[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38354-38362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18335]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Refugee Resettlement
Refugee Resettlement Program; Availability of Formula Allocation
Funding for FY 1995 Targeted Assistance Grants for Services to Refugees
in Local Areas of High Need
AGENCY: Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), ACF, HHS.
ACTION: Final notice of availability of formula allocation funding for
FY 1995 targeted assistance grants to States for services to refugees
\1\ in local areas of high need.
\1\ In addition to persons who meet all requirements of 45 CFR
400.43, ``Requirements for documentation of refugee status,''
eligibility for targeted assistance includes Cuban and Haitian
entrants, certain Amerasians from Vietnam who are admitted to the
U.S. as immigrants, and certain Amerasians from Vietnam who are U.S.
citizens. (See section II of this notice on ``Authorization.'') The
term ``refugee'', used in this notice for convenience, is intended
to encompass such additional persons who are eligible to participate
in refugee program services, including the targeted assistance
program.
Refugees admitted to the U.S. under admissions numbers set aside
for private-sector-initiative admissions are not eligible to be
served under the targeted assistance program (or under other
programs supported by Federal refugee funds) during their period of
coverage under their sponsoring agency's agreement with the
Department of State--usually two years from their date of arrival,
or until they obtain permanent resident alien status, whichever
comes first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of funds and award
procedures for FY 1995 targeted assistance grants for services to
refugees under the Refugee Resettlement Program (RRP). These grants are
for service provision in localities with large refugee populations,
high refugee concentrations, and high use of public assistance, and
where specific needs exist for supplementation of currently available
resources. The formula has been updated to take into account FY 1994
arrivals.
A notice of proposed allocation of targeted assistance funds was
published for public comment in the Federal Register on April 17, 1995
(60 FR 19270).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toyo Biddle (202) 401-9250.
APPLICATION DEADLINE: The deadline for applications from States for
grants under this notice is on August 25, 1995.
Applications from States for grants under this notice must be
received on time. An application will be considered to be received on
time under either of the following two circumstances: The application
is postmarked indicating it was sent via the U.S. Postal Service or by
private commercial carrier not later than the closing date specified in
the final notice or the application is hand-delivered on or before the
closing date to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, 370 L'Enfant
Promenade, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20447. Hand-delivered
applications will be accepted during the normal working hours of 8:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (excluding Federal legal
holidays) up to 4:30 p.m. of the closing date.
To be considered complete, an application package must include a
[[Page 38355]]
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.) The application package should be
addressed to the Division of Refugee Self-Sufficiency, Office of
Refugee Resettlement, ACF, 6th Floor, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW.,
Washington, DC 20447.
CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (CFDA) NUMBER: 93.584.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON APPLICATION PROCEDURES, STATES SHOULD
CONTACT: RON MUNIA AT (202) 401-4559 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 $49,397,000
in FY 1995 funds for the targeted assistance program (TAP) as part of
the FY 1995 appropriation for the Department of Health and Human
Services (Pub. L. 103-333).
The House Appropriations Committee Report reads as follows with
respect to targeted assistance funds (H.R. Rept. No. 103-553, p. 93):
This program provides grants to States for counties which are
impacted by high concentrations of refugees and high dependency
rates. The Committee intends that $19,000,000 of the total
recommended for targeted assistance be provided to continue the
current program of support to communities affected as a result of
the massive influx of Cuban and Haitian entrants. The Committee also
intends that 10 percent of the total appropriated for targeted
assistance be used for grants to localities most heavily impacted by
the influx of refugees such as Laotian Hmong, Cambodians, and Soviet
Pentecostals, including secondary migrants who entered the United
States after October 1, 1979. The Committee expects these grants to
be awarded to communities not presently receiving targeted
assistance because of previous concentration requirements and other
factors in the grant formulas, as well as those who do currently
receive targeted assistance grants.
The Senate Appropriations Committee Report (S. Rept. No. 103-318,
p. 154) is consistent with the above-quoted House Report.
The Conference Report on Appropriations (H. Rept. No. 103-733, p.
24) clarifies Congress' intent on the use of the $19 million for
communities affected by Cuban and Haitian entrants as follows:
The conferees are agreed that $19,000,000 of the $49,397,000
appropriated for targeted assistance is to serve communities
affected by the Cuban and Haitian entrants and refugees whose
arrivals in recent years have increased.
The Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) will use
the $49,397,000 appropriated for FY 1995 targeted assistance as
follows:
$25,457,300 will be allocated under the updated formula,
as set forth in this notice.
$19,000,000 will be awarded to serve communities most
heavily affected by recent Cuban and Haitian entrant and refugee
arrivals.
$4,939,700 (10% of the total) will be awarded as second-
year continuation grants in a two-year project period under a
discretionary grant announcement that was issued in FY 1994.
In addition, the Office of Refugee Resettlement has available an
additional $6,000,000 in FY 1995 funds to augment the targeted
assistance 10% program through the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 103-306).
These funds will be awarded under a separate discretionary grant
announcement which will be issued setting forth application
requirements and evaluation criteria.
The purpose of targeted assistance grants is to provide, through a
process of local planning and implementation, direct services intended
to result in the economic self-sufficiency and reduced welfare
dependency of refugees through job placements.
The targeted assistance program reflects the requirements of
section 412(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),
which provides that targeted assistance grants shall be made available
``(i) primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment and
achievement of self-sufficiency, (ii) in a manner that does not
supplant other refugee program funds and that assures that not less
than 95 percent of the amount of the grant award is made available to
the county or other local entity.''
II. Authorization
Targeted assistance projects are funded under the authority of
section 412(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as
amended by the Refugee Assistance Extension Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-
605), 8 U.S.C. 1522(c); section 501(a) of the Refugee Education
Assistance Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-422), 8 U.S.C. 1522 note, insofar as
it incorporates by reference with respect to Cuban and Haitian entrants
the authorities pertaining to assistance for refugees established by
section 412(c)(2) of the INA, as cited above; section 584(c) of the
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 1988, as included in the FY 1988 Continuing
Resolution (Pub. L. 100-202), insofar as it incorporates by reference
with respect to certain Amerasians from Vietnam the authorities
pertaining to assistance for refugees established by section 412(c)(2)
of the INA, as cited above, including certain Amerasians from Vietnam
who are U.S. citizens, as provided under title II of the Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Acts,
1989 (Pub. L. 100-461), 1990 (Pub. L. 101-167), and 1991 (Pub. L. 101-
513).
III. Client and Service Priorities
Targeted assistance funding should be used to assist refugee
families to achieve economic independence. To this end, ORR expects
States and counties to ensure that a coherent plan of services is
developed for each eligible family that addresses the family's needs
from time of arrival until attainment of economic independence. Each
service plan should address a family's needs for both employment-
related services and other needed social services. In local
jurisdictions that have both targeted assistance and refugee social
services programs, one plan of services may be developed for a family
that incorporates both targeted assistance and refugee social services.
Services funded under the targeted assistance allocations are
required to focus primarily on those refugees who, either because of
their protracted use of public assistance or difficulty in securing
employment, continue to need services beyond the initial years of
resettlement. The targeted assistance program, however, is not intended
to be limited to cash assistance recipients. TAP-funded services may
also be provided to other refugees in need of services, regardless of
whether the refugees are receiving cash assistance.
However, effective October 1, 1995, under new provisions in
Sec. 400.314 in the final rule published in the Federal Register on
June 28, 1995, (60 FR 33584), States will be 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)
[[Page 38356]]
unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash assistance; and (c)
employed refugees in need of services to retain employment or to attain
economic independence. Effective October 1, 1995, States will also be
required, in accordance with Sec. 400.315, to limit the provision of
targeted assistance services, with the exception of referral and
interpreter services, to refugees who have been in the U.S. for 60
months or less.
In addition to the statutory requirement that TAP funds be used
``primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment''
(section 412(c)(2)(B)(i)), funds awarded under this program are
intended to help fulfill the Congressional intent that ``employable
refugees should be placed on jobs as soon as possible after their
arrival in the United States'' (section 412(a)(1)(B)(i) of the INA).
Therefore targeted assistance funds must be used primarily for services
which directly enhance refugee employment potential, have specific
employment objectives, and are designed to enable refugees to obtain
jobs with less than one year's participation in the targeted assistance
program. Examples of these activities are: Job development; job
placement; job-related and vocational English; short-term job training
specifically related to opportunities in the local economy; on-the-job
training; business and employer incentives (such as on-site employee
orientation, vocational English training, or bilingual supervisor
assistance); and business technical assistance. General or remedial
educational activities--such as adult basic education (ABE) or
preparation for a high school equivalency or general education diploma
(GED)--may be provided within the context of an individual
employability plan for a refugee which is intended to result in job
placement in less than one year. ORR encourages the continued provision
of services after a refugee has entered a job to help the refugee
retain employment or move to a better job. Targeted assistance funds
cannot be used for long-term training programs such as vocational
training that last for more than a year or educational programs that
are not intended to lead to employment within a year. If TAP funds are
used for the provision of English language training, such training
should be provided concurrently, rather than sequentially, with
employment or with other employment-related services, to the maximum
extent possible.
A portion of a local area's allocation may be used for services
which are not directed toward the achievement of a specific employment
objective in less than one year but which are essential to the
adjustment of refugees in the community, provided such needs are
clearly demonstrated and such use is approved by the State.
Reflecting section 412(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA, the Director of ORR
expects States to ``insure that women have the same opportunities as
men to participate in training and instruction.'' In addition, States
are expected to make sure that services are provided in a manner that
encourages the use of bilingual women on service agency staffs to
ensure adequate service access by refugee women. In order to facilitate
refugee self-support, the Director also expects States to implement
strategies which address simultaneously the employment potential of
both male and female wage earners in a family unit. States and counties
are expected to make every effort to assure availability of day care
services in order to allow women with children the opportunity to
participate in employment services or to accept or retain employment.
To accomplish this, day care may be treated as a priority employment-
related service under the targeted assistance program. Refugees who are
participating in TAP-funded or social services-funded employment
services or have accepted employment are eligible for day care
services. For an employed refugee, TAP-funded day care must be limited
to one year after the refugee becomes employed. States and counties,
however, are expected to use day care funding from other publicly
funded mainstream programs as a prior resource and are encouraged to
work with service providers to assure maximum access to other publicly
funded resources for day care.
Targeted assistance services should be provided in a manner that is
culturally and linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and
cultural background. In light of the increasingly diverse population of
refugees who are resettling in this country, refugee service agencies
will need to develop practical ways of providing culturally and
linguistically appropriate services to a changing ethnic population. To
the maximum extent possible, particularly during a refugee's initial
years of resettlement, targeted assistance services should be provided
through a refugee-specific service system rather than through a system
in which refugees are only one of many client groups being served.
ORR strongly encourages States and counties when contracting for
targeted assistance services, including employment services, to give
consideration to the special strengths of MAAs, whenever contract
bidders are otherwise equally qualified, provided that the MAA has the
capability to deliver services in a manner that is culturally and
linguistically compatible with the background of the target population
to be served. States may use a portion of their targeted assistance
funds, either through contracts or through the use of State/county
staff, to provide technical assistance and organizational training to
strengthen the capability of MAAs to provide employment services,
particularly in States where MAA capability is weak or undeveloped. If
a State chooses to use State employees to provide technical assistance
to MAAs, this would be an administrative cost which must be included
within the State administrative cost limit of 5% for the targeted
assistance program.
ORR defines MAAs as organizations with the following
qualifications:
a. The organization is legally incorporated as a nonprofit
organization; and
b. Not less than 51% of the composition of the Board of Directors
or governing board of the mutual assistance association is comprised of
refugees or former refugees, including both refugee men and women.
Finally, in order to provide culturally and linguistically
compatible services in as cost-efficient a manner as possible in a time
of limited resources, ORR strongly encourages States and counties to
promote and give special consideration to the provision of services
through coalitions of refugee service organizations, such as coalitions
of MAAs, voluntary resettlement agencies, or a variety of service
providers. ORR believes it is essential for refugee-serving
organizations to form close partnerships in the provision of services
to refugees in order to be able to respond adequately to a changing
refugee picture. Coalition-building and consolidation of providers is
particularly important in communities with multiple service providers
in order to ensure better coordination of services and maximum use of
funding for services by minimizing the funds used for multiple
administrative overhead costs.
The award of funds to States under this notice will be contingent
upon the completeness of a State's application as described in section
IX, below.
IV. Discussion of Comment Received
Nine letters of comment were received in response to the notice of
proposed availability of FY 1995 funds for targeted assistance. The
comments are summarized below and are followed
[[Page 38357]]
in each case by the Department's response.
Comment: Five commenters opposed allowing States with more than one
eligible county to determine county allocations differently from those
specified in the targeted assistance notice. Four of those commenters
complained that their State's reallocation plan shifted resources from
counties with new arrivals to counties with long-term assistance users.
Response: We believe that States with more than one eligible county
should be given the flexibility to determine county allocations
differently from those specified in the notice, based on more complete
and accurate data that a State may have on county population numbers
and welfare dependency rates than what is available at the Federal
level.
Effective October 1, 1995, under the new rule, States with more
than one eligible targeted assistance county will be allowed to
allocate funds differently from the formula in the targeted assistance
notice only on the basis of its population of refugees who arrived in
the U.S. during the most recent 5-year period. States will be allowed
to use welfare data as a factor in its allocation formula, but only in
combination with arrival data, not as the only factor.
Comment: Two commenters questioned the 3 percent threshold for the
Cuban/Haitian special allocation. One commenter objected to the
exclusion of secondary migrants in the entrant population count. The
other commenter recommended that the threshold be lowered to 1 percent
to provide awards to more counties.
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.
In order to be consistent with the Conference Report on
Appropriations, we have established a 3 percent threshold for
allocations under the Cuban/Haitian special allocation in order to
target the communities most heavily affected by recent Cuban and
Haitian entrant and refugee arrivals. A lowering of the threshold would
disperse the available funds across more communities, which would
significantly reduce the grants to the communities which have the
greatest need.
Comment: One commenter objected to ORR's intention not to consider
data for the purpose of determining the eligibility of new counties for
participation in TAP in FY 1995.
Response: In FY 1996 we intend to re-examine the targeted
assistance program to determine what policies need to be updated or
revised. At that time, the eligibility of all counties will be reviewed
against the new qualifying criteria. We do not believe that it makes
sense to admit new counties to the program in FY 1995 when these
counties may become ineligible in FY 1996. We believe that funds are
best used for already established counties rather than for the start up
costs for new counties that may only receive funding for one year.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the 10% discretionary
program be eliminated because the program allows non-impacted counties
to receive grants which, in turn, reduces the grants to the impacted
counties.
Response: The communities which receive grants under the TAP 10%
discretionary program are impacted communities, even though they may
not receive grants under the targeted assistance formula program. The
TAP 10% program reflects Congressional intent as expressed in the House
Appropriations Committee Report which states: ``The Committee expects
these [TAP 10%] grants to be awarded to communities not presently
receiving targeted assistance because of previous concentration
requirements * * * as well as those who do currently receive targeted
assistance grants.''
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 hope to issue targeted assistance awards earlier in
the fiscal year than has been the case to date.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the allowances for State
and county administrative costs, 5 and 10 percent respectively, be re-
examined. The commenters felt that the counties' allowance should be
increased. One commenter recommended that counties be allowed as much
as 15 to 20 percent in administrative costs since the counties are
responsible for directly administering the targeted assistance grants.
The other commenter recommended a sliding-scale for State allowances,
with a higher percentage for smaller States and a lower percentage for
larger States.
Response: Regarding State administrative allowances, section
412(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the INA allows up to 5% of the TAP allocation to be
retained by the State.
As we indicated earlier, in FY 1996 we intend to re-examine the
targeted assistance program to determine what policies need to be
updated or revised. This will provide an appropriate time to re-examine
the issue of allowable administrative cost levels.
Comment: One commenter requested that the application procedures
for the Cuban/Haitian special allocation be made available as soon as
possible if the procedures will be different from previous years.
Response: The application procedures for the Cuban/Haitian special
allocation will be provided to participating States shortly.
Comment: One commenter requested that counties receiving awards for
the first time under the Cuban/Haitian special allocation be awarded
grants from October 1995 through September 1996 to give the State
sufficient planning time.
Response: Awards will be made before the end of FY 1995. Counties
may obligate targeted assistance funds for up to one year after the end
of the Federal fiscal year in which the Department awarded the grant.
Therefore, grants awarded this year may be obligated through September
30, 1996. Funds must be liquidated within two years after the end of
the Federal fiscal year in which the Department awarded the grant.
V. Eligible Grantees
The following requirements, which have previously applied to TAP,
will continue to apply with respect to FY 1995 awards:
Eligible grantees are those agencies of State governments which are
responsible for the refugee program under 45 CFR 400.5 in States
containing counties which qualify for FY 1995 targeted assistance
awards. The use of targeted assistance funds for services to Cuban and
Haitian entrants is limited to States which have an approved State plan
under the Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program (CHEP).
The State agency will submit a single application on behalf of all
county governments of the qualified counties in that State. Subsequent
to the approval of the State's application by ORR, local targeted
assistance plans will be developed by the county government or other
designated entity and submitted to the State.
A State with more than one qualified county is permitted, but not
required, to determine the allocation amount for each qualified county
within the State. However, if a State chooses to determine
[[Page 38358]]
county allocations differently from those set forth in this notice, the
FY 1995 allocations proposed by the State must be included in the
State's application.
Applications submitted in response to this notice are not subject
to review by State and areawide clearinghouses under Executive Order
12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.''
VI. Qualification and Allocation Formulas
A. Qualifying New Counties
ORR is not considering new counties for participation in TAP in FY
1995. The reason is that in FY 1996 we intend to modify the qualifying
criteria and allocations formula for targeted assistance. At that time,
the eligibility of all counties for participation in TAP will be
reviewed against the new qualifying criteria. We do not believe it
makes sense to invite new counties to submit evidence of eligibility in
FY 1995 when these counties may become ineligible in FY 1996 under the
new qualifying criteria.
B. Allocation Formula
The FY 1995 TAP formula allocations are based on the same formula
as in FY 1994, updated to reflect arrivals through September 30, 1994.
Under this formula, one portion of the allocation is based on
refugee and Cuban/Haitian entrant arrivals during FY 1980-1982; funds
for this portion of the formula are allocated on the same proportionate
basis among participating counties as in FY 1994. The second portion of
the allocation is based on refugee and entrant placements in these
counties during calendar year (CY) 1983-September 30, 1994.
For the participating counties, the $25,457,300 which is allocated
by formula is apportioned as follows:
a. $7,891,763 or 31%, is allocated on the basis of the formula
which has been used for all previous targeted assistance allocations
(``old formula'') and which is based on initial placements during FY
1980-1982 and other factors as described under ``Formula Used to Date''
in the FY 1989 TAP notice published in the Federal Register on July 3,
1989 (54 F.R. 27944).
b. $17,565,537 or 69%, is allocated on the basis of arrivals during
CY 1983-September 30, 1994 (``new formula'').
The above percentages are based on the proportion of initial
placements in these counties during the two periods: 338,247 refugee
arrivals, or 31% of the total number of placements, during the old-
formula period; and 768,750 or 69%, during the new-formula period.
The old-formula allocation of $7,891,763 follows the same
distribution among counties as in the past.
The new-formula allocation of $17,565,537 is based on the number of
initial placements in each county during CY 1983-September 30, 1994.
Welfare dependency rates were not used as a factor in this portion of
the formula.
C. Allocation Formula for Communities Affected by Recent Cuban/Haitian
Arrivals
Allocations for recent Cuban and Haitian refugee and entrant
arrivals are based on arrival numbers during the 3-year period
beginning October 1, 1991 through September 30, 1994. Allocations are
limited to targeted assistance counties with 3 percent or more of the
total 3-year Cuban and Haitian arrival population (35,863 arrivals) in
the 42 targeted assistance counties. We have established a 3 percent
threshold for allocations in order to target the most impacted
communities.
VII. Allocations
Table 1 lists the participating counties, the number of placements
in each county during CY 1983-September 30, 1994, the amount of each
county's allocation which is based on the old formula, the amount of
each county's allocation which is based on the new formula, and the
county's total allocation.
Although Table 1 shows an amount for each county, the Director has
decided, in the case of a State which contains more than one qualified
county, to continue to permit the State to determine (in accordance
with the requirements set forth in this notice) the appropriate
allocation of the State's targeted assistance award among the qualified
counties in the State. If a State chooses to make allocations which are
different from the notice, the State, as in the FY 1994 TAP, would be
responsible for determining an appropriate and equitable basis for
allocating the funds among the qualified counties in the State and for
including in its application a description of this allocation basis,
the data to be used, and the allocation proposed for each county.
Table 2 lists the participating counties, the number of Cuban and
Haitian refugee and entrant arrivals in each county during FY 1992-FY
1994, each county's percentage of the aggregate total Cuban/Haitian
arrivals in the 42 targeted assistance counties, and the allocation
amount for each county that has an arrival threshold of 3 percent or
above.
Table 3 provides State totals for targeted assistance allocations.
Table 4 indicates the areas that each participating county
represents.
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
Table 1.--Targeted Assistance Allocations by County: FY 1995
Portion of FY Portion of FY
Arrivals Jan. 1995 1995
County State 1983-Sept. allocation allocation Total FY 1995
1994 under old under new allocation\1\
formula formula
.......... (A) (B) (C) (D)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda........................... CA 15,342 $196,075 $350,380 $546,455
Contra Costa...................... CA 4,291 56,063 97,998 154,061
Fresno............................ CA 14,168 108,273 323,569 431,842
Los Angeles....................... CA 96,344 990,155 2,200,303 3,190,458
Merced............................ CA 4,419 132,156 100,921 233,077
Orange............................ CA 45,039 440,587 1,028,600 1,469,187
Sacramento........................ CA 17,687 167,821 403,935 571,756
San Diego......................... CA 25,368 328,383 579,354 907,737
San Francisco..................... CA 25,198 254,838 575,471 830,309
San Joaquin....................... CA 9,352 169,342 213,581 382,923
Santa Clara....................... CA 34,488 327,990 787,636 1,115,626
Stanislaus........................ CA 3,433 30,639 78,403 109,042
Tulare............................ CA 5,345 0 122,069 122,069
[[Page 38359]]
Denver............................ CO 9,865 66,147 225,297 291,444
Broward........................... FL 3,568 109,568 81,486 191,054
Dade.............................. FL 55,816 1,911,490 1,274,725 3,186,215
Hillsboro......................... FL 3,496 34,433 79,842 114,275
Palm Beach........................ FL 3,595 45,517 82,103 127,620
Honolulu.......................... HI 3,417 72,838 78,037 150,875
Cook/Kane......................... IL 36,430 342,151 831,988 1,174,139
Sedgwick.......................... KS 4,038 81,534 92,220 173,754
Orleans........................... LA 3,899 55,699 89,045 144,744
Montgomery/Prince Georges......... MD 8,851 67,761 202,139 269,900
Middlesex......................... MA 6,355 53,529 145,135 198,664
Suffolk........................... MA 16,114 122,853 368,011 490,864
Hennepin.......................... MN 10,446 86,311 238,566 324,877
Ramsey............................ MN 10,263 121,357 234,386 355,743
Jackson........................... MO 4,319 31,685 98,637 130,322
Essex............................. NJ 5,925 18,336 135,315 153,651
Hudson............................ NJ 2,941 122,698 67,167 189,865
Union............................. NJ 1,812 24,631 41,382 66,013
New York.......................... NY 135,631 273,761 3,097,538 3,371,299
Multnomah......................... OR 17,076 185,998 389,981 575,979
Philadelphia...................... PA 18,643 127,317 425,769 553,086
Providence........................ RI 4,850 90,936 110,764 201,700
Dallas/Tarrant.................... TX 26,002 0 593,833 593,833
Harris............................ TX 21,917 149,237 500,540 649,777
Salt Lake......................... UT 7,210 45,368 164,662 210,030
Arlington......................... VA 3,183 78,619 72,693 151,312
Fairfax........................... VA 9,006 94,800 205,679 300,479
King/Snohomish.................... WA 29,276 226,469 668,605 895,074
Pierce............................ WA 4,719 48,398 107,772 156,170
Total....................... ............ 769,137 7,891,763 17,565,537 25,457,300
\1\ Based on arrivals through September 30, 1994.
Table 2.--Targeted Assistance Allocations for Communities Affected by Recent Cuban and Haitian Arrivals: FY 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount to be
FY 92-94 total allocated:
Cuban & $19,000,000
Haitian % of total ---------------
County State refugee & arrivals Final
entrant Allocation: 3%
arrivals arrival
threshold
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda........................................... CA.......... 6 0.02 ..............
Contra Costa...................................... CA.......... 1 0.00 ..............
Fresno............................................ CA.......... 3 0.01 ..............
Los Angeles....................................... CA.......... 660 1.80 ..............
Merced............................................ CA.......... 0 0.00 ..............
Orange............................................ CA.......... 24 0.07 ..............
Sacramento........................................ CA.......... 13 0.04 ..............
San Diego......................................... CA.......... 199 0.54 ..............
San Francisco..................................... CA.......... 274 0.75 ..............
San Joaquin....................................... CA.......... 2 0.01 ..............
Santa Clara....................................... CA.......... 4 0.01 ..............
Stanislaus........................................ CA.......... 0 0.00 ..............
Tulare............................................ CA.......... 0 0.00 ..............
Denver............................................ CO.......... 58 0.16 ..............
Broward........................................... FL.......... 2,000 5.46 $1,237,866
Dade.............................................. FL.......... 24,932 68.10 15,431,234
Hillsboro......................................... FL.......... 832 2.27 ..............
Palm Beach........................................ FL.......... 2,621 7.16 1,622,223
Honolulu.......................................... HI.......... 0 0.00 ..............
Cook/Kane......................................... IL.......... 250 0.68 ..............
Sedgwick.......................................... KS.......... 6 0.02 ..............
Orleans........................................... LA.......... 94 0.26 ..............
Montgom./Pr. G.................................... MD.......... 59 0.16 ..............
Middlesex......................................... MA.......... 82 0.22 ..............
[[Page 38360]]
Suffolk........................................... MA.......... 392 1.07 ..............
Hennepin.......................................... MN.......... 51 0.14 ..............
Ramsey............................................ MN.......... 0 0.00 ..............
Jackson........................................... MO.......... 310 0.85 ..............
Essex............................................. NJ.......... 371 1.01 ..............
Hudson............................................ NJ.......... 1,079 2.95 ..............
Union............................................. NJ.......... 121 0.33 ..............
New York.......................................... NY.......... 1,145 3.13 708,678
Multnomah......................................... OR.......... 139 0.38 ..............
Philadelphia...................................... PA.......... 154 0.42 ..............
Providence........................................ RI.......... 11 0.03 ..............
Dallas/Tarrant.................................... TX.......... 349 0.95 ..............
Harris............................................ TX.......... 137 0.37 ..............
Salt Lake......................................... UT.......... 0 0.00 ..............
Arlington......................................... VA.......... 12 0.03 ..............
Fairfax........................................... VA.......... 3 0.01 ..............
King/Snohomish.................................... WA.......... 219 0.60 ..............
Pierce............................................ WA.......... 0 0.00 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... ............ 36,613 100.00 19,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Targeted Assistance Allocations by State: FY 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1995allocation
State \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California........................................... $10,064,542
Colorado............................................. 291,444
Florida.............................................. \2\ 21,910,486
Hawaii............................................... 150,875
Illinois............................................. 1,174,139
Kansas............................................... 173,754
Louisiana............................................ 144,744
Maryland............................................. 269,900
Massachusetts........................................ 689,528
Minnesota............................................ 680,620
Missouri............................................. 130,322
New Jersey........................................... 409,529
New York............................................. \2\ 4,079,977
Oregon............................................... 575,979
Pennsylvania......................................... 553,086
Rhode Island......................................... 201,700
Texas................................................ 1,243,610
Utah................................................. 210,030
Virginia............................................. 451,791
Washington........................................... 1,051,244
------------------
Total.......................................... 44,457,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on arrivals through September 30, 1994.
\2\ The allocations for Federal and New York include $18,291,322 and
$708,678 respectively for communities affected by Cuban and Haitian
entrants and refugees. This is referred to in the Conference Report on
the appropriations: ``to serve communities affected by the Cuban and
Haitian entrants and refugees whose arrivals in recent years have
increased.''
[[Page 38361]]
Table 4.--Targeted Assistance Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Targeted assistance
State area \1\ Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA ALAMEDA
CA CONTRA COSTA
CA FRESNO
CA LOS ANGELES
CA MERCED
CA ORANGE
CA SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO
CA
CA SAN FRANCISCO........ MARIN, SAN FRANCISCO, & SAN
MATEO COUNTIES.
CA SAN JOAQUIN
CA SANTA CLARA
CA STANISLAUS
CA TULARE
CO DENVER............... ADAMS, ARAPHOE, BOULDER, DENVER
& JEFFERSON COUNTIES.
FL BROWARD
FL DADE
FL HILLSBOROUGH
FL PALM BEACH
HI HONOLULU
IL COOK/KANE
KS SEDGWICK
LA ORLEANS.............. JEFFERSON & ORLEANS PARISHES.
MD MONTGOMERY/PRINCE
GEORGES
MA MIDDLESEX
MA SUFFOLK
MN HENNEPIN
MN RAMSEY
MO JACKSON.............. JACKSON COUNTY, MO. & WYANDOTTE
COUNTY KS.
NJ ESSEX
NJ HUDSON
NJ UNION
NY NEW YORK............. BRONX, KINGS, NEW YORK, QUEENS,
& RICHMOND COUNTIES.
OR MULTNOMAH............ CLACKAMAS, MULTNOMAH, &
WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OR. &
CLARK COUNTY, WA.
PA PHILADELPHIA
RI PROVIDENCE
TX DALLAS/TARRANT
TX HARRIS
UT SALT LAKE............ DAVID, SALT LAKE & UTAH
COUNTIES.
VA ARLINGTON
VA FAIRFAX.............. FAIRFAX COUNTY & THE
INDEPENDENT CITIES OF
ALEXANDRIA, FAIRFAX AND FALLS
CHURCH.
WA KINGS/SNOHOMISH
WA PIERCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consists of a named county/counties unless otherwise defined.
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
VIII. Application and Implementation Process
Under the FY 1995 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.
TAP funds will be awarded through a more streamlined grant process
similar to that used for the ORR social services formula grant program.
An application and assurances are still required of the States eligible
to receive TAP funding. FY 1995 funds must be obligated by the State
agency no later than one year after the end of the Federal fiscal year
in which the Department awarded the grant. There will be no carryover
of unobligated funds into the FY 1996 grant award. Funds must be
liquidated within two years after the end of the Federal fiscal year in
which the Department awarded the grant. A State's final financial
report on targeted assistance expenditures must be received no later
than two years after the end of the Federal fiscal year in which the
Department awarded the grant. If final reports are not received on
time, the Department will deobligate any unexpended funds, including
any unliquidated obligations, on the basis of a State's last filed
report.
Although additional funding to Florida and New York for communities
affected by Cuban and Haitian entrants and refugees whose arrivals in
recent years have increased is part of the appropriation amount for
targeted assistance, the scope of activities for these additional funds
will be administratively determined. Applications for these funds are
therefore not subject to provisions contained in this notice but to
other requirements which will be conveyed separately. Similarly, the
requirements regarding the 10% portion of the targeted assistance
appropriation as well as the supplemental funds to the 10% portion of
the targeted assistance appropriation that will be awarded separately
have been addressed in the grant announcements for those funds.
[[Page 38362]]
IX. Application Requirements
The State application requirements for grants for the FY 1995
targeted assistance formula allocation are as follows:
States that are currently operating under approved management plans
for their FY 1994 targeted assistance program and wish to continue to
do so for their FY 1995 grants may provide the following in lieu of
resubmitting the full currently approved plan:
The State's application for FY 1995 funding shall provide:
A. Assurance that the State's current management plan for the
administration of the targeted assistance program, as approved by ORR,
will continue to be in full force and effect for the FY 1995 targeted
assistance program, subject to any additional assurances or revisions
required by this notice which are not reflected in the current plan.
Any proposed modifications to the approved plan will be identified in
the application and are subject to ORR review and approval. Any
proposed changes must address and reference all appropriate portions of
the FY 1994 application content requirements to ensure complete
incorporation in the State's management plan.
B. Assurance that 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.
C. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used primarily
for the provision of services which directly enhance refugee employment
potential, have specific employment objectives, and are designed to
enable refugees to obtain jobs with less than one year's participation
in the targeted assistance program. States must indicate what
percentage of FY 1995 targeted assistance formula allocation funds that
are used for services will be allocated for employment services.
D. A line item budget and justification for State administrative
costs limited to a maximum of 5% of the total award to the State. Each
total budget period funding amount requested must be necessary,
reasonable, and allocable to the project.
States administering the program locally: States that have
administered the program locally or provide direct service to the
refugee population (with the concurrence of the county) must submit a
program summary to ORR for prior review and approval. The summary must
include a description of the proposed services; a justification for the
projected allocation for each component including relationship of funds
allocated to numbers of clients served, characteristics of clients,
duration of training and services, projected outcomes, and cost per
placement. In addition, the program component summary must describe any
ancillary services or subcomponents such as day care, transportation,
or language training.
States with two or more counties receiving targeted assistance
funds: As in FY 1994, a State with two or more local areas which
qualify for the program may choose to determine respective county
allocations. If the State chooses to determine county allocations
differently from those set forth in Table 1 of this notice, the State
must provide a description of the State's proposed allocation plan and
the basis for the proposed allocations. The application must contain a
description of the allocation approach, data used in its determination,
the calculated allocation amount for each county, and the rationale for
the proposed allocations. States are encouraged to revise allocation
formulas to assure appropriate funding among eligible counties for the
duration of the grant such that targeted assistance activities within
the State conclude simultaneously. Where the State chooses not to
determine county allocation amounts, the State must provide the
allocations which are specified in this notice.
X. Reporting Requirements
States will be required to submit quarterly reports on the outcomes
of the targeted assistance program, using the same form which States
use for reporting on refugee social services formula grants. This is
Schedule A and Schedule C of the ORR-6 Quarterly Performance Report
form. ORR is no longer using the ORR-12 form which was originally used
to report on the outcomes of the targeted assistance program. ORR is
consolidating its reporting requirements. The new reporting form will
consolidate social services and targeted assistance performance
reporting in one format in order to simplify and coordinate reporting.
The new form will be available when reporting on FY 1995 grants begins,
which would be at the end of the first quarter of FY 1996.
Dated: July 19, 1995.
Lavinia Limon,
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[FR Doc. 95-18335 Filed 7-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
