[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38458-38463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18829]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Refugee Resettlement
Refugee Resettlement Program: Allocations to States of FY 1996
Funds for Refugee Social Services
AGENCY: Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), ACF, HHS.
ACTION: Final notice of allocations to States of FY 1996 funds for
refugee\1\ social services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to persons who meet all requirements of 45 CFR
400.43, ``Requirements for documentation of refugee status,''
eligibility for refugee social services also includes: (1) Cuban and
Haitian entrants, under section 501 of the Refugee Education
Assistance Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-422); (2) certain Amerasians from
Vietnam who are admitted to the U.S. as immigrants under section 584
of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 1988, as included in the FY 1988 Continuing
Resolution (Pub. L. No. 100-202); and (3) certain Amerasians from
Vietnam, including U.S. citizens, 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). For convenience, the term ``refugee'' is used in this
notice to encompass all such eligible persons unless the specific
context indicates otherwise.
Refugees admitted to the U.S. under admissions numbers set aside
for private-sector-initiative admissions are not eligible to be
served under the social service 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 establishes the allocations to States of FY 1996
funds for social services under the Refugee Resettlement Program (RRP).
This notice reflects the new social service provisions in the final
rule published in the Federal Register on June 28, 1995, (60 FR 33584)
which became effective October 1, 1995. This notice discontinues the
special discretionary funds set-aside for services to former political
prisoners from Vietnam.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children
and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toyo Biddle, Director, Division of
Refugee Self-Sufficiency, (202) 401-9250.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of the proposed social service
allocations to States was published in the Federal Register on May 6,
1996, (61 FR 20268). The population estimates that were used in the
proposed notice have been adjusted as a result of additional arrival
information.
I. Amounts For Allocation
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $80,802,000
in FY 1996 refugee social service funds as part of the FY 1996
appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services (Pub. L.
104-134). We are discontinuing in FY 1996 the special $2,000,000
discretionary funds set-aside for services to former political
prisoners from Vietnam. However, ORR expects States to address the
special needs of former political prisoners from Vietnam through their
regular refugee social service funds as part of the States' 5-year
eligible service population.
Of the total of $80,802,000, the Director of ORR is making
available to States $68,681,700 (85%) under the allocation formula set
out in this notice. These funds are available for the purpose of
providing social services to refugees.
Refugee Social Service Funds
The population figures for the social service allocation include
refugees, Cuban/Haitian entrants, and Amerasians from Vietnam since
these populations may be served through funds addressed in this notice.
(A State must, however, have an approved State plan for the Cuban/
Haitian Entrant Program or indicate in its refugee program State plan
that Cuban/Haitian entrants will be served in order to use funds on
behalf of entrants as well as refugees.)
The Director is allocating $68,681,700 to States on the basis of
each State's proportion of the national population of refugees who had
been in the U.S. 3 years or less as of October 1, 1995 (including a
floor amount for States which have small refugee populations).
The use of the 3-year population base in the allocation formula is
required by section 412(c)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) which states that the ``funds available for a fiscal year for
grants and contracts [for social services] * * * shall be allocated
among the States based on the total number of refugees (including
children and adults) who arrived in the United States not more than 36
months before the beginning of such fiscal year and who are actually
residing in each State (taking into account secondary migration) as of
the beginning of the fiscal year.''
As established in the FY 1991 social services notice published in
the Federal Register of August 29, 1991, section I, ``Allocation
Amounts'' (56 FR 42745), a variable floor amount for States which have
small refugee populations is
[[Page 38459]]
calculated as follows: If the application of the regular allocation
formula yields less than $100,000, then--
(1) a base amount of $75,000 is provided for a State with a
population of 50 or fewer refugees who have been in the U.S. 3 years or
less; and--
(2) for a State with more than 50 refugees who have been in the
U.S. 3 years or less: (a) A floor has been calculated consisting of
$50,000 plus the regular per capita allocation for refugees above 50 up
to a total of $100,000 (in other words, the maximum under the floor
formula is $100,000); (b) if this calculation has yielded less than
$75,000, a base amount of $75,000 is provided for the State.
ORR has consistently supported floors for small States in order to
provide sufficient funds to carry out a minimum service program. Given
the range in numbers of refugees in the small States, we have concluded
that a variable floor, as established in the FY 1991 notice, will be
more reflective of needs than previous across-the-board floors.
The $12,120,300 in remaining social service funds (15% of the total
funds available) will be used by ORR on a discretionary basis to
provide funds for individual projects intended to contribute to the
effectiveness and efficiency of the refugee resettlement program. Grant
announcements on discretionary initiatives have been issued separately.
Population To Be Served
Although the allocation formula is based on the 3-year refugee
population, in accordance with the current requirements of 45 CFR Part
400 Subpart I--Refugee Social Services, States are not required to
limit social service programs to refugees who have been in the U.S.
only 3 years. However, effective October 1, 1995, under new regulations
published in the Federal Register on June 28, 1995, (60 FR 33584),
States may not provide services funded by 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. 400.154, as of
September 30, 1995, as part of an employability plan.
In accordance with Sec. 400.147, States are required to provide
services to refugees in the following order of priority, except in
certain individual extreme circumstances: (a) All newly arriving
refugees during their first year in the U.S., who apply for services;
(b) refugees who are receiving cash assistance; (c) unemployed refugees
who are not receiving cash assistance; and (d) employed refugees in
need of services to retain employment or to attain economic
independence.
ORR funds may not be used to provide services to United States
citizens, since they are not covered under the authorizing legislation,
with the following exceptions: (1) Under current regulations at 45 CFR
400.208, services may be provided to a U.S.-born minor child in a
family in which both parents are refugees or, if only one parent is
present, in which that parent is a refugee; and (2) under the FY 1989
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 100-461), services may be provided to an
Amerasian from Vietnam who is a U.S. citizen and who enters the U.S.
after October 1, 1988.
Service Priorities
Refugee social service funding should be used to assist refugee
families to achieve economic independence. To this end, States 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).) 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.
Reflecting section 412(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA, and in keeping with
Sec. 400.145, States must ensure that women have the same opportunities
as men to participate in all services funded under this notice,
including job placement services. In addition, 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, particularly in the
case of large families. States are expected to make every effort to
assure the 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
refugee social services program. Refugees who are participating in
employment services or have accepted employment are eligible for day
care services for children. For an employed refugee, day care funded by
refugee social service dollars should be limited to one year after the
refugee becomes employed. States are expected to use day care funding
from other publicly funded mainstream programs as a prior resource and
are expected to work with service providers to assure maximum access to
other publicly funded resources for day care.
In accordance with Sec. 400.146 in the new regulations, social
service funds must be used primarily for employability services
designed to enable refugees to obtain jobs within one year of becoming
enrolled in services in order to achieve economic self-sufficiency as
soon as possible. Social 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. Social service 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. 400.156, refugee social services must be
provided, to the maximum extent feasible, in a manner that is
culturally and linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and
cultural background. In light of the increasingly diverse population of
refugees who are resettling in this country, refugee service agencies
will need to develop practical ways of providing culturally and
linguistically appropriate services 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
[[Page 38460]]
training, however, need not be refugee-specific.
English language training must be provided in a concurrent, rather
than sequential, time period with employment or with other employment-
related activities.
When planning State refugee 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.
In order to provide culturally and linguistically compatible
services in as cost-efficient a manner as possible in a time of limited
resources, ORR encourages States and counties to promote and give
special consideration to the provision of refugee social services
through coalitions of refugee service organizations, such as coalitions
of mutual assistance associations (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.
States should also expect to use funds available under this notice
to pay for social services which are provided to refugees who
participate in alternative projects. Section 412(e)(7)(A) of the INA
provides that:
The Secretary [of HHS] shall develop and implement alternative
projects for refugees who have been in the United States less than
thirty-six months, under which refugees are provided interim
support, medical services, support [social] services, and case
management, as needed, in a manner that encourages self-sufficiency,
reduces welfare dependency, and fosters greater coordination among
the resettlement agencies and service providers.
This provision is generally known as the Wilson/Fish Amendment. The
Department has already issued a separate notice in the Federal Register
with respect to applications for such projects (60 FR 15766, March 27,
1995). The notice on alternative projects does not contain provisions
for the allocation of additional social service funds beyond the
amounts established in this notice. Therefore a State which may wish to
consider carrying out such a project should take note of this in
planning its use of social service funds being allocated under the
present notice.
Funding to MAAs
ORR no longer provides set-aside funds to refugee mutual assistance
associations as a separate component under the social service notice;
instead we have folded these funds into the social service formula
allocation to States. Elimination of the MAA set-aside, however, does
not represent any reduction in ORR's commitment to MAAs as important
participants in refugee resettlement. ORR believes that the continued
and/or increased utilization of qualified refugee mutual assistance
associations in the delivery of social services helps to ensure the
provision of culturally and linguistically appropriate services as well
as increasing the effectiveness of the overall service system.
Therefore, ORR expects States to use MAAs as service providers to the
maximum extent possible. ORR strongly encourages States when
contracting for services, including employment services, to give
consideration to the special strengths of MAAs, whenever contract
bidders are otherwise equally qualified, provided that the MAA has the
capability to deliver services in a manner that is culturally and
linguistically compatible with the background of the target population
to be served. ORR also strongly encourages MAAs to ensure that their
management and board composition reflect the major target populations
to be served. ORR expects States to continue to assist MAAs in seeking
other public and/or private funds for the provision of services to
refugee clients.
States may use a portion of their social service grant, either
through contracts or through the use of State/county staff, to provide
technical assistance and organizational training to strengthen the
capability of MAAs to provide employment services, particularly in
States where MAA capability is weak or undeveloped.
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.
II. Discussion of Comments Received
We received two letters of comment in response to the notice of
proposed FY 1996 allocations to States for refugee social services. The
comments are summarized below and are followed in each case by the
Department's response.
Comment: One commenter opposed the use of 15 percent of social
service funds for discretionary grants. The commenter recommended that
these funds instead be distributed by formula to impacted areas with
the requirement that each area receiving funds do an ``initiative''
type project that could be expanded, if successful, to the larger
population.
Response: We continue to believe that it is necessary to maintain a
portion of social service funds for discretionary use. The
discretionary grant process allows greater flexibility than does the
formula allocation process for carrying out national initiatives and
special projects that respond to changing needs and circumstances in
the refugee program.
Comment: One commenter objected to the allotment of a floor amount
of social service funds to States with small refugee populations. In
particular, the commenter suggested that a floor for States with less
than 1,000 refugees should not be included in the allocation.
Response: We continue to believe that a minimum allocation for
social services is necessary to cover basic costs which a State incurs
in providing services, regardless of the number of refugees to be
served. Therefore, we view the establishment of a floor as a reasonable
approach to allocating funds to States with small refugee populations,
where the use of the formula alone would yield too small an amount to
be practical.
Comment: One commenter objected to unlimited State administrative
costs and recommended that State administrative costs be capped at 5
percent of the grant amount.
Response: Current regulations at 45 CFR 400.206 allow reimbursement
to States for 100 percent of their administrative costs. Therefore,
imposing an administrative cap would require a regulatory change and
could not be accomplished through a notice. All costs charged by States
to social services grants for administration must meet Federal grant
requirements and must be reasonable, necessary, and identifiable.
Further, there is no statutory limitation on the amount of social
services funds that can be used by States for administrative costs. We,
therefore, have no plans to impose a cap on what a State may charge for
[[Page 38461]]
administrative costs, choosing instead to allow States to make that
determination.
Comment: One commenter suggested that reductions in social services
funding in some States may impact performance outcomes in FY 1996. The
commenter further suggested that surpassing previous years' performance
may become increasingly more difficult for States that receive less
funds.
Response: States that receive reduced funding in comparison to
previous years are States that have also experienced reduced numbers of
refugee arrivals over the past three years. The performance measures
developed by ORR, in conjunction with States, take into consideration
the impact of reduced arrivals, and reduced funding, on performance
outcomes by looking not only at actual outcome figures but also at
outcomes in the context of total caseloads and as percentages of
caseloads. We believe, therefore, that reduced funding should not
impact the ability of States to continue to improve their performance
outcomes since changing caseloads are taken into consideration in
setting goals and assessing performance.
Comment: One commenter suggested that ORR should support a
statutory change to provide that social services funds be allocated
based on the five-year refugee population rather than the three-year
population that is currently used. The commenter suggested that such a
change would more equitably reflect State and local workloads.
Response: We do not believe there is a compelling enough reason to
seek a statutory change that would change the social service allocation
method from a three-year population base to a five-year population
base. An argument can be made that basing social service allocations on
a three-year population, by reflecting the pattern of more recent
refugee arrivals, ensures that funds are allocated to those States most
in need of additional funds in meeting the needs of new arrivals.
Comment: One commenter suggested that ORR is asking for an
inappropriate amount of detail in specifying what the family self-
sufficiency plan must include. The commenter suggested that the
information to be collected would not necessarily enable the refugee to
obtain a job earlier or for a longer period of time. The commenter
further suggested that the exercise of developing family self-
sufficiency plans would require more paperwork and staff time and would
result in increased administrative costs.
Response: We believe that social services providers should focus on
the family, not on the individual refugee, as the unit of intervention.
The purpose of the family self-sufficiency plan is to ensure that the
refugee family as a whole is enabled to become self-supporting as
quickly as possible. The plan, as described in the notice, ensures that
providers will make a determination of the total amount of income that
a family would have to earn to become self-sufficient. It also ensures
that a strategy and timetable will be developed for obtaining the
necessary level of income to move the family off assistance. Although
the additional information required for a family self-sufficiency plan
may not result in an individual refugee obtaining a job earlier or for
a longer period of time, there is evidence that the development of such
plans result in earlier family self-sufficiency through the attainment
of jobs for one or more wage-earners at self-supporting wages. We
believe that the long-term benefits of this approach to family self-
sufficiency will outweigh any additional paperwork or staff time that
may be required. Further, we believe that, by increasing the efficiency
and effectiveness of the refugee program in promoting family self-
sufficiency, this approach will result in decreased, rather than
increased, overall, long-term administrative costs.
III. Allocation Formula
Of the funds available for FY 1996 for social services, $68,681,700
is allocated to States in accordance with the formula specified below.
A State's allowable allocation is calculated as follows:
1. The total amount of funds determined by the Director to be
available for this purpose; divided by--
2. The total number of refugees and Cuban/Haitian entrants who
arrived in the United States not more than 3 years prior to the
beginning of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated and
the number of Amerasians from Vietnam eligible for refugee social
services, as shown by the ORR Refugee Data System. The resulting per
capita amount will be multiplied by--
3. The number of persons in item 2, above, in the State as of
October 1, 1995, adjusted for estimated secondary migration.
The calculation above yields the formula allocation for each State.
Minimum allocations for small States are taken into account.
IV. Basis of Population Estimates
The population estimates for the allocation of funds in FY 1996 are
based on data on refugee arrivals from the ORR Refugee Data System,
adjusted as of October 1, 1995, for estimated secondary migration. The
data base includes refugees of all nationalities, Amerasians from
Vietnam, and Cuban and Haitian entrants.
For fiscal year 1996, ORR's formula allocations for the States for
social services are based on the numbers of refugees and Amerasians who
arrived, and on the numbers of entrants who arrived or were resettled,
during the preceding three fiscal years: 1993, 1994, and 1995, based on
final arrival data by State. Therefore, estimates have been developed
of the numbers of refugees and entrants with arrival or resettlement
dates between October 1, 1992, and September 30, 1995, who are thought
to be living in each State as of October 1, 1995. Refugees admitted
under the Federal Government's private-sector initiative are not
included, since their assistance and services are to be provided by the
private sponsoring organizations under an agreement with the Department
of State.
The estimates of secondary migration were based on data submitted
by all participating States on Form ORR-11 on secondary migrants who
have resided in the U.S. for 36 months or less, as of September 30,
1995. The total migration reported by each State was summed, yielding
in- and out-migration figures and a net migration figure for each
State. The net migration figure was applied to the State's total
arrival figure, resulting in a revised population estimate.
Estimates were developed separately for refugees and entrants and
then combined into a total estimated 3-year refugee/entrant population
for each State. Eligible Amerasians are included in the refugee
figures.
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. One State, the State of Florida, was able to
provide appropriate documentation to ORR regarding the number of Havana
parolee arrivals to that State. We have adjusted the 3-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 State that received entrant arrivals during the 3-
year period from FY 1993-FY 1995 with a prorated share of the 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
3-year entrant population that each county received. The allocations in
this
[[Page 38462]]
notice reflect these additional parolee numbers.
Table 1, below, shows the estimated 3-year populations, as of
October 1, 1995, of refugees (col. 1), entrants, including Havana
parolees (col. 2); total refugee/entrant population, (col. 3); the
formula amounts which the population estimates yield (col. 4); and the
allocation amounts after allowing for the minimum amounts (col. 5).
V. Allocation Amounts
Funding subsequent to the publication of this notice will be
contingent upon the submittal and approval of a State annual services
plan that is developed on the basis of a local consultative process, as
required by Sec. 400.11(b)(2) in the ORR regulations. The following
amounts are allocated for refugee social services in FY 1996:
Table 1.--Estimated 3-Year Refugee/Entrant Populations of States Participating in the Refugee Program and Social
Service Formula Amounts and Allocations for FY 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
State Refugees\1\ Entrants\1\ population Formula Allocation
(1) (2) (3) amount (4) (5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................... 618 79 697 $124,525 $124,525
Alaska\2\................................. 0 0 0 0 0
Arizona................................... 3,574 520 4,094 731,428 731,428
Arkansas.................................. 317 6 323 57,707 98,774
California................................ 78,043 1,194 79,237 14,156,375 14,156,375
Colorado.................................. 3,808 15 3,823 683,012 683,012
Connecticut............................... 2,903 269 3,172 566,705 566,705
Delaware.................................. 89 6 95 16,973 75,000
Dist. of Columbia......................... 1,746 12 1,758 314,082 314,082
Florida................................... 13,826 41,546 55,372 9,892,687 9,892,687
Georgia................................... 9,811 241 10,052 1,795,877 1,795,877
Hawaii.................................... 758 0 758 135,423 135,423
Idaho..................................... 1,090 5 1,095 195,631 195,631
Illinois.................................. 12,642 336 12,978 2,318,632 2,318,632
Indiana................................... 1,140 15 1,155 206,351 206,351
Iowa...................................... 3,461 5 3,466 619,231 619,231
Kansas.................................... 2,112 14 2,126 379,828 379,828
Kentucky\4\............................... 2,301 208 2,509 448,255 448,255
Louisiana................................. 2,030 286 2,316 413,773 413,773
Maine..................................... 724 1 725 129,528 129,528
Maryland.................................. 6,349 177 6,526 1,165,926 1,165,926
Massachusetts............................. 10,009 205 10,214 1,824,819 1,824,819
Michigan.................................. 7,725 235 7,960 1,422,123 1,422,123
Minnesota................................. 9,846 25 9,871 1,763,540 1,763,540
Mississippi............................... 111 41 152 27,156 75,000
Missouri.................................. 4,998 31 5,029 898,474 898,474
Montana................................... 182 0 182 32,516 75,000
Nebraska.................................. 1,847 7 1,854 331,233 331,233
Nevada\4\................................. 769 935 1,704 304,434 304,434
New Hampshire............................. 686 1 687 122,738 122,738
New Jersey................................ 6,371 1,481 7,852 1,402,828 1,402,828
New Mexico................................ 948 1,160 2,108 376,612 376,612
New York.................................. 60,179 1,409 61,588 11,003,229 11,003,229
North Carolina............................ 3,221 26 3,247 580,105 580,105
North Dakota.............................. 1,044 5 1,049 187,413 187,413
Ohio...................................... 5,094 25 5,119 914,554 914,554
Oklahoma.................................. 1,351 16 1,367 244,226 244,226
Oregon.................................... 5,149 343 5,492 981,193 981,193
Pennslyvania.............................. 9,759 175 9,934 1,774,795 1,774,795
Rhode Island.............................. 656 4 660 117,915 117,915
South Carolina............................ 503 2 505 90,223 100,000
South Dakota.............................. 658 0 658 117,557 117,557
Tennessee................................. 3,408 81 3,489 623,340 623,340
Texas..................................... 15,889 1,170 17,059 3,047,738 3,047,738
Utah...................................... 1,774 0 1,774 316,940 316,940
Vermont................................... 720 0 720 128,634 128,634
Virginia.................................. 5,905 220 6,125 1,094,284 1,094,284
Washington................................ 119,081 27 19,108 3,413,809 3,413,809
West Virginia............................. 27 1 28 5,002 75,000
Wisconsin................................. 5,095 16 5,111 913,124 913,124
Wyoming\2\................................ 0 0 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 330,347 52,576 382,923 68,412,503 68,681,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes 8240 Havana Parolees (HP's) to Florida and Havana parolees credited to States other than Florida
based on States' proportion of the 3-year entrant population in the U.S.
\2\ Alaska and Wyoming on longer participate in the Refugee Program.
\3\ A portion of the California allocation is expected to be awarded to continue a Wilson/Fish project in San
Diego.
\4\ The allocation for Kentucky and Nevada is expected to be awarded to continue a Wilson/Fish project.
[[Page 38463]]
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
This notice does not create any reporting or recordkeeping
requirements requiring OMB clearance.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 93.566 Refugee
Assistance--State Administered Programs)
Dated: July 18, 1996.
Lavinia Limon,
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[FR Doc. 96-18829 Filed 7-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
