[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 135 (Friday, July 12, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36739-36752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17808]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Food and Drug Administration
Office of Refugee Resettlement
Refugee Resettlement Program; 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: Final notice of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the 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 announces that the qualification of counties is 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 notice, 15 new counties will qualify for
targeted assistance and 18 counties which previously received targeted
assistance grants will no longer qualify for targeted assistance
funding. This notice also establishes a new allocation formula to
reflect the limitation on the
[[Page 36740]]
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.
The final notice reflects an adjustment in final allocations to
States as a result of additional arrival data.
A notice of proposed allocation of targeted assistance funds was
published for public comment in the Federal Register on May 6, 1996 (61
FR 20260).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Toyo Biddle (202) 401-9250.
APPLICATION DEADLINE: The closing date for submission of applications
is August 12, 1996. Applications postmarked after the closing date will
be classified as late.
Mailed applications shall be considered as meeting an announced
deadline if they are either received on or before the deadline date or
sent on or before the deadline date to: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of
Refugee Resettlement, Division of Refugee Self-Sufficiency, 370
L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attention: Application
for Targeted Assistance Formula Program.
Applicants are cautioned to request a legibly dated U.S. Postal
Service postmark or to obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial
carrier or the U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks shall not
be acceptable as proof of timely mailing.
Applications handcarried by applicants, applicant couriers, or by
overnight/express mail couriers shall be considered as meeting an
announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date,
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., at the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Division of Refugee Self-Sufficiency,
ACF Mailroom, 2nd Floor Loading Dock, Aerospace Center, 901 D Street
SW., Washington, DC 20024, between Monday and Friday (excluding Federal
holidays). (Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail
services do not always deliver as agreed.)
ACF cannot accommodate transmission of applications by fax or
through other electronic media. Therefore, applications transmitted to
ACF electronically will not be accepted regardless of date or time of
submission and time of receipt.
To be considered complete, an application package must include a
signed original and two copies of Standard Form 424, 424A, and 424B,
dated April 1988. (We will provide copies of these materials to all
targeted assistance States.)
CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (CFDA) NUMBER: 93.584.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON APPLICATION PROCEDURES: States should
contact their State Analyst in ORR.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Purpose and Scope
This notice announces the 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. 104-537)
agrees with the allocation of targeted assistance contained in the
House Report.
The Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) will use
the $55,397,000 appropriated for FY 1996 targeted assistance as
follows:
$25,317,600 will be allocated under the 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 has been 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 has been 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
[[Page 36741]]
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
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 of the final rule, 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 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
resources 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
[[Page 36742]]
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 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. Discussion of Comments Received
Twenty-three letters of comment were received in response to the
notice of proposed availability of FY 1996 funds for targeted
assistance. The comments are summarized below and are followed in each
case by the Department's response.
Comment: Six commenters expressed concern about the Cuban entrant
figures being used to determine eligibility. Two commenters were
concerned about the accuracy of the data being used. Three commenters
were concerned about the fact that States were only given 30 days to
submit documentation to support the adjustment of county arrival
numbers to reflect parolees who originated in Havana. Two of these
commenters requested a 60-day delay to review the data. One commenter
objected to the fact that ORR was placing the onus on the States to
submit supporting documentation and recommended that the revised
allocation be circulated for comment before the notice is made final.
One commenter noted that the Cuban arrivals for October, November, and
December 1995 were significant but are not included in the TAP formula
for this year.
Response: The 5-year arrival data used to determine county
eligibility and targeted assistance allocations to counties are derived
from the ORR Refugee Data System. ORR refugee arrival data are based on
monthly refugee/Amerasian arrival data received from the Refugee Data
Center (RDC) in New York. These data are then matched with monthly
port-of-entry data received from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
to identify and correct discrepancies. Cuban/Haitian entrant data
received from the Community Relations Service (CRS) in the Department
of Justice, the agency responsible for the initial resettlement of
Cuban and Haitian entrants in the U.S., are merged with the refugee/
Amerasian data file, providing a complete refugee/entrant/Amerasian
arrival file. There is no other refugee/entrant arrival data system
that is as accurate and comprehensive as the ORR Data System.
However, as we acknowledged in the May 6 notice of proposed
allocations, ORR arrival data do not include Cuban parolees who came to
the United States directly from Havana in FY 1995. Because these
parolees were not resettled through any sponsoring agencies, there is
no reliable source of destination data for these parolees at this time.
We indicated in the Allocation Formula section of the May 6 notice that
States could receive credit for their Havana parolee population with
the submission of documented evidence. One State, Florida, where the
great majority of Cuban entrants and parolees resettle, submitted
documentation of Havana parolee arrivals to its counties. Florida's
arrival population has been appropriately credited.
In the case of qualified targeted assistance counties that were not
able to submit evidence of Havana parolee arrivals, we have devised a
method of crediting each county with a share of Havana parolees that we
believe is a reasonable proxy in the absence of hard data. ORR has
credited each qualified TAP county that received entrant arrivals
during the 5-year period from FY 1991 through FY 1995 with a prorated
share of the estimated 10,279 parolees who came directly from Havana
during FY 1995. The proration is based on the percentage of the total
5-year entrant arrival population that each qualified county received.
Thus, for example, San Diego County, which received 378 entrants during
the period from FY 1991-FY 1995, received 0.69 percent of the entrants
who resettled in the United States during the 5-year period. San Diego,
therefore, would be credited with the same percentage of the estimated
10,279 Havana parolees, or 71 parolees, increasing San Diego's 5-year
population from 13,579 to 13,650. These adjustments in county 5-year
refugee/entrant arrivals are reflected in the third column of table 3
in this notice.
Regarding the comment about Cuban parolees who arrived after FY
1995, the commenter is correct, Cuban arrivals for October, November,
and December 1995 are not included in the TAP formula this year because
FY 1996 allocations are based on arrivals during the 5-year period from
FY 1991 through FY 1995. Targeted assistance counties will be given
credit for Cuban parolees who arrived during FY 1996 in the targeted
assistance allocations for FY 1997
Comment: One commenter requested that ORR review the procedure for
awarding the $19 million Cuban/Haitian set-aside to only those counties
which qualify for targeted assistance to determine if deserving
counties are excluded from consideration for set-aside funds.
Response: After considering the commenter's request, we have
decided to include any county that received 900 or more entrant
arrivals from FY 1991 through FY 1995 for eligibility for Cuban/Haitian
set-aside funds, instead of limiting qualification for these funds only
to counties eligible for regular targeted assistance formula funds. In
reviewing congressional report language regarding the use of the
special set-aside funds (H.R. Rept. No. 104-209), we believe
congressional intent would be better served if eligibility for Cuban/
Haitian set-aside funds is open to all counties affected by recent
Cuban and
[[Page 36743]]
Haitian arrivals, regardless of their eligibility for regular targeted
assistance funds. We re-examined the eligibility of all counties that
received entrant arrivals over the past 5 years to identify all
counties with 900 or more entrant arrivals, based on documented arrival
data. Two additional counties, Broward County and Hillsborough County,
FL, were found to have 900 or more entrant arrivals and are, therefore,
eligible to receive set-aside funds.
Comment: Five commenters questioned the limiting of eligible
counties to the top 38 counties. One commenter wondered what the
rationale was for arriving at the cut-off of 38. Four commenters
questioned why the Denver metropolitan area, which ranked 39th with an
arrival population of more than 5,000 refugees, was not included among
the list of eligible counties and recommended including Denver in the
final notice. Two of these commenters recommended that we allow all
counties with 5,000 or more refugee arrivals to qualify. One commenter
who felt that refugee population is a much more significant factor than
concentration recommended that ORR assign 3 times as much weight to
population as to concentration. One commenter asked how many counties
were considered for qualification.
Response: ORR proposed to limit the number of qualified counties to
the top 38 counties in order to cover as many counties as possible
while still targeting a sufficient level of funding to the most
impacted counties. The decision to place the cut-off after the 38th
county was based on the fact that a sufficient point difference existed
in the sum of ranks between the 38th county and the 39th county, the
Denver metropolitan area, to constitute a natural break. In contrast,
the summed scores between the 39th county through the next several
counties were clustered within a very narrow point range.
In regard to the qualification of the Denver metropolitan area,
this metropolitan area, which is made up of 5 counties, does not
qualify for targeted assistance. While the Denver area had over 5,000
refugee arrivals, the percentage of refugees to the general population
was low. However, Denver County, which has over 62 percent of the
refugee arrivals in the 5-county area and a much higher refugee-to-
general population ratio than the 5-county area, when considered alone,
ranks as the 26th county. We have, therefore, decided to include Denver
County, as the 26th county, on the qualified county list. The addition
of Denver changes the rank of the subsequent counties on the qualified
list, shifting Oakland County, MI from 38 to 39, thereby increasing the
list of qualified counties to the top 39 counties.
We do not agree with the suggestion that ORR should allow all
counties with 5,000 or more refugees to qualify for targeted
assistance. Our statutory language requires ORR to take into account
refugee concentrations as well as refugee population numbers as factors
in qualifying counties for targeted assistance. A county with 5,000 or
more refugees may have a very low concentration rank that results in a
summed score that is not high enough to legitimately qualify the county
for targeted assistance. We also do not agree with the suggestion that
population should be given 3 times as much weight as concentration.
This weighting would reduce the factor of concentration to
insignificance, contrary to our understanding of congressional intent.
Regarding the number of counties that were considered for
qualification, 1,000 counties were considered.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification on the methodology
used to qualify counties. The commenter wondered whether assigning a
weight of 2 to the 5-year arrival population means that the number of
arrivals in each county were multiplied by two and then all counties
were ranked based on this number. The commenter also wondered whether
refugee concentration was calculated by computing a ratio of the number
of refugees to the total population and whether old refugees only or
old refugees plus new arrivals were divided by the total population.
The commenter wondered whether the final ranking was the sum of the
population ranking and the concentration ranking.
Response: In regard to the weight given to the factor of
population, a county's rank on arrivals from FY 1991 through FY 1995
was multiplied by 2. Thus, if county X had a rank of 4 for arrivals,
this rank was multiplied by 2, giving a total of 8. Refugee
concentration was calculated by dividing the number of refugee/entrant
arrivals to a county during the 5-year period by the county's general
population number, thus yielding the percentage that the 5-year
arrivals represent of the county's general population. The counties
were ranked on the basis of their refugee concentration, with the
county having the highest refugee concentration assigned a rank of 1. A
county's population rank (multiplied by 2) was then added to its
concentration rank for a summed rank score. Counties were then ranked
in order of their summed scores, with the county with the lowest summed
score given the rank of 1. If county X, mentioned earlier, ranked 1 on
concentration, its summed score would be 9 (8+1). If the score of 9
happens to be the lowest summed score, then county X would be ranked as
the top county, with a rank of 1.
Comment: Thirteen commenters expressed concerns about the factors
used in the formula to determine county qualification. Ten commenters
objected to the exclusion of secondary migrants in the population
count. Four commenters recommended that a State's secondary migration
numbers could be allocated to each county based on the proportion of
new arrivals going to those counties. Two commenters objected to the
fact that ORR is not taking welfare dependency into account when
determining eligibility. One commenter recommended that we use
population as the sole eligibility criterion, since we allocate TAP
formula funds according to population. Another commenter recommended
that we determine eligibility at the municipality level, instead of at
the county level.
Response: As we have noted in previous years, we are not able to
include secondary migrants in the population count for targeted
assistance because secondary migration data are not available at the
county level. States report annually on in-migration at the State level
using the ORR-11. This reporting is based on the first three digits of
a refugee's Social Security Number (SSN). These digits identify the
State in which the SSN was issued which, with a few exceptions, is the
State of initial resettlement. This information enables ORR both to
credit the State of in-migration and to debit the State of out-
migration in developing State population estimates. Most States and
counties are not able to provide county secondary migration data, which
would involve tracking intrastate movement. Such data would be very
difficult to construct since it would be necessary to determine both
in-migration and out-migration for all targeted assistance counties in
order to arrive at adjusted population estimates.
The suggestion to allocate a State's secondary migration numbers to
each county based on the proportion of new arrivals in the State going
to those counties, is an idea that warrants some consideration. We can
see problems with using a proportion of State secondary migration data
as a proxy for actual data on county secondary migration because the
use of secondary migration data involves both credits and debits for
in- and out-migration. However, we are willing to look further
[[Page 36744]]
into the feasibility of using this method or some form of it in FY
1997.
Regarding the use of welfare dependency data, ORR no longer uses
welfare dependency as a qualifying factor because data that would
accurately reflect refugee dependency rates with any reasonable scope
do not exist. While some States collect refugee recipient data in the
AFDC program, many States and counties no longer collect such data.
Using these data for some counties and not for others would be
inequitable. As discussed in Section V, if a State with more than one
eligible targeted assistance county collects welfare dependency data,
such data may be used by the State to determine county allocations
differently from the allocations set forth in this notice.
Regarding the suggestion that we use population as the only
qualifying criterion, ORR must take into account all eligibility
factors which are outlined in the statute for which data are available.
In section 412(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the three
factors for targeted assistance are high population, high refugee
concentration, and high use of public assistance. While we do not have
available welfare dependency data, data are available on refugee
population and refugee concentration. Therefore, we are required to use
both factors in determining county qualification.
Regarding the suggestion that ORR determine eligibility at the
municipality level, ORR is required by statute to make grants to States
for assistance to counties and similar areas. Therefore, we do not
consider smaller municipalities, such as townships, for targeted
assistance eligibility.
Comment: Six commenters recommended that ORR determine country
eligibility on an annual basis instead of the proposed three-year
eligibility period. The commenters felt that the three-year eligibility
period does not account for fluctuations in arrivals.
Response: As the notice indicates, we proposed maintaining county
eligibility for three years in order to allow counties an adequate
period of time to address the refugee impact in their counties. An
annual redetermination of county qualification would not provide the
funding stability needed to sufficiently address refugee impact. If a
community experiences a new population impact, discretionary funds are
available through the unanticipated arrivals standing announcement to
address this issue.
Comment: Three commenters recommended that the 20 percent
discretionary funding be included in the targeted assistance formula
allocation to impacted areas. One commenter felt that this would result
in a more equitable distribution of funds and would avoid the
administrative costs involved in preparing a grant proposal.
Response: It is the intent of Congress that TAP 20 percent funds be
made available to all communities with large concentrations of refugees
whose cultural differences make assimilation especially difficult, not
just targeted assistance counties.
Comment: One commenter objected to the $19 million set-aside for
Cuban/Haitian Entrants, stating that this set-aside allows certain
counties to receive a disproportionate share of the funding.
Response: The allocation of Cuban/Haitian set-aside funds is in
accordance with Congressional intent as expressed in the Appropriation
Committee Reports.
Comment: Three commenters recommended that ORR consider the impact
that discontinuing funding will have on areas of high unemployment. Two
commenters expressed concern about the effect that the loss of TAP
funds will have on counties' abilities to serve refugees. In addition,
two commenters expressed concern that the loss of TAP funds will
decrease the county's ability to leverage other funds that have been
used to provide services to refugees.
Response: ORR understands that discontinuing funding in the
counties that no longer qualify for TAP will undoubtedly have an effect
on the services in those counties. It is time, however, to direct
targeted assistance funds to those counties that are the most impacted
by recent refugee arrivals. Over the past 13 years, the same counties
have been receiving targeted assistance, based on arrivals dating back
to FY 1980. New ORR regulations require that we now limit our focus on
the most recent 5-year arrival populations, which, not surprisingly,
shifts the funds to areas with more recent impacts. Such changes to the
targeted assistance formula have been discussed with States at a number
of meetings over the past two years to ensure that States would
understand the effect that the new formula would have and would prepare
for the possible loss of funds.
Counties losing targeted assistance formula funds may wish to apply
for ORR targeted assistance discretionary funds through their States.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns about the application
requirements. One commenter felt that offering the TAP funds to the
counties would lead the counties to merge TAP with other funds to
provide consolidated workforce programs; the commenter felt that such a
scenario would detract from the concept of refugee-specific services as
supported by ORR. Another commenter asked at what point States can stop
applying for TAP funds and have them allocated in the same manner as
social service funds. One commenter recommended that ORR allow for a
90-day application period; another commenter recommended that there be
a 60-day application period or that there be fewer application
requirements,
Response: Section 412(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act requires that 95 percent of targeted assistance funds
by made available to the county or similar local jurisdiction. States,
therefore, must pass the funding down to the qualified county unless
the county chooses to rely on the States to administer the targeted
assistance program.
Regarding the question about eliminating the need to apply for TAP
funds, we have no plans to eliminate this requirement. States that wish
to receive targeted assistance funding will continue to have to submit
an application for funding in accordance with the application content
requirements contained in this notice. Similarly, the receipt of social
services formula funds is contingent upon the submission of an approved
Annual Services Plan.
A full application is required this year because a number of new
counties are eligible for targeted assistance and because counties that
have received TAP funds in the past and will continue to qualify for
TAP have not been required to submit a full application since FY 1986.
Application requirements in the second and third year of a 3-year TAP
period will be less extensive. Regarding the time allowed to prepare
applications, we plan to allow a longer period of time beginning in FY
1997 for submission of applications.
Comment: One commenter was opposed to requiring the submission of
outcome goals in the TAP application since goals which reflect TAP
funding will be submitted to ORR every November as part of a State's
Annual Outcome Goal Plan. The commenter also felt that goals should
reflect changes in funding and other local factors such as the refugee
population. The commenter stated that outcomes will decrease if funding
decreases.
Response: It is necessary for targeted assistance counties to
establish outcome goals as part of their TAP application for two
reasons: Not all States that received TAP funds in FY 1995 included
TAP-
[[Page 36745]]
funded goals in their FY 1996 aggregated Annual Outcome Goal Plans; and
HHS grants policy requires grantees to set goals specific to each
funding source.
ORR understands that funding levels and other variables must be
taken into account when setting and meeting goals. For this reason, we
ask States and counties to set goals in terms of percentages of
caseload and real numbers. A decrease in funding will likely result in
a smaller caseload to be served, but need not necessarily result in a
smaller percentage of the caseload entering employment.
Comment: One commenter was opposed to the fact that the notice
specifies what must be included in family self-sufficiency plans. The
commenter stated that there is no evidence that gathering this
information leads to jobs any sooner.
Response: Sections 400.156 and 400.317 of ORR's final rule
stipulate that a family self-sufficiency plan must be developed for
anyone receiving employment services funded by social services and TAP
dollars. We received comments to the proposed rule requesting a
definition of a family self-sufficiency plan. Therefore, in response to
this request, we defined what we mean by a family self-sufficiency plan
in the preamble to the final rule, published on June 28, 1995. The same
definition is used in this notice. Contrary to the commenter's view,
while there may not be hard evidence that a family self-sufficiency
plan, as defined in this notice, leads to earlier employment, there is
abundant experiential evidence in the refugee program that the
development of such plans assists both the refugee family and the
employment counselor to focus more clearly on what steps need to be
taken to achieve self-sufficiency. Such plans result ultimately in
earlier family self-sufficiency through the attainment of jobs for one
or more wage-earners at self-supporting wages.
Comment: One commenter objected to ORR's encouraging States with
more than one funded county to place all counties on the same
contracting cycle. The commenter stated that until ORR allocates on a
Federal fiscal year funding cycle, ORR should not expect States to
require counties to operate on the same cycle. Another commenter stated
that while having the same start date for all counties would be nice,
it would not be able to be accomplished without additional funds in
order to avoid a reduction in services.
Response: We are encouraging uniformity of contracting cycles
within a State because we believe this makes good management sense and
makes reporting less complicated.
Comment: One commenter recommended that TAP funds be allocated to
counties within 5 months after being appropriated by Congress. The
commenter felt that releasing the funds later keeps counties from
accessing funds when they are needed and gives Congress and OMB the
impression that the counties do not really need the resources.
Response: We are looking into the feasibility of issuing targeted
assistance formula allocations on a quarterly basis, similar to the
quarterly allocation of social service formula funds, beginning in FY
1997. Next year, when county eligibility for targeted assistance will
not have to be re-determined, we should be able to issue the awards
earlier.
Comment: One commenter objected to increasing the county
administrative allowance to 15 percent. This commenter felt that
counties that have no experience working with refugees will contract
out the services to providers that already have contracts with the
State, resulting in the same services with added administrative costs.
Another commenter expressed support for the increase.
Response: County administrative costs vary in the targeted
assistance program. Some counties are able to operate an efficient
targeted assistance program with a minimum of administrative costs,
while other counties require a higher administrative level of funding
to properly manage their targeted assistance program. The increase to
15 percent simply allows for more flexibility in meeting differing
administrative cost needs. The increase, however, is not meant to
encourage counties to automatically increase their administrative
costs, regardless of need.
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 has determined the eligibility for 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 among for each qualified county
within the State. However, if a State chooses to determine county
allocations differently from those set forth in this 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 this 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 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
Beginning with FY 1996, ORR has eliminated the formulas used to
date for qualification for, and allocation of, targeted assistance
funds and replaced 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 is 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. County arrival numbers have
been adjusted based on
[[Page 36746]]
updated refugee and entrant arrival data.
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 was 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.
The rank of some counties changed slightly due to updated arrival
numbers. No county changed its rank sufficiently to change its status
from ineligible to eligible.
Each county was then 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 had to rank within the top 39 counties.
ORR has decided to limit the number of qualified counties to the top 39
counties in order to target a sufficient level of funding to the most
impacted counties. Denver County, which had been considered as part of
the Denver metropolitan area, in combination with 4 other counties, in
the May 6 notice, was ranked as a separate county in the final notice
and found to qualify in its own right as the 26th county. The addition
of Denver has increased the list of qualified counties from the 38
counties listed in the May 6 notice to 39.
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 in this notice.
Analysis of these data indicates that: (1) 24 counties which have
previously received targeted assistance continue to qualify; (2) 18
counties which have previously received targeted assistance no longer
qualify; and (3) 15 new counties qualify.
Table 1 provides a list of the counties that remain qualified and
the new counties that 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 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 plans to determine qualification of counties for
targeted assistance funds once every three years. Thus the counties
listed in this notice as qualified to apply for FY 1996 TAP funding
will 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
could potentially qualify for TAP funds based on the criteria 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 is 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. Only one State was able to provide appropriate
documentation to ORR regarding the number of Havana parolee arrivals to
that State. We have adjusted the 5-year population to include Havana
parolees to that State based on the data it submitted. For those States
that were not able to submit documentation on Havana parolee arrivals,
we have decided, in the absence of actual data, to credit each
qualified TAP county that received entrant arrivals during the 5-year
period from FY 1991-FY 1995 with a prorated share of the estimated
10,279 parolees who came to the U.S. directly from Havana in FY 1995.
We believe it is a reasonable proxy to base the proration on the
percentage of the total 5-year entrant population that each county
received. The allocations in this notice reflect these additional
parolee numbers.
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 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.
Counties with 900 or more entrants are eligible for these special funds
regardless of whether they qualify for the regular targeted assistance
formula program.
VII. Allocations
Table 3 lists the qualifying counties, the number of refugee/
entrant arrivals in those counties during the 5-year period from
October 1, 1990-September 30, 1995, 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 first two
columns, and the amount of each county's allocation based on its 5-year
total population.
Table 4 lists the number of Cuban and Haitian entrant arrivals in
each county during FY 1991-FY 1995, the prorated number of Havana
parolees credited to each county, the total number of entrants and
parolees, and the allocation amount for each county that received 900
or more entrants during the 5-year period.
Table 5 provides State totals for targeted assistance allocations.
Table 6 indicates the areas that each qualified county represents.
[[Page 36747]]
Table 1.--Top 39 Counties Eligible for Targeted Assistance, Targeted Assistance Counties Eligible for
Continuation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-year arrival Concentration
County and state pop. percent Rank
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda, CA..................................................... 5,915 0.4624 23
Fresno, CA...................................................... 6,856 1.0271 8
Merced, CA...................................................... 1,885 1.0566 38
Orange, CA...................................................... 26,218 1.0876 4
Sacramento, CA.................................................. 12,967 1.2454 5
San Diego, CA................................................... 13,579 0.5436 14
San Francisco, CA............................................... 11,798 0.7357 12
San Joaquin, CA................................................. 3,019 0.6281 28
Santa Clara, CA................................................. 18,395 1.2283 3
Los Angeles, CA................................................. 30,395 0.3429 21
Denver, CO...................................................... 3,420 0.7314 26
Dade, FL........................................................ 54,386 2.8076 1
Palm Beach, FL.................................................. 3,715 0.4302 35
Cook/Kane, IL................................................... 18,979 0.3500 22
Suffolk, MA..................................................... 6,305 0.9497 13
Hennepin, MN.................................................... 5,324 0.5157 20
Ramsey, MN...................................................... 4,814 0.9910 15
New York, NY.................................................... 87,570 1.1959 2
Multnomah, OR................................................... 11,463 0.8116 9
Philadelphia, PA................................................ 8,643 0.5451 16
Dallas/Tarrant, TX.............................................. 13,371 0.4423 17
Harris, TX...................................................... 11,337 0.4023 24
Fairfax, VA..................................................... 4,848 0.5055 25
King, WA........................................................ 17,618 0.8930 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW COUNTIES THAT QUALIFY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia............................................ 4,460 0.7349 19
Duval, FL....................................................... 3,282 0.4877 34
De Kalb, GA..................................................... 5,762 1.0556 11
Fulton, GA...................................................... 6,581 1.0141 10
Polk, IA........................................................ 2,784 0.8510 29
City of Baltimore, MD........................................... 3,568 0.4848 32
Oakland, MI..................................................... 4,100 0.3784 39
City of St. Louis, MO........................................... 5,442 1.3719 7
Lancaster, NE................................................... 2,894 1.3546 18
Bernalillo, NM.................................................. 2,828 0.5885 37
Broome, NY...................................................... 2,155 1.0157 36
Monroe, NY...................................................... 3,495 0.4895 30
Oneida, NY...................................................... 2,300 0.9169 33
Davidson, TN.................................................... 3,308 0.6476 27
Richmond, VA.................................................... 2,165 1.0662 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Targeted Assistance Counties That No Longer Qualify
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-year arrival Concentration
County and state pop. percent Rank
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contra Costa, CA................................................ 1,748 0.2175 85
Tulare, CA...................................................... 1,110 0.3559 87
Stanislaus, CA.................................................. 1,258 0.3395 82
Broward, FL..................................................... 3,703 0.2949 51
Hillsborough, FL................................................ 2,863 0.3433 52
Honolulu, HI.................................................... 1,363 0.1630 111
Sedgwick, KS.................................................... 1,572 0.3894 68
Orleans, LA..................................................... 1,259 0.1332 117
Montgomery/Prince Georges, MD................................... 4,530 0.3048 47
Middlesex, MA................................................... 3,114 0.2227 61
Jackson, MO..................................................... 3,234 0.4067 41
Essex, NJ....................................................... 2,100 0.2699 67
Hudson, NJ...................................................... 2,761 0.4992 44
Union, NJ....................................................... 1,221 0.2473 101
Providence, RI.................................................. 1,389 0.2329 95
Salt Lake, UT................................................... 2,957 0.2511 59
Arlington, VA................................................... 1,468 0.8588 54
Pierce, WA...................................................... 2,825 0.4819 46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36748]]
Table 3.--Targeted Assistance Allocations by County: FY 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrivals: Prorated \2\ $25,317,600
County, state Refugee+entrant Havana Total arrivals Total FY 1996
\1\ FY 1991-1995 Parolees allocation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAMEDA, CA................................. 5,915 3 5,918 $341,304
FRESNO, CA.................................. 6,856 0 6,856 395,400
LOS ANGELES, CA............................. 30,395 114 30,509 1,759,519
MERCED, CA.................................. 1,885 0 1,885 108.712
ORANGE, CA.................................. 26,218 6 26,224 1,512,394
SACRAMENTO, CA.............................. 12,967 1 12,968 747,892
SAN DIEGO, CA............................... 13,579 71 13,650 787,224
SAN FRANCISCO, CA........................... 11,798 35 11,833 682,434
SAN JOAQUIN, CA............................. 3,019 1 3,020 174,170
SANTA CLARA, CA............................. 18,395 2 18,397 1,060,994
DENVER, CO.................................. 3,420 1 3,421 197,296
DIST OF COLUMBIA, DC........................ 4,460 2 4,462 257,333
DADE, FL.................................... 54,386 0 54,386 3,136,556
DUVAL FL.................................... 3,282 0 3,282 189,280
PALM BEACH, FL.............................. 3,715 0 3,715 214,252
DE KALB, GA................................. 5,762 4 5,766 332,537
FULTON, GA.................................. 6,581 31 6,612 381,328
COOK/KANE, IL............................... 18,979 62 19,041 1,098,135
POLK, IA.................................... 2,784 0 2,784 160,559
BALTIMORE, MD \3\........................... 3,568 0 3,568 205,774
SUFFOLK, MA................................. 6,305 52 6,357 366,622
OAKLAND, MI................................. 4,100 2 4,102 236,571
HENNEPIN, MN................................ 5,324 0 5,324 307,046
RAMSEY, MN.................................. 4,814 2 4,816 277,749
ST LOUIS, MO \3\............................ 5,442 0 5,442 313,852
LANCASTER, NE............................... 2,894 1 2,895 166,961
BERNALILLO, NM.............................. 2,828 188 3,016 173,939
BROOME, NY.................................. 2,155 5 2,160 124,572
MONROE, NY.................................. 3,495 76 3,571 205,947
NEW YORK, NY................................ 87,570 193 87,763 5,061,479
ONEIDA, NY.................................. 2,300 0 2,300 132,646
MULTNOMAH, OR............................... 11,463 62 11,525 664,671
PHILADELPHIA, PA............................ 8,643 12 8,655 499,152
DAVIDSON, TN................................ 3,308 0 3,308 190,779
DALLAS/TARRANT, TX.......................... 13,371 85 13,456 776,036
HARRIS, TX.................................. 11,337 19 11,356 654,925
FAIRFAX, VA................................. 4,848 1 4,849 279,652
RICHMOND, VA................................ 2,165 15 2,180 125,725
KING/SNOHOMISH, WA.......................... 17,618 2 17,620 1,016,183
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL................................. 437,944 1,048 438,992 25,317,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Havana parolees for counties in Florida.
\2\ Havana Parollees credited to non-Florida TAP counties based on counties' proportion of the 5 year entrant
population in the U.S.
\3\ The qualifying local jurisdiction is the independent City of Baltimore and the independent city of St.
Louis.
Table 4.--Targeted Assistance Alocations for Communities Affected by Recent Cuban and Haitian Arrivals: FY 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrants \1\+
Entrants \1\ Prorated \2\ Entrants \1\+Prorated Prorated \2\ $19,000,000
County, state FY 1991-1995 Havana \2\ Havana parolees Havana Par. total FY 1996
parolees more than 900 C/H allocation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAMEDA, CA.................................................... 16 3 19 .............. ..............
FRESNO, CA..................................................... 0 0 0 .............. ..............
LOS ANGELES, CA................................................ 608 114 722 .............. ..............
MERCED, CA..................................................... 0 0 0 .............. ..............
ORANGE, CA..................................................... 30 6 36 .............. ..............
SACRAMENTO, CA................................................. 3 1 4 .............. ..............
SAN DIEGO, CA.................................................. 378 71 449 .............. ..............
SAN FRANCISCO, CA.............................................. 187 35 222 .............. ..............
SAN JOAQUIN, CA................................................ 5 1 6 .............. ..............
SANTA CLARA, CA................................................ 12 2 14 .............. ..............
DENVER, CO..................................................... 3 1 4 .............. ..............
DIST OF COLUMBIA, DC........................................... 13 2 15 .............. ..............
DADE, FL....................................................... 42,679 0 42,679 42,679 $15,737,705
DUVAL, FL...................................................... 35 0 35 .............. ..............
PALM BEACH, FL................................................. 2,955 0 2,955 2,955 $1,089,644
DE KALB, GA.................................................... 19 4 23 .............. ..............
FULTON, GA..................................................... 165 31 196 .............. ..............
[[Page 36749]]
COOK/KANE, IL.................................................. 331 62 393 0 0
POLK, IA....................................................... 0 0 0 .............. ..............
BALTIMORE. MD \2\.............................................. 1 0 1 .............. ..............
SUFFOLK, MA.................................................... 277 52 329 .............. ..............
OAKLAND, MI.................................................... 8 2 10 .............. ..............
HENNEPIN, MN................................................... 0 0 0 .............. ..............
RAMSEY, MN..................................................... 8 2 10 .............. ..............
ST LOUIS, MO \2\............................................... 1 0 1 .............. ..............
LANCASTER, NE.................................................. 5 1 6 .............. ..............
BERNALILLO, NM................................................. 1,002 188 1,190 1,190 $438,808
BROOME, NY..................................................... 29 5 34 .............. ..............
MONROE, NY..................................................... 403 76 479 .............. ..............
NEW YORK, NY................................................... 1,029 193 1,222 1,222 450,607
ONEIDA, NY..................................................... 1 0 1 .............. ..............
MULTNOMAH, OR.................................................. 329 62 391 .............. ..............
PHILADELPHIA, PA............................................... 66 12 78 .............. ..............
DAVIDSON, TN................................................... 1 0 1 .............. ..............
DALLAS/TARRANT, TX............................................. 452 85 537 .............. ..............
HARRIS, TX..................................................... 99 19 118 .............. ..............
FAIRFAX, VA.................................................... 4 1 5 .............. ..............
RICHMOND, VA................................................... 82 15 97 .............. ..............
KING/SNOHOMISH, WA............................................. 12 2 14 .............. ..............
BROWARD, FL \3\................................................ 2,523 0 2,523 2,523 $930,346
HILLSBOROUGH, FL \3\........................................... 957 0 957 957 $352,890
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.................................................... 54,728 1,048 55,776 51,526 $19,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Havana parolees for counties Florida.
\2\ Havana Parolees credited to non-Florida TAP counties based on counties' proportion of the 5 year entrant population in the U.S.
\3\ Broward and Hillsborough counties only qualify for the C/H Allocation.
Table 5.--Targeted Assistance Allocations by State: FY 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$25,317,600 $19,000,000 $44,317,600
State Total FY 1996 Total FY 1996 Total FY 1996
allocation C/H allocation allocation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California...................................................... $7,570,043 .............. $7,570,043
Colorado........................................................ 197,296 .............. 197,296
District of Col................................................. 257,333 .............. 257,333
Florida......................................................... 3,540,088 18,110,585 21,650,673
Georgia......................................................... 713,865 .............. 713,865
Illinois........................................................ 1,098,135 .............. 1,098,135
Iowa............................................................ 160,559 .............. 160,559
Maryland........................................................ 205,774 .............. 205,774
Massachusetts................................................... 366,622 .............. 366,622
Michigan........................................................ 236,571 .............. 236,571
Minnesota....................................................... 584,795 .............. 584,795
Missouri........................................................ 313,852 .............. 313,852
Nebraska........................................................ 166,961 .............. 166,961
New Mexico...................................................... 173,939 438,808 612,747
New York........................................................ 5,524,644 450,607 5,975,251
Oregon.......................................................... 664,671 .............. 664,671
Pennsylvania.................................................... 499,152 .............. 499,152
Tennessee....................................................... 190,779 .............. 190,779
Texas........................................................... 1,430,961 .............. 1,430,961
Virginia........................................................ 405,377 .............. 405,377
Washington...................................................... 1,016,183 .............. 1,016,183
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 25,317,600 19,000,000 44,317,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6.--Targeted Assistance Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Targeted assistance area 1 Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA......................................... ALAMEDA
CA......................................... FRESNO
[[Page 36750]]
CA......................................... LOS ANGELES
CA......................................... MERCED
CA......................................... ORANGE
CA......................................... SACREMENTO
CA......................................... SAN DIEGO
CA......................................... SAN FRANCISCO....................... MARIN, SAN FRANCISCO, & SAN
MATEO COUNTIES
CA......................................... SAN JOAQUIN
CA......................................... SANTA CLARA
CO......................................... DENVER
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
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 eligible for the regular Targeted Assistance Formula Grant 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 have been 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
[[Page 36751]]
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 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 Sec. 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.
[[Page 36752]]
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
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.
Dated: July 8, 1996.
Lavinia Limon,
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[FR Doc. 96-17808 Filed 7-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P-M
