19270 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices

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.

Date: April 24, 1995

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Place: Holiday Inn, National Airport, VA

Contact Person: Dr. Daniel McDonald,

Scientific Review Admin., 5333 Westbard

Ave., Room 350, Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301) 594–7282

Name of SEP: Biological and Physiological

Sciences

Date: June 5, 1995

Time: 8:00 a.m.

Place: Hyatt Regency, Bethesda, MD

Contact Person: Dr. Sandy Warren, Scientific

Review Administrator, 6701 Rockledge

Drive, Room 5134, Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301) 594–7289

Name of SEP: Clinical Sciences

Date: June 5, 1995

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Place: ANA Hotel, Washington, DC

Contact Person: Dr. Mushtaq Khan, Scientific

Review Admin., 6701 Rockledge Drive,

Room 4045, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301)

594–7168.

The meetings will be closed in accordance

with the provisions set forth in secs.

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C.

Applications and/or proposals and the

discussions could reveal confidential trade

secrets or commercial property such as

patentable material and personal information

concerning individuals associated with the

applications and/or proposals, the disclosure

of which would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

This notice is being published less than 15

days prior to the meeting due to the urgent

need to meet timing limitations imposed by

the grant review cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393–

93.396, 93.837–93.844, 93.846–93.878,

93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health,

HHS)

Dated: April 11, 1995.

Susan K. Feldman,

Committee Management Officer, NIH.

[FR Doc. 95–9314 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

Office of Refugee Resettlement

Refugee Resettlement Program;

Proposed Availability of Formula

Allocation Funding for FY 1995

Targeted Assistance Grants for

Services to Refugees in Local Areas of

High Need

AGENCY: Office of Refugee Resettlement

(ORR), ACF, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed availability

of formula allocation funding for FY

1995 targeted assistance grants to States

for services to refugees1 in local areas of

high need.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

proposed availability of funds and

award procedures for FY 1995 targeted

assistance grants for services to refugees

under the Refugee Resettlement Program

(RRP). These grants are for service

provision in localities with large refugee

populations, high refugee

concentrations, and high use of public

assistance, and where specific needs

exist for supplementation of currently

available resources. The formula has

been updated to take into account FY

1994 arrivals.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be

received by May 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Address written comments,

in duplicate, to: Toyo A. Biddle, Office

of Refugee Resettlement, Administration

for Children and Families, 370 L’Enfant

Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20447.

APPLICATION DEADLINE: The deadline for

applications will be established by the

final notice; applications should not be

sent in response to this notice of

proposed allocations.

CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC

ASSISTANCE (CDFA) NUMBER: 93.584.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Toyo Biddle (202) 401–9250.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Scope

This notice announces the proposed

availability of funds for grants for

targeted assistance for services to

refugees in counties where, because of

factors such as unusually large refugee

populations, high refugee

concentrations, and high use of public

assistance, there exists and can be

demonstrated a specific need for

supplementation of resources for

services to this population.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement

(ORR) has available $49,397,000 in FY

1995 funds for the targeted assistance

program (TAP) as part of the FY 1995

appropriation for the Department of

Health and Human Services (Pub. L.

103–333).

The House Appropriations Committee

Report reads as follows with respect to

targeted assistance funds (H.R. Rept. No.

103–553, p. 93):

This program provides grants to States

for counties which are impacted by high

concentrations of refugees and high

dependency rates. The Committee

intends that $19,000,000 of the total

recommended for targeted assistance be

provided to continue the current

program of support to communities

affected as a result of the massive influx

of Cuban and Haitian entrants. The

Committee also intends that 10 percent

of the total appropriated for targeted

assistance be used for grants to localities

most heavily impacted by the influx of

refugees such as Laotian Hmong,

Cambodians, and Soviet Pentecostals,

including secondary migrants who

entered the United States after October

1, 1979. The Committee expects these

grants to be awarded to communities

not presently receiving targeted

assistance because of previous

concentration requirements and other

factors in the grant formulas, as well as

those who do currently receive targeted

assistance grants.

The Senate Appropriations

Committee Report (S. Rept. No. 103–

318, p. 154) is consistent with the

above-quoted House Report.

The Conference Report on

Appropriations (H. Rept. No. 103–733,

p. 24) clarifies Congress’ intent on the

use of the $19 million for communities

affected by Cuban and Haitian entrants

as follows:

The conferees are agreed that

$19,000,000 of the $49,397,000

appropriated for targeted assistance is to

serve communities affected by the

Cuban and Haitian entrants and refugees

whose arrivals in recent years have

increased.

The Director of the Office of Refugee

Resettlement (ORR) proposes to use the

$49,397,000 appropriated for FY 1995

targeted assistance as follows:

• $25,457,300 will be allocated under

the updated formula, as set forth in this

notice.

• $19,000,000 will be awarded to

serve communities most heavily

affected by recent Cuban and Haitian

entrant and refugee arrivals.

• $4,939,700 (10% of the total) will

be awarded as second-year continuation

grants in a two-year project period

under a discretionary grant

announcement that was issued in FY

1994.

In addition, the Office of Refugee

Resettlement has available an additional

$6,000,000 in FY 1995 funds to augment

the targeted assistance 10% program

through the Foreign Operations, Export
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices 19271

Financing, and Related Programs

Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 103–306).

These funds will be awarded under a

separate discretionary grant

announcement which will be issued

setting forth application requirements

and evaluation criteria.

The purpose of targeted assistance

grants is to provide, through a process

of local planning and implementation,

direct services intended to result in the

economic self-sufficiency and reduced

welfare dependency of refugees through

job placements.

The targeted assistance program

reflects the requirements of section

412(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (INA), which provides

that targeted assistance grants shall be

made available (i) primarily for the

purpose of facilitating refugee

employment and achievement of selfsufficiency, (ii) in a manner that does

not supplant other refugee program

funds and that assures that not less than

95 percent of the amount of the grant

award is made available to the county

or other local entity.

II. Authorization

Targeted assistance projects are

funded under the authority of section

412(c)(2) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (INA), as amended by

the Refugee Assistance Extension Act of

1986 (Pub. L. 99–605), 8 U.S.C. 1522(c);

section 501(a) of the Refugee Education

Assistance Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–422),

8 U.S.C. 1522 note, insofar as it

incorporates by reference with respect

to Cuban and Haitian entrants the

authorities pertaining to assistance for

refugees established by section 412(c)(2)

of the INA, as cited above; section

584(c) of the Foreign Operations, Export

Financing, and Related Programs

Appropriations Act, 1988, as included

in the FY 1988 Continuing Resolution

(Pub. L. 100–202), insofar as it

incorporates by reference with respect

to certain Amerasians from Vietnam the

authorities pertaining to assistance for

refugees established by section 412(c)(2)

of the INA, as cited above, including

certain Amerasians from Vietnam who

are U.S. citizens, as provided under title

II of the Foreign Operations, Export

Financing, and Related Programs

Appropriations Acts, 1989 (Pub. L. 100–

461), 1990 (Pub. L. 101–167), and 1991

(Pub. L. 101–513).

III. Client and Service Priorities

Targeted assistance funding should be

used to assist refugee families to achieve

economic independence. To this end,

ORR expects States and counties to

ensure that a coherent plan of services

is developed for each eligible family

that addresses the family’s needs from

time of arrival until attainment of

economic independence. Each service

plan should address a family’s needs for

both employment-related services and

other needed social services. In local

jurisdictions that have both targeted

assistance and refugee social services

programs, one plan of services may be

developed for a family that incorporates

both targeted assistance and refugee

social services.

Services funded under the targeted

assistance allocations are required to

focus primarily on those refugees who,

either because of their protracted use of

public assistance or difficulty in

securing employment, continue to need

services beyond the initial years of

resettlement. The targeted assistance

program, however, is not intended to be

limited to cash assistance recipients.

TAP-funded services may also be

provided to other refugees in need of

services, regardless of whether the

refugees are receiving cash assistance.

In addition to the statutory

requirement that TAP funds be used

primarily for the purpose of facilitating

refugee employment (section

412(c)(2)(B)(i)), funds awarded under

this program are intended to help fulfill

the Congressional intent that

employable refugees should be placed

on jobs as soon as possible after their

arrival in the United States (section

412(a)(1)(B)(i) of the INA). Therefore

targeted assistance funds must be used

primarily for services which directly

enhance refugee employment potential,

have specific employment objectives,

and are designed to enable refugees to

obtain jobs with less than one year’s

participation in the targeted assistance

program. Examples of these activities

are: job development; job placement;

job-related and vocational English;

short-term job training specifically

related to opportunities in the local

economy; on-the-job training; business

and employer incentives (such as onsite 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 TAPfunded or social services-funded

employment services or have accepted

employment are eligible for day care

services. For an employed refugee, TAPfunded 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
19272 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices

to a changing ethnic population. To the

maximum extent possible, particularly

during a refugee’s initial years of

resettlement, targeted assistance

services should be provided through a

refugee-specific service system rather

than through a system in which refugees

are only one of many client groups

being served.

ORR strongly encourages States and

counties when contracting for targeted

assistance services, including

employment services, to give

consideration to the special strengths of

MAAs, whenever contract bidders are

otherwise equally qualified, provided

that the MAA has the capability to

deliver services in a manner that is

culturally and linguistically compatible

with the background of the target

population to be served. States may use

a portion of their targeted assistance

funds, either through contracts or

through the use of State/county staff, to

provide technical assistance and

organizational training to strengthen the

capability of MAAs to provide

employment services, particularly in

States where MAA capability is weak or

undeveloped. If a State chooses to use

State employees to provide technical

assistance to MAAs, this would be an

administrative cost which must be

included within the State administrative

cost limit of 5% for the targeted

assistance program.

ORR defines MAAs as organizations

with the following qualifications:

a. The organization is legally

incorporated as a nonprofit

organization; and

b. Not less than 51% of the

composition of the Board of Directors or

governing board of the mutual

assistance association is comprised of

refugees or former refugees, including

both refugee men and women.

Finally, in order to provide culturally

and linguistically compatible services in

as cost-efficient a manner as possible in

a time of limited resources, ORR

strongly encourages States and counties

to promote and give special

consideration to the provision of

services through coalitions of refugee

service organizations, such as coalitions

of MAAs, voluntary resettlement

agencies, or a variety of service

providers. ORR believes it is essential

for refugee-serving organizations to form

close partnerships in the provision of

services to refugees in order to be able

to respond adequately to a changing

refugee picture. Coalition-building and

consolidation of providers is

particularly important in communities

with multiple service providers in order

to ensure better coordination of services

and maximum use of funding for

services by minimizing the funds used

for multiple administrative overhead

costs.

The award of funds to States under

this notice would be contingent upon

the completeness of a State’s application

as described in section IX, below.

IV. [Reserved for Discussion of

Comments in Final Notice]

V. Eligible Grantees

The following requirements, which

have previously applied to TAP, will

continue to apply with respect to FY

1995 awards:

Eligible grantees are those agencies of

State governments which are

responsible for the refugee program

under 45 CFR 400.5 in States containing

counties which qualify for FY 1995

targeted assistance awards. The use of

targeted assistance funds for services to

Cuban and Haitian entrants is limited to

States which have an approved State

plan under the Cuban/Haitian Entrant

Program (CHEP).

The State agency will submit a single

application on behalf of all county

governments of the qualified counties in

that State. Subsequent to the approval of

the State’s application by ORR, local

targeted assistance plans will be

developed by the county government or

other designated entity and submitted to

the State.

A State with more than one qualified

county is permitted, but not required, to

determine the allocation amount for

each qualified county within the State.

However, if a State chooses to determine

county allocations differently from

those set forth in this notice, the FY

1995 allocations proposed by the State

must be included in the State’s

application.

Applications submitted in response to

this notice are not subject to review by

State and areawide clearinghouses

under Executive Order 12372,

Intergovernmental Review of Federal

Programs.

VI. Qualification and Allocation

Formulas

A. Qualifying New Counties

ORR does not intend to consider data

for the purpose of determining the

eligibility of new counties to participate

in TAP in FY 1995. The reason is that

in FY 1996 we intend to modify the

qualifying criteria and allocations

formula for targeted assistance. At that

time, the eligibility of all counties for

participation in TAP will be reviewed

against the new qualifying criteria. We

do not believe it makes sense to invite

new counties to submit evidence of

eligibility in FY 1995 when these

counties may become ineligible in FY

1996 under the new qualifying criteria.

B. Allocation Formula

The FY 1995 TAP formula allocations

are based on the same formula as in FY

1994, updated to reflect arrivals through

September 30, 1994.

Under this formula, one portion of the

allocation is based on refugee and

Cuban/Haitian entrant arrivals during

FY 1980–1982; funds for this portion of

the formula are allocated on the same

proportionate basis among participating

counties as in FY 1994. The second

portion of the allocation is based on

refugee and entrant placements in these

counties during calendar year (CY)

1983–September 30, 1994.

For the participating counties, the

$25,457,300 which is allocated by

formula is apportioned as follows:

a. $7,891,763 or 31%, is allocated on

the basis of the formula which has been

used for all previous targeted assistance

allocations (old formula) and which is

based on initial placements during FY

1980–1982 and other factors as

described under Formula Used to Date

in the FY 1989 TAP notice published in

the Federal Register on July 3, 1989 (54

FR 27944).

b. $17,565,537 or 69%, is allocated on

the basis of arrivals during CY 1983–

September 30, 1994 (new formula).

The above percentages are based on

the proportion of initial placements in

these counties during the two periods:

338,247 refugee arrivals, or 31% of the

total number of placements, during the

old-formula period; and 768,750 or

69%, during the new-formula period.

The old-formula allocation of

$7,891,763 follows the same

distribution among counties as in the

past.

The new-formula allocation of

$17,565,537 is based on the number of

initial placements in each county during

CY 1983–September 30, 1994. Welfare

dependency rates were not used as a

factor in this portion of the formula.

C. Allocation Formula for Communities

Affected by Recent Cuban/Haitian

Arrivals

Proposed allocations for recent Cuban

and Haitian refugee and entrant arrivals

are based on arrival numbers during the

3-year period beginning October 1, 1991

through September 30, 1994.

Allocations are limited to targeted

assistance counties with 3 percent or

more of the total 3-year Cuban and

Haitian arrival population (35,863

arrivals) in the 42 targeted assistance

counties. We have established a 3

percent threshold for allocations in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices 19273

order to target the most impacted

communities.

VII. Proposed Allocations

Table 1 lists the participating

counties, the number of placements in

each county during CY 1983—

September 30, 1994, the amount of each

county’s proposed allocation which is

based on the old formula, the amount of

each county’s allocation which is based

on the new formula, and the county’s

total proposed allocation.

Although Table 1 shows an amount

for each county, the Director proposes,

in the case of a State which contains

more than one qualified county, to

continue to permit the State to

determine (in accordance with the

requirements set forth in this notice) the

appropriate allocation of the State’s

targeted assistance award among the

qualified counties in the State. If a State

chooses to make allocations which are

different from the notice, the State, as in

the FY 1994 TAP, would be responsible

for determining an appropriate and

equitable basis for allocating the funds

among the qualified counties in the

State and for including in its application

a description of this allocation basis, the

data to be used, and the allocation

proposed for each county.

Table 2 lists the participating

counties, the number of Cuban and

Haitian refugee and entrant arrivals in

each county during FY 1992–FY 1994,

each county’s percentage of the

aggregate total Cuban/Haitian arrivals in

the 42 targeted assistance counties, and

the proposed allocation amount for each

county that has an arrival threshold of

3 percent or above.

Table 3 provides State totals for

targeted assistance allocations.

Table 4 indicates the areas that each

participating county represents.

TABLE 1.—PROPOSED TARGETED ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS BY COUNTY: FY 1995

County State

Arrivals Jan.

1983–Sep.

1994

(A)

Portion of

proposed

FY 1995 allocation

under old

formula

(B)

Portion of proposed FY

1995 allocation under new

formula

(C)

Total proposed FY

1995 allocation 1

(D)

Alameda ............................................................................................... CA 15,342 $196,075 $350,557 $546,632

Contra Costa ........................................................................................ CA 4,291 56,063 98,047 154,110

Fresno .................................................................................................. CA 14,168 108,273 323,731 432,004

Los Angeles ......................................................................................... CA 96,369 990,155 2,201,981 3,192,136

Merced ................................................................................................. CA 4,419 132,156 100,972 233,128

Orange ................................................................................................. CA 45,042 440,587 1,029,186 1,469,773

Sacramento .......................................................................................... CA 17,687 167,821 404,139 571,960

San Diego ............................................................................................ CA 25,354 328,383 579,326 907,709

San Francisco ...................................................................................... CA 25,207 254,838 575,967 830,805

San Joaquin ......................................................................................... CA 9,352 169,342 213,688 383,030

Santa Clara .......................................................................................... CA 34,492 327,990 788,124 1,116,114

Stanislaus ............................................................................................ CA 3,433 30,639 78,442 109,081

Tulare ................................................................................................... CA 5,345 0 122,130 122,130

Denver ................................................................................................. CO 9,863 66,147 225,364 291,511

Broward ................................................................................................ FL 3,549 109,568 81,093 190,661

Dade .................................................................................................... FL 55,469 1,911,490 1,267,438 3,178,928

Hillsboro ............................................................................................... FL 3,484 34,433 79,608 114,041

Palm Beach ......................................................................................... FL 3,574 45,517 81,664 127,181

Honolulu ............................................................................................... HI 3,417 72,838 78,077 150,915

Cook/Kane ........................................................................................... IL 36,432 342,151 832,452 1,174,603

Sedgwick .............................................................................................. KS 4,038 81,534 92,266 173,800

Orleans ................................................................................................ LA 3,902 55,699 89,159 144,858

Montgomery/Prince Georges ............................................................... MD 8,850 67,761 202,218 269,979

Middlesex ............................................................................................. MA 6,357 53,529 145,254 198,783

Suffolk .................................................................................................. MA 16,107 122,853 368,037 490,890

Hennepin .............................................................................................. MN 10,446 86,311 238,686 324,997

Ramsey ................................................................................................ MN 10,263 121,357 234,504 355,861

Jackson ................................................................................................ MO 4,320 31,685 98,710 130,395

Essex ................................................................................................... NJ 5,925 18,336 135,383 153,719

Hudson ................................................................................................. NJ 2,946 122,698 67,315 190,013

Union .................................................................................................... NJ 1,810 24,631 41,358 65,989

New York ............................................................................................. NY 135,633 273,761 3,099,143 3,372,904

Multnomah ........................................................................................... OR 17,069 185,998 390,018 576,016

Philadelphia ......................................................................................... PA 18,645 127,317 426,028 553,345

Providence ........................................................................................... RI 4,850 90,936 110,820 201,756

Dallas/Tarrant ...................................................................................... TX 26,000 0 594,086 594,086

Harris ................................................................................................... TX 21,914 149,237 500,723 649,960

Salt Lake .............................................................................................. UT 7,209 45,368 164,722 210,090

Arlington ............................................................................................... VA 3,183 78,619 72,730 151,349

Fairfax .................................................................................................. VA 9,011 94,800 205,897 300,697

KIng/Snohomish ................................................................................... WA 29,264 226,469 668,667 895,136

Pierce ................................................................................................... WA 4,719 48,398 107,827 156,225

Total .......................................................................................... 768,750 7,891,763 17,565,537 25,457,300

1Based on arrivals through September 30, 1994.
19274 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices

TABLE 2.—PROPOSED TARGETED ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY RECENT CUBAN AND

HAITIAN ARRIVALS: FY 1995

County State

FY 92–94

total Cuban

and Haitian

refugee and

entrant arrivals

Percent

of total

arrivals

Amount to be

allocated:

$19,000,000

Proposed allocation: 3% arrival threshold

Alameda ............................................................................................................................... CA 6 0.02

Contra Costa ....................................................................................................................... CA 1 0.00

Fresno .................................................................................................................................. CA 3 0.01

Los Angeles ......................................................................................................................... CA 660 1.84

Merced ................................................................................................................................. CA 0 0.00

Orange ................................................................................................................................. CA 24 0.07

Sacramento ......................................................................................................................... CA 13 0.04

San Diego ............................................................................................................................ CA 191 0.53

San Francisco ...................................................................................................................... CA 274 0.76

San Joaquin ......................................................................................................................... CA 2 0.01

Santa Clara .......................................................................................................................... CA 4 0.01

Stanislaus ............................................................................................................................ CA 0 0.00

Tulare ................................................................................................................................... CA 0 0.00

Denver ................................................................................................................................. CO 56 0.16

Broward ............................................................................................................................... FL 1973 5.50 $1,247,695

Dade .................................................................................................................................... FL 24,336 67.86 15,389,715

Hillsboro ............................................................................................................................... FL 800 2.23

Palm Beach ......................................................................................................................... FL 2601 7.25 1,644,833

Honolulu ............................................................................................................................... HI 0 0.00

Cook/Kane ........................................................................................................................... IL 242 0.67

Sedgwick ............................................................................................................................. KS 6 0.02

Orleans ................................................................................................................................ LA 94 0.26

Montgom./Pr. G. .................................................................................................................. MD 58 0.16

Middlesex ............................................................................................................................. MA 84 0.23

Suffolk .................................................................................................................................. MA 385 1.07

Hennepin ............................................................................................................................. MN 51 0.14

Ramsey ................................................................................................................................ MN 0 0.00

Jackson ................................................................................................................................ MO 310 0.86

Essex ................................................................................................................................... NJ 368 1.03

Hudson ................................................................................................................................ NJ 1058 2.95

Union ................................................................................................................................... NJ 118 0.33

New York ............................................................................................................................. NY 1135 3.16 717,757

Multnomah ........................................................................................................................... OR 132 0.37

Philadelphia ......................................................................................................................... PA 156 0.43

Providence ........................................................................................................................... RI 11 0.03

Dallas/Tarrant ...................................................................................................................... TX 346 0.96

Harris ................................................................................................................................... TX 132 0.37

Salt Lake .............................................................................................................................. UT 0 0.00

Arlington ............................................................................................................................... VA 12 0.03

Fairfax .................................................................................................................................. VA 2 0.01

King/Snohomish ................................................................................................................... WA 219 0.61

Pierce ................................................................................................................................... WA 0 0.00

Total .......................................................................................................................... 35,863 100.00 19,000,000

TABLE 3.—PROPOSED TARGETED ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS BY STATE: FY 1995

State FY 1995 allocation 1

California .......................................................................................................................................................................................... $10,068,612

Colorado .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 291,511

Florida .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 21,893,054

Hawaii .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 150,915

Illinois ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,174,603

Kansas ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 173,800

Louisiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 144,858

Maryland .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 269,979

Massachusetts ................................................................................................................................................................................. 689,673

Minnesota ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 680,858

Missouri ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 130,395

New Jersey ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 409,721

New York ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 4,090,661

Oregon ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 576,016

Pennsylvania .................................................................................................................................................................................... 553,345
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices 19275

TABLE 3.—PROPOSED TARGETED ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS BY STATE: FY 1995—Continued

State FY 1995 allocation 1

Rhode Island .................................................................................................................................................................................... 201,756

Texas ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,244,046

Utah ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 210,090

Virginia ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 452,046

Washington ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,051,361

Total ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 44,457,300

1Based on arrivals through September 30, 1994.

2The allocations for Florida and New York include $18,282,243 and $717,757 respectively for communities affected by Cuban and Haitian entrants and refugees. This is referred to in the Conference Report on the appropriation: ‘‘to serve communities affected by the Cuban and Haitian

entrants and refugees whose arrivals in recent years have increased.’’

TABLE 4.—TARGETED ASSISTANCE AREAS

State Targeted assistance area1 Definition

CA Alameda

CA Contra Costa

CA Fresno

CA Los Angeles

CA Merced

CA Orange

CA Sacramento

CA San Diego

CA San Francisco ................................................................................ Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties.

CA San Joaquin

CA Santa Clara

CA Stanislaus

CA Tulare

CO Denver ........................................................................................... Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver and Jefferson Counties.

FL Broward

FL Dade

FL Hillsborough

FL Palm Beach

HI Honolulu

IL Cook/Kane

KS Sedgwick

LA Orleans .......................................................................................... Jefferson and Orleans Parishes.

MD Montgomery/Prince Georges

MA Middlesex

MA Suffolk

MN Hennepin

MN Ramsey

MO Jackson .......................................................................................... Jackson County, Mo and Wyandotte County KS.

NJ Essex

NJ Hudson

NJ Union

NY New York ....................................................................................... Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and, Richmond Counties.

OR Multnomah ..................................................................................... Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties, OR and

Clark County, WA

PA Philadelphia

RI Providence

TX Dallas/Tarrant

TX Harris

UT Salt Lake ........................................................................................ Davis, Salt Lake and Utah Counties.

VA Arlington

VA Fairfax ............................................................................................ Fairfax County and the indep. cities of Alexandria, Fairfax and

Falls Church.

WA King/Snohomish

WA Pierce

1 Consists of named county/counties unless otherwise defined.

VIII. Application and Implementation

Process

Under the FY 1995 targeted assistance

program, States would apply for and

receive grant awards on behalf of

qualified counties in the State. A single

allocation would be made to each State

by ORR on the basis of an approved

State application. The State agency

would, in turn, receive, review, and

determine the acceptability of

individual county targeted assistance

plans.

TAP funds will be awarded through a

more streamlined grant process similar

to that used for the ORR social services

formula grant program. An application
19276 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices

and assurances are still required of the

States eligible to receive TAP funding.

FY 1995 funds must be obligated by the

State agency no later than one year after

the end of the Federal fiscal year in

which the Department awarded the

grant. There will be no carryover of

unobligated funds into the FY 1996

grant award. Funds must be liquidated

within two years after the end of the

Federal fiscal year in which the

Department awarded the grant. A State’s

final financial report on targeted

assistance expenditures must be

received no later than two years after

the end of the Federal fiscal year in

which the Department awarded the

grant. If final reports are not received on

time, the Department will deobligate

any unexpended funds, including any

unliquidated obligations, on the basis of

a State’s last filed report.

Although additional funding to

Florida and New York for communities

affected by Cuban and Haitian entrants

and refugees whose arrivals in recent

years have increased is part of the

appropriation amount for targeted

assistance, the scope of activities for

these additional funds will be

administratively determined.

Applications for these funds are

therefore not subject to provisions

contained in this notice but to other

requirements which will be conveyed

separately. Similarly, the requirements

regarding the 10% portion of the

targeted assistance appropriation as well

as the supplemental funds to the 10%

portion of the targeted assistance

appropriation that will be awarded

separately have been addressed in the

grant announcements for those funds.

IX. Application Requirements

The proposed State application

requirements for grants for the FY 1995

targeted assistance formula allocation

are as follows:

States that are currently operating

under approved management plans for

their FY 1994 targeted assistance

program and wish to continue to do so

for their FY 1995 grants may provide the

following in lieu of resubmitting the full

currently approved plan:

The State’s application for FY 1995

funding shall provide:

A. Assurance that the State’s current

management plan for the administration

of the targeted assistance program, as

approved by ORR, will continue to be in

full force and effect for the FY 1995

targeted assistance program, subject to

any additional assurances or revisions

required by this notice which are not

reflected in the current plan. Any

proposed modifications to the approved

plan will be identified in the

application and are subject to ORR

review and approval. Any proposed

changes must address and reference all

appropriate portions of the FY 1994

application content requirements to

ensure complete incorporation in the

State’s management plan.

B. Assurance that, for each qualified

local area, targeted assistance funds will

be used primarily for, but not limited to,

services to cash assistance recipients.

C. Assurance that targeted assistance

funds will be used primarily for the

provision of services which directly

enhance refugee employment potential,

have specific employment objectives,

and are designed to enable refugees to

obtain jobs with less than one year’s

participation in the targeted assistance

program. States must indicate what

percentage of FY 1995 targeted

assistance formula allocation funds that

are used for services will be allocated

for employment services.

D. A line item budget and justification

for State administrative costs limited to

a maximum of 5% of the total award to

the State. Each total budget period

funding amount requested must be

necessary, reasonable, and allocable to

the project.

States administering the program

locally: States that have administered

the program locally or provide direct

service to the refugee population (with

the concurrence of the county) must

submit a program summary to ORR for

prior review and approval. The

summary must include a description of

the proposed services; a justification for

the projected allocation for each

component including relationship of

funds allocated to numbers of clients

served, characteristics of clients,

duration of training and services,

projected outcomes, and cost per

placement. In addition, the program

component summary must describe any

ancillary services or subcomponents

such as day care, transportation, or

language training.

States with two or more counties

receiving targeted assistance funds: As

in FY 1994, a State with two or more

local areas which qualify for the

program may choose to determine

respective county allocations. If the

State chooses to determine county

allocations differently from those set

forth in Table 1 of this notice, the State

must provide a description of the State’s

proposed allocation plan and the basis

for the proposed allocations. The

application must contain a description

of the allocation approach, data used in

its determination, the calculated

allocation amount for each county, and

the rationale for the proposed

allocations. States are encouraged to

revise allocation formulas to assure

appropriate funding among eligible

counties for the duration of the grant

such that targeted assistance activities

within the State conclude

simultaneously. Where the State

chooses not to determine county

allocation amounts, the State must

provide the allocations which are

specified in this notice.

X. Reporting Requirements

States will be required to submit

quarterly reports on the outcomes of the

targeted assistance program, using the

same form which States use for

reporting on refugee social services

formula grants. This is Schedule A and

Schedule C of the ORR–6 Quarterly

Performance Report form. ORR is no

longer using the ORR–12 form which

was originally used to report on the

outcomes of the targeted assistance

program. ORR is consolidating its

reporting requirements. The new

reporting form will consolidate social

services and targeted assistance

performance reporting in one format in

order to simplify and coordinate

reporting. The new form will be

available when reporting on FY 1995

grants begins, which would be at the

end of the first quarter of FY 1996.

Dated: April 10, 1995.

Regina Lee,

Deputy Director, Office of Refugee

Resettlement.

[FR Doc. 95–9365 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P

Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration

Supplemental Awards to Current High

Risk Youth Demonstration Program

Grantees

AGENCY: Center for Substance Abuse

Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse

and Mental Health Services

Administration (SAMHSA), HHS.

ACTION: Availability of supplemental

funds for currently funded grantees in

the CSAP’s Substance Abuse Prevention

Demonstration Grant Program for High

Risk Populations (specifically, Module

A: High Risk Youth; Module B: Female

Adolescents; and Module C: Alcohol

and Other Drug (AOD)-Related Violence

Among High Risk Youth grantees).

Excluded are grantees under Module D:

Replication of Model Programs for the

Prevention of Alcohol, Tobacco, and

Other Drug (ATOD) Uses Among High

Risk Youth.

SUMMARY: This notice informs the public

that CSAP is making available