance contained in the
House Report.
The Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) proposes
to use the $55,397,000 appropriated for FY 1996 targeted assistance as
follows:
$25,317,600 will be allocated under the proposed 5-year
population formula, as set forth in this notice.
$19,000,000 will be awarded to serve communities most
heavily affected by recent Cuban and Haitian entrant arrivals.
$11,079,400 (20% of the total) will be awarded under a
discretionary grant announcement that will be issued separately setting
forth application requirements and evaluation criteria. These funds
will be used to provide increased support to communities with large
concentrations of refugees whose cultural differences make assimilation
especially difficult, in accordance with the intent of Congress as
reflected in the House Appropriations Committee Report.
In addition, the Office of Refugee Resettlement will have available
an additional $5,000,000 in FY 1996 funds for the targeted assistance
discretionary program through the Foreign Operations, Export Financing,
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1996 (Pub. L. 104-107). These
funds are to be used for grants to localities most heavily impacted by
the influx of refugees such as Laotian Hmong, Cambodians and Soviet
Pentecostals, and will be awarded under a discretionary grant
announcement which 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
[[Page 20262]]
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Acts, 1989 (Pub. L. 100-
461), 1990 (Pub. L. 101-167), and 1991 (Pub. L. 101-513).
III. Client and Service Priorities
Targeted assistance funding must be used to assist refugee families
to achieve economic independence. To this end, States and counties are
required to ensure that a coherent family self-sufficiency plan is
developed for each eligible family that addresses the family's needs
from time of arrival until attainment of economic independence. (See
Secs. 400.79 and 400.156(g) of the final rule.) Each family self-
sufficiency plan should address a family's needs for both employment-
related services and other needed social services. The family self-
sufficiency plan must include: (1) A determination of the income level
a family would have to earn to exceed its cash grant and move into
self-support without suffering a monetary penalty; (2) a strategy and
timetable for obtaining that level of family income through the
placement in employment of sufficient numbers of employable family
members at sufficient wage levels; and (3) employability plans for
every employable member of the family. In local jurisdictions that have
both targeted assistance and refugee social services programs, one
family self-sufficiency plan may be developed for a family that
incorporates both targeted assistance and refugee social services.
Services funded through the targeted assistance program are
required to focus primarily on those refugees who, either because of
their protracted use of public assistance or difficulty in securing
employment, continue to need services beyond the initial years of
resettlement. Effective October 1, 1995, under new regulations at
Sec. 400.315(b) published in the Federal Register on June 28, 1995, (60
FR 33584), States may not provide services funded under this notice,
except for referral and interpreter services, to refugees who have been
in the United States for more than 60 months (5 years). States may,
however, continue to provide employability services through September
30, 1996, or until the services are completed, whichever occurs first,
to refugees who have been in the U.S. for more than 60 months, who were
receiving employability services, as defined in Sec. 400.316, as of
September 30, 1995, as part of an employability plan.
In accordance with Sec. 400.314, States are required to provide
targeted assistance services to refugees in the following order of
priority, except in certain individual extreme circumstances: (a)
Refugees who are cash assistance recipients, particularly long-term
recipients; (b) unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash
assistance; and (c) employed refugees in need of services to retain
employment or to attain economic independence.
In addition to the statutory requirement that TAP funds be used
``primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment''
(section 412(c)(2)(B)(i)), funds awarded under this program are
intended to help fulfill the Congressional intent that ``employable
refugees should be placed on jobs as soon as possible after their
arrival in the United States'' (section 412(a)(1)(B)(i) of the INA).
Therefore, in accordance with Sec. 400.313, 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 45 CFR 400.316.
Reflecting section 412(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA, States must
``insure that women have the same opportunities as men to participate
in training and instruction.'' In addition, in accordance with
Sec. 400.317, services must be provided to the maximum extent feasible
in a manner that includes the use of bilingual/bicultural women on
service agency staffs to ensure adequate service access by refugee
women. The Director also strongly encourages the inclusion of refugee
women in management and board positions in agencies that serve
refugees. In order to facilitate refugee self-support, the Director
also expects States to implement strategies which address
simultaneously the employment potential of both male and female wage
earners in a family unit. States and counties are expected to make
every effort to assure availability of day care services for children
in order to allow women with children the opportunity to participate in
employment services or to accept or retain employment. To accomplish
this, day care may be treated as a priority employment-related service
under the targeted assistance program. Refugees who are participating
in TAP-funded or social services-funded employment services or have
accepted employment are eligible for day care services for children.
For an employed refugee, TAP-funded day care should be limited to one
year after the refugee becomes employed. States and counties, however,
are expected to use day care funding from other publicly funded
mainstream programs as a prior 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 in the new regulations, targeted
assistance services must be provided in a manner that is culturally and
linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and cultural
background, to the maximum extent feasible. In light of the
increasingly diverse population of refugees who are resettling in this
country, refugee service agencies will need to develop practical ways
of providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services to a
changing ethnic population. Services funded under this notice must be
refugee-specific services which are designed specifically to meet
refugee needs and are in keeping with the rules and objectives of the
refugee program. Vocational or job-skills training, on-the-job
training, or English language training, however, need not be refugee-
specific.
When planning targeted assistance services, States must take into
account the reception and placement (R&P) services provided by local
resettlement agencies in order to utilize these resources in the
overall program design and to ensure the provision of seamless,
coordinated services to refugees that are not duplicative. See
Sec. 400.156(b).
ORR strongly encourages States and counties when contracting for
targeted assistance services, including employment services, to give
consideration to the special strengths of mutual assistance
associations (MAAs), whenever contract bidders are otherwise equally
qualified, provided that the
[[Page 20263]]
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 1996 targeted assistance
awards.
The Director of ORR proposes to determine the eligibility of
counties for inclusion in the FY 1996 targeted assistance program on
the basis of the method described in section VI of this notice.
The use of targeted assistance funds for services to Cuban and
Haitian entrants is limited to States which have an approved State plan
under the Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program (CHEP).
The State agency will submit a single application on behalf of all
county governments of the qualified counties in that State. Subsequent
to the approval of the State's application by ORR, local targeted
assistance plans will be developed by the county government or other
designated entity and submitted to the State.
A State with more than one qualified county is permitted, but not
required, to determine the allocation 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 1996 allocations proposed by the
State must be based on the State's population of refugees who arrived
in the U.S. during the most recent 5-year period. A State may use
welfare data as an additional factor in the allocation of its targeted
assistance funds if it so chooses; however, a State may not assign a
greater weight to welfare data than it has assigned to population data
in its allocation formula. In addition, if a State chooses to allocate
its FY 1996 targeted assistance funds in a manner different from the
formula set forth in the final notice, the FY 1996 allocations and
methodology proposed by the State must be included in the State's
application for ORR review and approval.
Applications submitted in response to 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 Formulas
Beginning with FY 1996, ORR proposes to eliminate the formulas used
to date for qualification for, and allocation of, targeted assistance
funds and replace them with new formulas in keeping with Sec. 400.315
in ORR's final rule which limits the use of targeted assistance funds
to serving refugees who have been in the U.S. 5 years or less.
A. Qualifying New Counties
In order to qualify for application for FY 1996 targeted assistance
funds, a county (or group of adjacent counties with the same Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area, or SMSA) or independent city, 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 1991--FY 1995); and (2) the 5-year refugee/entrant
population as a percent of the county overall population.
Welfare dependency will no longer be used as a qualifying criterion
since welfare dependency data for refugee AFDC recipients have not been
available at the national level since FY 1989.
Each county 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 38
counties. ORR has decided to limit the number of qualified counties to
the top 38 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) 23 counties
which have previously received targeted assistance would continue to
qualify; (2) 19 counties which have previously received targeted
assistance would no longer qualify; and (3) 15 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 ORR Director proposes to determine qualification of counties
for targeted assistance funds once every three years. Thus the proposed
counties listed in this notice as qualified to apply for FY 1996 TAP
funding would remain qualified for TAP funding through FY 1998. ORR
does not plan to consider the eligibility of additional counties for
TAP funding until FY 1999, when ORR will again review data on all
counties that
[[Page 20264]]
could potentially qualify for TAP funds based on the criteria proposed
in this notice. We believe that a more frequent redetermination of
county qualification for targeted assistance would not provide
qualifying counties a sufficient period of time within a stable funding
climate to adequately address the refugee impact in their counties,
while a less frequent redetermination of county qualification would
pose the risk of not considering new population impacts in a timely
manner.
B. Allocation Formula
Of the funds available for FY 1996 for targeted assistance,
$25,317,600 would be allocated by formula to States for qualifying
counties based on the initial placements of refugees, Amerasians, and
entrants in these counties during the 5-year period from FY 1991
through FY 1995 (October 1, 1990--September 30, 1995).
At this time, ORR entrant arrival data do not include Cuban
parolees who came to the U.S. directly from Havana in FY 1995 under the
U.S. Bilateral Agreement with Cuba. Reliable data on these parolees are
difficult to obtain since these parolees are not resettled through
sponsoring agencies. We hope to be able to establish a method for
obtaining reliable arrival data on these entrants in the future. States
that wish to receive credit for its Cuban parolee population that came
directly from Havana in FY 1995, may submit evidence to ORR during the
30-day comment period for consideration. Evidence should include the
parolee's name, alien number, date of birth, and date of arrival.
In the final notice, allocation amounts may reflect final
adjustments in FY 1995 arrival data in some States.
C. Allocation Formula for Communities Affected by Recent Cuban/Haitian
Arrivals
Allocations for recent Cuban and Haitian entrant arrivals are based
on entrant arrival numbers during the 5-year period beginning October
1, 1990 through September 30, 1995. Allocations are limited to targeted
assistance counties that received 900 or more Cuban and Haitian
arrivals during the 5-year period. We have limited allocations to
counties with at least 900 entrants to target these resources on the
most impacted counties.
VII. Allocations
Table 3 lists the proposed qualifying counties, the number of
refugee/entrant arrivals in those counties during the 5-year period
from October 1, 1990-September 30, 1995, the proposed amount of each
county's allocation based on its 5-year arrival population, the number
of Cuban and Haitian entrant arrivals in each county during FY 1991-FY
1995, the allocation amount for each county that received 900 or more
entrants during the 5-year period, and the total proposed FY 1996
allocation for each county.
Table 4 provides State totals for targeted assistance allocations.
Table 5 indicates the areas that each proposed qualified county
represents.
Table 1.--Top 38 Counties Eligible for Targeted Assistance
[Targeted Assistance Counties Proposed for Continuation]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-year
County and state arrival Concentration Rank
pop. percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda, CA........................ 5,915 0.4624 24
Fresno, CA......................... 6,856 1.0271 7
Merced, CA......................... 1,885 1.0566 37
Orange, CA......................... 26,216 1.0876 4
Sacramento, CA..................... 12,967 1.2454 5
San Diego, CA...................... 13,571 0.5433 14
San Francisco, CA.................. 11,798 0.7357 11
San Joaquin, CA.................... 3,016 0.6275 28
Santa Clara, CA.................... 18,395 1.2283 3
Los Angeles, CA.................... 30,383 0.3428 20
Dade, FL........................... 45,405 2.3440 1
Palm Beach, FL..................... 3,517 0.4073 35
Cook/Kane, IL...................... 18,969 0.3498 1
Suffolk, MA........................ 6,298 0.9486 13
Hennepin, MN....................... 5,322 0.5155 22
Ramsey, MN......................... 4,811 0.9904 15
New York, NY....................... 87,553 1.1957 2
Multnomah, OR...................... 11,454 0.8110 9
Philadelphia, PA................... 8,642 0.5450 16
Dallas/Tarrant, TX................. 13,360 0.4420 17
Harris, TX......................... 11,328 0.4020 23
Fairfax, VA........................ 4,847 0.5054 25
King, WA........................... 17,618 0.8930 6
New Counties That Would Qualify:
District of Columbia........... 4,467 0.7360 18
Duval, FL...................... 3,267 0.4855 33
De Kalb, GA.................... 5,761 1.0554 1
Fulton, GA..................... 6,580 1.0139 10
Polk, IA....................... 2,784 0.8510 7
City of Baltimore, MD.......... 3,568 0.4848 29
Oakland, MI.................... 4,100 0.3784 38
City of St Louis, MO........... 5,442 1.3719 8
Lancaster, NE.................. 2,894 1.3546 19
Bernalillo, NM................. 2,776 0.5776 36
Broome, NY..................... 2,154 1.0153 34
Monroe, NY..................... 3,495 0.4895 30
Oneida, NY..................... 2,300 0.9169 43
Davidson, TN................... 3,308 0.6476 26
[[Page 20265]]
Richmond, VA................... 2,165 1.0662 31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Targeted Assistance Counties That Would No Longer Qualify
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-year
County and state arrival Concentration Rank
pop. percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contra Costa, CA................... 1,748 0.2175 87
Tulare, CA......................... 1,110 0.3559 85
Stanislaus, CA..................... 1,258 0.3395 81
Denver, CO......................... 5,472 0.3061 39
Broward, FL........................ 3,356 0.2673 51
Hillsborough, FL................... 2,610 0.3129 56
Honolulu, HI....................... 1,363 0.1630 110
Sedgwick, KS....................... 1,572 0.3894 67
Orleans, LA........................ 1,257 0.1330 118
Montgomery/Prince Georges, MD...... 4,528 0.3047 48
Middlesex, MA...................... 3,114 0.2227 62
Jackson, MO........................ 3,233 0.4066 41
Essex, NJ.......................... 2,088 0.2683 68
Hudson, NJ......................... 2,726 0.4929 45
Union, NJ.......................... 1,218 0.2466 101
Providence, RI..................... 1,389 0.2329 96
Salt Lake, UT...................... 2,957 0.2511 60
Arlington, VA...................... 1,468 0.8588 53
Pierce, WA......................... 2,825 0.4819 42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Proposed Targeted Assistance Allocations by County: FY 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrivals: $25,317,600 $19,000,000 $44,317,600
refugee + Proposed FY Entrants FY Entrants: more Proposed FY Total proposed
County, state entrant FY 1996 1991-1995 than 900 1996 C/H FY 1996
1991-1995 allocation allocation allocation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAMEDA, CA............................................. 5,915 $352,205 16 .............. .............. $352,205
FRESNO, CA.............................................. 6,856 408,236 0 .............. .............. 408,236
LOS ANGELES, CA......................................... 30,383 1,809,136 604 .............. .............. 1,809,136
MERCED, CA.............................................. 1,855 112,241 0 .............. .............. 112,241
ORANGE, CA.............................................. 26,218 1,561,134 30 .............. .............. 1,561,134
SACRAMENTO, CA.......................................... 12,967 772,112 3 .............. .............. 772,112
SAN DIEGO, CA........................................... 13,571 808,076 370 .............. .............. 808,076
SAN FRANSCISCO, CA...................................... 11,798 702,504 187 .............. .............. 702,504
SAN JOAQUIN, CA......................................... 3,016 179,586 2 .............. .............. 179,586
SANTA CLARA, CA......................................... 18,395 1,095,318 12 .............. .............. 1,095,318
DISTRICT OF COL......................................... 4,467 265,985 13 .............. .............. 265,985
DADE, FL................................................ 45,405 2,703,611 33,701 33,701 $16,666,294 19,369,905
DUVAL, FL............................................... 3,267 194,531 20 .............. .............. 194,531
PALM BEACH, FL.......................................... 3,517 209,417 2,757 2,757 1,363,430 1,572,847
DE KALB, GA............................................. 5,761 343,035 18 .............. .............. 343,035
FULTON, GA.............................................. 6,580 391,802 164 .............. .............. 391,802
COOK/KANE, IL........................................... 18,969 1,129,497 321 .............. .............. 1,129,497
POLK, IA................................................ 2,784 165,771 0 .............. .............. 165,771
BALTIMORE, MD \1\....................................... 3,568 212,454 1 .............. .............. 212,454
SUFFOLK, MA............................................. 6,298 375,010 270 .............. .............. 375,010
OAKLAND, MI............................................. 4,100 244,132 8 .............. .............. 244,132
HENNEPIN, MN............................................ 5,322 316,895 0 .............. .............. 316,895
RAMSEY, MN.............................................. 4,811 286,468 8 .............. .............. 286,468
ST LOUIS, MO \1\........................................ 5,442 324,040 1 .............. .............. 324,040
LANCASTER, NE........................................... 2,894 172,321 5 .............. .............. 172,321
BERNALILLO, NM.......................................... 2,776 165,295 950 950 469,807 635,102
BROOME, NY.............................................. 2,154 128,259 29 .............. .............. 128,259
MONROE, NY.............................................. 3,495 208,107 403 .............. .............. 208,107
NEW YORK, NY............................................ 87,553 5,213,286 1,012 1,012 500,469 5,713,755
ONEIDA, NY.............................................. 2,300 136,952 1 .............. .............. 136,952
MULTNOMAH, OR........................................... 11,454 682,021 320 .............. .............. 682,021
PHILADELPHIA, PA........................................ 8,642 514,582 65 .............. .............. 514,582
DAVIDSON, TN............................................ 3,308 196,973 1 .............. .............. 196,973
[[Page 20266]]
DALLAS/TARRANT, TX...................................... 13,360 795,513 441 .............. .............. 795,513
HARRIS, TX.............................................. 11,328 674,518 93 .............. .............. 674,518
FAIRFAX, VA............................................. 4,847 288,611 3 .............. .............. 288,611
RICHMOND, VA............................................ 2,165 128,914 82 .............. .............. 128,914
KING/SNOHOMISH, WA...................................... 17,618 1,049,052 12 .............. .............. 1,049,052
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 425,189 25,317,600 41,923 38,420 19,000,000 44,317,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The qualifying local jurisdiction is the independent City of Baltimore and the independent City of St. Louis.
Table 4.--Proposed Targeted Assistance Allocations by State: FY 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrivals: $25,317,600 $19,000,000 $44,317,600
Refugee + Proposed FY Proposed FY Total Proposed
State Entrant FY 1996 1996 C/H FY 1996
1991-1995 Allocation Allocation Allocation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIA...................................... 131,004 $7,800,548 .............. $7,800,548
DISTRICT OF COL................................. 4,467 265,985 .............. 265,985
FLORIDA......................................... 52,189 3,107,559 $18,029,724 21,137,283
GEORGIA......................................... 12,341 734,837 .............. 734,837
ILLINOIS........................................ 18,969 1,129,497 .............. 1,129,497
IOWA............................................ 2,784 165,771 .............. 165,771
MARYLAND........................................ 3,568 212,454 .............. 212,454
MASSACHUSETTS................................... 6,298 375,010 .............. 375,010
MICHIGAN........................................ 4,100 244,132 .............. 244,132
MINNESOTA....................................... 10,133 603,363 .............. 603,363
MISSOURI........................................ 5,442 324,040 .............. 324,040
NEBRASKA........................................ 2,894 172,321 .............. 172,321
NEW MEXICO...................................... 2,776 165,295 469,807 635,102
NEW YORK........................................ 95,502 5,686,604 500,469 6,187,073
OREGON.......................................... 11,454 682,021 .............. 682,021
PENNSYLVANIA.................................... 8,642 514,582 .............. 514,582
TENNESSEE....................................... 3,308 196,973 .............. 196,973
TEXAS........................................... 24,688 1,470,031 .............. 1,470,031
VIRGINIA........................................ 7,012 417,525 .............. 417,525
WASHINGTON...................................... 17,618 1,049,052 .............. 1,049,052
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 425,189 25,317,600 19,000,000 44,317,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--Targeted Assistance Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Targeted assistance
State area \1\ Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA............... ALAMEDA
CA............... FRESNO
CA............... LOS ANGELES
CA............... MERCED
CA............... ORANGE
CA............... SACRAMENTO
CA............... SAN DIEGO
CA............... SAN FRANCISCO MARIN, SAN FRANCISCO, & SAN
MATEO COUNTIES
CA............... SAN JOAQUIN
CA............... SANTA CLARA
DC............... DISTRICT OF COL.
FL............... DADE
FL............... DUVAL
FL............... PALM BEACH
GA............... DEKALB
GA............... FULTON
IL............... COOK/KANE
IA............... POLK
MD............... CITY OF BALTIMORE
MA............... SUFFOLK
MI............... OAKLAND
MN............... HENNEPIN
MN............... RAMSEY
[[Page 20267]]
MO............... CITY OF ST. LOUIS
NE............... LANCASTER
NM............... BERNALILLO
NY............... BROOME
NY............... MONROE
NY............... NEW YORK BRONX, KINGS, NEW YORK,
QUEENS, & RICHMOND
COUNTIES.
NY............... ONEIDA
OR............... MULTNOMAH CLACKAMAS, MULTNOMAH, &
WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OR. &
CLARK COUNTY, WA.
PA............... PHILADELPHIA
TN............... DAVIDSON
TX............... DALLAS/TARRANT
TX............... HARRIS
VA............... FAIRFAX FAIRFAX COUNTY & THE
INDEPENDENT CITIES OF
ALEXANDRIA, FAIRFAX AND
FALLS CHURCH.
VA............... RICHMOND
WA............... KING/SNOHOMISH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consists of named county/counties unless otherwise defined.
VIII. Application and Implementation Process
Under the FY 1996 targeted assistance program, States may apply for
and receive grant awards on behalf of qualified counties in the State.
A single allocation will be made to each State by ORR on the basis of
an approved State application. The State agency will, in turn, receive,
review, and determine the acceptability of individual county targeted
assistance plans.
Pursuant to Sec. 400.210(b), FY 1996 targeted assistance funds must
be obligated by the State agency no later than one year after the end
of the Federal fiscal year in which the Department awarded the grant.
Funds must be liquidated within two years after the end of the Federal
fiscal year in which the Department awarded the grant. A State's final
financial report on targeted assistance expenditures must be received
no later than two years after the end of the Federal fiscal year in
which the Department awarded the grant. If final reports are not
received on time, the Department will deobligate any unexpended funds,
including any unliquidated obligations, on the basis of a State's last
filed report.
Although additional funding for communities affected by Cuban and
Haitian entrants and refugees whose arrivals in recent years have
increased is part of the appropriation amount for targeted assistance,
the scope of activities for these additional funds will be
administratively determined. Applications for these funds are therefore
not subject to provisions contained in this notice but to other
requirements which will be conveyed separately. Similarly, the
requirements regarding the discretionary portion of the targeted
assistance appropriation will be addressed separately in the grant
announcement for those funds.
IX. Application Requirements
In applying for targeted assistance funds, a State agency is
required to provide the following:
A. Assurance that effective October 1, 1995, targeted assistance
funds will be used in accordance with the new ORR regulations published
in the Federal Register on June 28, 1995.
B. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used primarily
for the provision of services which are designed to enable refugees to
obtain jobs with less than one year's participation in the targeted
assistance program. States must indicate what percentage of FY 1996
targeted assistance formula allocation funds that are used for services
will be allocated for employment services.
C. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will not be used to
offset funding otherwise available to counties or local jurisdictions
from the State agency in its administration of other programs, e.g.
social services, cash and medical assistance, etc.
D. Identification of the local administering agency.
E. The amount of funds to be awarded to the targeted county or
counties. If a State with more than one qualifying targeted assistance
county chooses to allocate its targeted assistance funds differently
from the formula allocation for counties presented in the ORR targeted
assistance notice in a fiscal year, its allocations must be based on
the State's population of refugees who arrived in the U.S. during the
most recent 5-year period. A State may use welfare data as an
additional factor in the allocation of targeted assistance funds if it
so chooses; however, a State may not assign a greater weight to welfare
data than it has assigned to population data in its allocation formula.
The application must provide a description of, and supporting data for,
the State's proposed allocation plan, the data to be used, and the
proposed allocation for each county.
In instances where a State receives targeted assistance funding for
impacted counties contained in a standard metropolitan statistical area
(SMSA) which includes a county or counties located in a neighboring
State, the State receiving those funds must provide a description of
coordination and planning activities undertaken with the State Refugee
Coordinator of the neighboring State in which the impacted county or
counties are located. These planning and coordination activities should
result in a proposed allocation plan for the equitable distribution of
targeted assistance funds by county based on the distribution of the
eligible population by county within the SMSA. The proposed allocation
plan must be included in the State's application to ORR.
F. A description of the State's guidelines for the required content
of county targeted assistance plans and a description of the State's
review/approval process for such county plans. Acceptable county plans
must minimally include the following:
1. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used in
accordance with the new ORR regulations published in the Federal
Register on June 28, 1995. In particular, a description of a county's
plan to carry out the requirements of 45 CFR 400.156.
2. Procedures for carrying out a local planning process for
determining
[[Page 20268]]
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. Beginning with FY 1996 funds,
all TAP counties will be allowed to spend up to 15% of their allocation
on TAP administrative costs, as need requires. However, States and
counties are strongly encouraged to limit administrative costs to the
extent possible to maximize available funding for services to clients.
9. For any State that administers the program directly or otherwise
provides direct service to the refugee/entrant population (with the
concurrence of the county), the State must provide ORR with the same
information required above for review and prior approval.
G. All applicants must establish targeted assistance proposed
performance goals for each of the 6 ORR performance outcome measures
for each impacted county's proposed service contract(s) or sub-grants
for the next contracting cycle. Proposed performance goals must be
included in the application for each performance measure. The 6 ORR
performance measures are: entered employments, cash assistance
reductions due to employment, cash assistance terminations due to
employment, 90-day employment retentions, average wage at placement,
and job placements with available health benefits. Targeted assistance
program activity and progress achieved toward meeting performance
outcome goals are to be reported quarterly on the ORR-6, the
``Quarterly Performance Report.''
States which are currently grantees for targeted assistance funds
should base projected annual outcome goals on past performance. Current
grantees should have adequate baseline data for at least 3 of the 6 ORR
performance outcome measures (entered employments, 90 day retentions,
and average wage at placement) based on a long history (in some cases,
as much as 12 years) of targeted assistance program experience. Where
baseline data do not exist for a specific performance outcome measure,
current grantees should use available performance data from the current
targeted assistance funding cycle to establish reasonable outcome goals
for contractors and sub-grantees on all 6 measures.
States identified as new eligible targeted assistance grantees are
also required to set proposed outcome goals for each of the 6 ORR
performance outcome measures. New grantees may use baseline data, as
available, and current data as reported on the ORR-6 for social
services program activity to assist them in the goal-setting process.
Proposed targeted assistance outcome goals should reflect
improvement over past performance and strive for continuous improvement
during the project period from one year to another.
H. An identification of the contracting cycle dates for targeted
assistance service contracts in each county. States with more than one
qualified county are encouraged to ensure that all counties
participating in TAP in the State use the same contracting cycle dates.
I. A description of the State's plan for conducting fiscal and
programmatic monitoring and evaluations of the targeted assistance
program, including frequency of on-site monitoring.
J. Assurance that the State will make available to the county or
designated local entity not less than 95% of the amount of its formula
allocation for purposes of implementing the activities proposed in its
plan, except in the case of a State that administers the program
locally as described in item F9 above.
K. A line item budget and justification for State administrative
costs limited to a maximum of 5% of the total award to the State. Each
total budget period funding amount requested must be necessary,
reasonable, and allocable to the project. States that administer the
program locally in lieu of the county, through a mutual agreement with
the qualifying county, may add up to, but not exceed, 10% of the
county's TAP allocation to the State's administrative budget.
L. Assurance that the State will follow or mandate that its sub-
recipients will follow appropriate State procurement and contract
requirements in the acquisition, administration, and management of
targeted assistance service contracts.
X. Reporting Requirements
Effective January 1, 1996, States will be required to submit
quarterly reports on the outcomes of the targeted assistance program,
using Schedule A and Schedule C of the new ORR-6 Quarterly Performance
Report form which was sent to States in ORR State Letter 95-35 on
November 6, 1995.
Dated: April 29, 1996.
Lavinia Limon,
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[FR Doc. 96-11145 Filed 5-03-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
