`[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 88 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20260-20268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11145]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families


Refugee Resettlement Program; Proposed Availability of Formula 
Allocation Funding for FY 1996 Targeted Assistance Grants for Services 
to Refugees in Local Areas of High Need

AGENCY: Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), ACF, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed availability of formula allocation funding 
for FY 1996 targeted assistance grants to States for services to 
refugees \1\ in local areas of high need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In addition to persons who meet all requirements of 45 CFR 
400.43, ``Requirements for documentation of refugee status,'' 
eligibility for targeted assistance includes Cuban and Haitian 
entrants, certain Amerasians from Vietnam who are admitted to the 
U.S. as immigrants, and certain Amerasians from Vietnam who are U.S. 
citizens. (See section II of this notice on ``Authorization.'') The 
term ``refugee'', used in this notice for convenience, is intended 
to encompass such additional persons who are eligible to participate 
in refugee program services, including the targeted assistance 
program.
    Refugees admitted to the U.S. under admissions numbers set aside 
for private-sector-initiative admissions are not eligible to be 
served under the targeted assistance program (or under other 
programs supported by Federal refugee funds) during their period of 
coverage under their sponsoring agency's agreement with the 
Department of State--usually two years from their date of arrival, 
or until they obtain permanent resident alien status, whichever 
comes first.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 20261]]

SUMMARY: This notice announces the proposed availability of funds and 
award procedures for FY 1996 targeted assistance grants for services to 
refugees under the Refugee Resettlement Program (RRP). These grants are 
for service provision in localities with large refugee populations, 
high refugee concentrations, and high use of public assistance, and 
where specific needs exist for supplementation of currently available 
resources. This notice reflects the final rule published in the Federal 
Register on June 28, 1995 (60 FR 33584) which was effective October 1, 
1995. This rule established a new subpart L, providing regulations for 
the Targeted Assistance Program (TAP) for the first time.
    This notice proposes that the qualification of counties be based on 
refugee and entrant arrivals during the 5-year period from FY 1991 
through FY 1995, in keeping with ORR's new regulation, and on the 
concentration of refugees and entrants as a percentage of the general 
population. Under this proposal, 15 new counties would qualify for 
targeted assistance and 19 counties which previously received targeted 
assistance grants would no longer qualify for targeted assistance 
funding. This notice also proposes a new allocation formula to reflect 
the limitation on the use of targeted assistance funding for services 
to refugees who have resided in the United States 5 years or less.
    In addition, this notice replaces the schedule of allowable 
administrative cost amounts for local administrative budgets that 
appeared in previous notices with an allowable administrative cost 
amount of up to 15% for all TAP counties for the purpose of increasing 
local flexibility and oversight.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received before June 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Address written comments, in duplicate, to: Toyo A. Biddle, 
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and 
Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447.

APPLICATION DEADLINE: The deadline for applications will be established 
by the final notice; applications should not be sent in response to 
this notice of proposed allocations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toyo Biddle (202) 401-9250.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Scope

    This notice announces the proposed availability of funds for grants 
for targeted assistance for services to refugees in counties where, 
because of factors such as unusually large refugee populations, high 
refugee concentrations, and high use of public assistance, there exists 
and can be demonstrated a specific need for supplementation of 
resources for services to this population.
    The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $55,397,000 
in FY 1996 funds for the targeted assistance program (TAP) as part of 
the FY 1996 appropriation for the Department of Health and Human 
Services (Pub. L. 104-134).
    The FY 1996 House Appropriations Committee Report (H.R. Rept. No. 
104-209) reads as follows with respect to targeted assistance funds:
    This program provides grants to States for counties which are 
impacted by high concentrations of refugees and high dependency rates. 
The Committee agrees that $19,000,000 is available for targeted 
assistance to serve communities affected by the Cuban and Haitian 
entrants and refugees whose arrivals in recent years have increased. 
The Committee has set-aside 20 percent of these funds for increased 
support to communities with large concentrations of refugees whose 
cultural differences make assimilation especially difficult justifying 
a more intense and longer duration level of Federal assistance.
    The Conference Report on Appropriations (H. Rept. No. 104-  ) 
agrees with the allocation of targeted assistance contained in the 
House Report.
    The Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) proposes 
to use the $55,397,000 appropriated for FY 1996 targeted assistance as 
follows:
     $25,317,600 will be allocated under the proposed 5-year 
population formula, as set forth in this notice.
     $19,000,000 will be awarded to serve communities most 
heavily affected by recent Cuban and Haitian entrant arrivals.
     $11,079,400 (20% of the total) will be awarded under a 
discretionary grant announcement that will be issued separately setting 
forth application requirements and evaluation criteria. These funds 
will be used to provide increased support to communities with large 
concentrations of refugees whose cultural differences make assimilation 
especially difficult, in accordance with the intent of Congress as 
reflected in the House Appropriations Committee Report.
    In addition, the Office of Refugee Resettlement will have available 
an additional $5,000,000 in FY 1996 funds for the targeted assistance 
discretionary program through the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1996 (Pub. L. 104-107). These 
funds are to be used for grants to localities most heavily impacted by 
the influx of refugees such as Laotian Hmong, Cambodians and Soviet 
Pentecostals, and will be awarded under a discretionary grant 
announcement which will be issued setting forth application 
requirements and evaluation criteria.
    The purpose of targeted assistance grants is to provide, through a 
process of local planning and implementation, direct services intended 
to result in the economic self-sufficiency and reduced welfare 
dependency of refugees through job placements.
    The targeted assistance program reflects the requirements of 
section 412(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 
which provides that targeted assistance grants shall be made available 
``(i) primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment and 
achievement of self-sufficiency, (ii) in a manner that does not 
supplant other refugee program funds and that assures that not less 
than 95 percent of the amount of the grant award is made available to 
the county or other local entity.''

II. Authorization

    Targeted assistance projects are funded under the authority of 
section 412(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as 
amended by the Refugee Assistance Extension Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-
605), 8 U.S.C. 1522(c); section 501(a) of the Refugee Education 
Assistance Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-422), 8 U.S.C. 1522 note, insofar as 
it incorporates by reference with respect to Cuban and Haitian entrants 
the authorities pertaining to assistance for refugees established by 
section 412(c)(2) of the INA, as cited above; section 584(c) of the 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act, 1988, as included in the FY 1988 Continuing 
Resolution (Pub. L. 100-202), insofar as it incorporates by reference 
with respect to certain Amerasians from Vietnam the authorities 
pertaining to assistance for refugees established by section 412(c)(2) 
of the INA, as cited above, including certain Amerasians from Vietnam 
who are U.S. citizens, as provided under title II of the Foreign 
Operations, Export

[[Page 20262]]

Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Acts, 1989 (Pub. L. 100-
461), 1990 (Pub. L. 101-167), and 1991 (Pub. L. 101-513).

III. Client and Service Priorities

    Targeted assistance funding must be used to assist refugee families 
to achieve economic independence. To this end, States and counties are 
required to ensure that a coherent family self-sufficiency plan is 
developed for each eligible family that addresses the family's needs 
from time of arrival until attainment of economic independence. (See 
Secs. 400.79 and 400.156(g) of the final rule.) Each family self-
sufficiency plan should address a family's needs for both employment-
related services and other needed social services. The family self-
sufficiency plan must include: (1) A determination of the income level 
a family would have to earn to exceed its cash grant and move into 
self-support without suffering a monetary penalty; (2) a strategy and 
timetable for obtaining that level of family income through the 
placement in employment of sufficient numbers of employable family 
members at sufficient wage levels; and (3) employability plans for 
every employable member of the family. In local jurisdictions that have 
both targeted assistance and refugee social services programs, one 
family self-sufficiency plan may be developed for a family that 
incorporates both targeted assistance and refugee social services.
    Services funded through the targeted assistance program are 
required to focus primarily on those refugees who, either because of 
their protracted use of public assistance or difficulty in securing 
employment, continue to need services beyond the initial years of 
resettlement. Effective October 1, 1995, under new regulations at 
Sec. 400.315(b) published in the Federal Register on June 28, 1995, (60 
FR 33584), States may not provide services funded under this notice, 
except for referral and interpreter services, to refugees who have been 
in the United States for more than 60 months (5 years). States may, 
however, continue to provide employability services through September 
30, 1996, or until the services are completed, whichever occurs first, 
to refugees who have been in the U.S. for more than 60 months, who were 
receiving employability services, as defined in Sec. 400.316, as of 
September 30, 1995, as part of an employability plan.
    In accordance with Sec. 400.314, States are required to provide 
targeted assistance services to refugees in the following order of 
priority, except in certain individual extreme circumstances: (a) 
Refugees who are cash assistance recipients, particularly long-term 
recipients; (b) unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash 
assistance; and (c) employed refugees in need of services to retain 
employment or to attain economic independence.
    In addition to the statutory requirement that TAP funds be used 
``primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment'' 
(section 412(c)(2)(B)(i)), funds awarded under this program are 
intended to help fulfill the Congressional intent that ``employable 
refugees should be placed on jobs as soon as possible after their 
arrival in the United States'' (section 412(a)(1)(B)(i) of the INA). 
Therefore, in accordance with Sec. 400.313, targeted assistance funds 
must be used primarily for employability services designed to enable 
refugees to obtain jobs with less than one year's participation in the 
targeted assistance program in order to achieve economic self-
sufficiency as soon as possible. Targeted assistance services may 
continue to be provided after a refugee has entered a job to help the 
refugee retain employment or move to a better job. Targeted assistance 
funds may not be used for long-term training programs such as 
vocational training that last for more than a year or educational 
programs that are not intended to lead to employment within a year.
    In accordance with Sec. 400.317, if targeted assistance funds are 
used for the provision of English language training, such training must 
be provided in a concurrent, rather than sequential, time period with 
employment or with other employment-related activities.
    A portion of a local area's allocation may be used for services 
which are not directed toward the achievement of a specific employment 
objective in less than one year but which are essential to the 
adjustment of refugees in the community, provided such needs are 
clearly demonstrated and such use is approved by the State. Allowable 
services include those listed under 45 CFR 400.316.
    Reflecting section 412(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA, States must 
``insure that women have the same opportunities as men to participate 
in training and instruction.'' In addition, in accordance with 
Sec. 400.317, services must be provided to the maximum extent feasible 
in a manner that includes the use of bilingual/bicultural women on 
service agency staffs to ensure adequate service access by refugee 
women. The Director also strongly encourages the inclusion of refugee 
women in management and board positions in agencies that serve 
refugees. In order to facilitate refugee self-support, the Director 
also expects States to implement strategies which address 
simultaneously the employment potential of both male and female wage 
earners in a family unit. States and counties are expected to make 
every effort to assure availability of day care services for children 
in order to allow women with children the opportunity to participate in 
employment services or to accept or retain employment. To accomplish 
this, day care may be treated as a priority employment-related service 
under the targeted assistance program. Refugees who are participating 
in TAP-funded or social services-funded employment services or have 
accepted employment are eligible for day care services for children. 
For an employed refugee, TAP-funded day care should be limited to one 
year after the refugee becomes employed. States and counties, however, 
are expected to use day care funding from other publicly funded 
mainstream programs as a prior resource and are encouraged to work with 
service providers to assure maximum access to other publicly funded 
resources for day care.
    In accordance with Sec. 400.317 in the new regulations, targeted 
assistance services must be provided in a manner that is culturally and 
linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and cultural 
background, to the maximum extent feasible. In light of the 
increasingly diverse population of refugees who are resettling in this 
country, refugee service agencies will need to develop practical ways 
of providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services to a 
changing ethnic population. Services funded under this notice must be 
refugee-specific services which are designed specifically to meet 
refugee needs and are in keeping with the rules and objectives of the 
refugee program. Vocational or job-skills training, on-the-job 
training, or English language training, however, need not be refugee-
specific.
    When planning targeted assistance services, States must take into 
account the reception and placement (R&P) services provided by local 
resettlement agencies in order to utilize these resources in the 
overall program design and to ensure the provision of seamless, 
coordinated services to refugees that are not duplicative. See 
Sec. 400.156(b).
    ORR strongly encourages States and counties when contracting for 
targeted assistance services, including employment services, to give 
consideration to the special strengths of mutual assistance 
associations (MAAs), whenever contract bidders are otherwise equally 
qualified, provided that the

[[Page 20263]]

MAA has the capability to deliver services in a manner that is 
culturally and linguistically compatible with the background of the 
target population to be served. ORR also strongly encourages MAAs to 
ensure that their management and board composition reflect the major 
target populations to be served.
    ORR defines MAAs as organizations with the following 
qualifications:
    a. The organization is legally incorporated as a nonprofit 
organization; and
    b. Not less than 51% of the composition of the Board of Directors 
or governing board of the mutual assistance association is comprised of 
refugees or former refugees, including both refugee men and women.
    Finally, in order to provide culturally and linguistically 
compatible services in as cost-efficient a manner as possible in a time 
of limited resources, ORR strongly encourages States and counties to 
promote and give special consideration to the provision of services 
through coalitions of refugee service organizations, such as coalitions 
of MAAs, voluntary resettlement agencies, or a variety of service 
providers. ORR believes it is essential for refugee-serving 
organizations to form close partnerships in the provision of services 
to refugees in order to be able to respond adequately to a changing 
refugee picture. Coalition-building and consolidation of providers is 
particularly important in communities with multiple service providers 
in order to ensure better coordination of services and maximum use of 
funding for services by minimizing the funds used for multiple 
administrative overhead costs.
    The award of funds to States under this notice will be contingent 
upon the completeness of a State's application as described in section 
IX, below.

IV. [Reserved for Discussion of Comments in the Final Notice]

V. Eligible Grantees

    Eligible grantees are those agencies of State governments that are 
responsible for the refugee program under 45 CFR 400.5 in States 
containing counties which qualify for FY 1996 targeted assistance 
awards.
    The Director of ORR proposes to determine the eligibility of 
counties for inclusion in the FY 1996 targeted assistance program on 
the basis of the method described in section VI of this notice.
    The use of targeted assistance funds for services to Cuban and 
Haitian entrants is limited to States which have an approved State plan 
under the Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program (CHEP).
    The State agency will submit a single application on behalf of all 
county governments of the qualified counties in that State. Subsequent 
to the approval of the State's application by ORR, local targeted 
assistance plans will be developed by the county government or other 
designated entity and submitted to the State.
    A State with more than one qualified county is permitted, but not 
required, to determine the allocation amount for each qualified county 
within the State. However, if a State chooses to determine county 
allocations differently from those set forth in the final notice, in 
accordance with Sec. 400.319, the FY 1996 allocations proposed by the 
State must be based on the State's population of refugees who arrived 
in the U.S. during the most recent 5-year period. A State may use 
welfare data as an additional factor in the allocation of its targeted 
assistance funds if it so chooses; however, a State may not assign a 
greater weight to welfare data than it has assigned to population data 
in its allocation formula. In addition, if a State chooses to allocate 
its FY 1996 targeted assistance funds in a manner different from the 
formula set forth in the final notice, the FY 1996 allocations and 
methodology proposed by the State must be included in the State's 
application for ORR review and approval.
    Applications submitted in response to the final notice are not 
subject to review by State and areawide clearinghouses under Executive 
Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.''

VI. Qualification and Allocation Formulas

    Beginning with FY 1996, ORR proposes to eliminate the formulas used 
to date for qualification for, and allocation of, targeted assistance 
funds and replace them with new formulas in keeping with Sec. 400.315 
in ORR's final rule which limits the use of targeted assistance funds 
to serving refugees who have been in the U.S. 5 years or less.

A. Qualifying New Counties

    In order to qualify for application for FY 1996 targeted assistance 
funds, a county (or group of adjacent counties with the same Standard 
Metropolitan Statistical Area, or SMSA) or independent city, would be 
required to rank above a selected cut-off point of jurisdictions for 
which data were reviewed, based on two criteria: (1) The number of 
refugee/entrant arrivals placed in the county during the most recent 5-
year period (FY 1991--FY 1995); and (2) the 5-year refugee/entrant 
population as a percent of the county overall population.
    Welfare dependency will no longer be used as a qualifying criterion 
since welfare dependency data for refugee AFDC recipients have not been 
available at the national level since FY 1989.
    Each county would be ranked on the basis of its 5-year arrival 
population and its concentration of refugees, with a relative weighting 
of 2 to 1 respectively, because we believe that large numbers of 
refugee/entrant arrivals into a county create a significant impact, 
regardless of the ratio of refugees to the county general population.
    Each county would then be ranked in terms of the sum of a county's 
rank on refugee arrivals and its rank on concentration. To qualify for 
targeted assistance, a county would have to rank within the top 38 
counties. ORR has decided to limit the number of qualified counties to 
the top 38 counties in order to target a sufficient level of funding to 
the most impacted counties.
    ORR has screened data on all counties that have received awards for 
targeted assistance since FY 1983 and on all other counties that could 
potentially qualify for TAP funds based on the criteria proposed in 
this notice. Analysis of these data indicates that: (1) 23 counties 
which have previously received targeted assistance would continue to 
qualify; (2) 19 counties which have previously received targeted 
assistance would no longer qualify; and (3) 15 new counties would be 
qualified.
    Table 1 provides a list of the counties that would remain qualified 
and the new counties that would qualify, the number of refugee/entrant 
arrivals in those counties within the past 5 years, the percent that 
the 5-year arrival population represents of the overall county 
population, and each county's rank, based on the qualification formula 
described above. Table 2 lists the counties that have previously 
received targeted assistance which would no longer qualify, the number 
of refugee/entrant arrivals in those counties within the past 5 years, 
the percent that the 5-year arrival population represents of the 
overall county population, and each county's rank, based on the 
qualification formula.
    The ORR Director proposes to determine qualification of counties 
for targeted assistance funds once every three years. Thus the proposed 
counties listed in this notice as qualified to apply for FY 1996 TAP 
funding would remain qualified for TAP funding through FY 1998. ORR 
does not plan to consider the eligibility of additional counties for 
TAP funding until FY 1999, when ORR will again review data on all 
counties that

[[Page 20264]]

could potentially qualify for TAP funds based on the criteria proposed 
in this notice. We believe that a more frequent redetermination of 
county qualification for targeted assistance would not provide 
qualifying counties a sufficient period of time within a stable funding 
climate to adequately address the refugee impact in their counties, 
while a less frequent redetermination of county qualification would 
pose the risk of not considering new population impacts in a timely 
manner.

B. Allocation Formula

    Of the funds available for FY 1996 for targeted assistance, 
$25,317,600 would be allocated by formula to States for qualifying 
counties based on the initial placements of refugees, Amerasians, and 
entrants in these counties during the 5-year period from FY 1991 
through FY 1995 (October 1, 1990--September 30, 1995).
    At this time, ORR entrant arrival data do not include Cuban 
parolees who came to the U.S. directly from Havana in FY 1995 under the 
U.S. Bilateral Agreement with Cuba. Reliable data on these parolees are 
difficult to obtain since these parolees are not resettled through 
sponsoring agencies. We hope to be able to establish a method for 
obtaining reliable arrival data on these entrants in the future. States 
that wish to receive credit for its Cuban parolee population that came 
directly from Havana in FY 1995, may submit evidence to ORR during the 
30-day comment period for consideration. Evidence should include the 
parolee's name, alien number, date of birth, and date of arrival.
    In the final notice, allocation amounts may reflect final 
adjustments in FY 1995 arrival data in some States.

C. Allocation Formula for Communities Affected by Recent Cuban/Haitian 
Arrivals

    Allocations for recent Cuban and Haitian entrant arrivals are based 
on entrant arrival numbers during the 5-year period beginning October 
1, 1990 through September 30, 1995. Allocations are limited to targeted 
assistance counties that received 900 or more Cuban and Haitian 
arrivals during the 5-year period. We have limited allocations to 
counties with at least 900 entrants to target these resources on the 
most impacted counties.

VII. Allocations

    Table 3 lists the proposed qualifying counties, the number of 
refugee/entrant arrivals in those counties during the 5-year period 
from October 1, 1990-September 30, 1995, the proposed amount of each 
county's allocation based on its 5-year arrival population, the number 
of Cuban and Haitian entrant arrivals in each county during FY 1991-FY 
1995, the allocation amount for each county that received 900 or more 
entrants during the 5-year period, and the total proposed FY 1996 
allocation for each county.
    Table 4 provides State totals for targeted assistance allocations.
    Table 5 indicates the areas that each proposed qualified county 
represents.

       Table 1.--Top 38 Counties Eligible for Targeted Assistance       
        [Targeted Assistance Counties Proposed for Continuation]        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        5-year                          
          County and state             arrival    Concentration    Rank 
                                         pop.        percent            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda, CA........................        5,915        0.4624        24
Fresno, CA.........................        6,856        1.0271         7
Merced, CA.........................        1,885        1.0566        37
Orange, CA.........................       26,216        1.0876         4
Sacramento, CA.....................       12,967        1.2454         5
San Diego, CA......................       13,571        0.5433        14
San Francisco, CA..................       11,798        0.7357        11
San Joaquin, CA....................        3,016        0.6275        28
Santa Clara, CA....................       18,395        1.2283         3
Los Angeles, CA....................       30,383        0.3428        20
Dade, FL...........................       45,405        2.3440         1
Palm Beach, FL.....................        3,517        0.4073        35
Cook/Kane, IL......................       18,969        0.3498         1
Suffolk, MA........................        6,298        0.9486        13
Hennepin, MN.......................        5,322        0.5155        22
Ramsey, MN.........................        4,811        0.9904        15
New York, NY.......................       87,553        1.1957         2
Multnomah, OR......................       11,454        0.8110         9
Philadelphia, PA...................        8,642        0.5450        16
Dallas/Tarrant, TX.................       13,360        0.4420        17
Harris, TX.........................       11,328        0.4020        23
Fairfax, VA........................        4,847        0.5054        25
King, WA...........................       17,618        0.8930         6
New Counties That Would Qualify:                                        
    District of Columbia...........        4,467        0.7360        18
    Duval, FL......................        3,267        0.4855        33
    De Kalb, GA....................        5,761        1.0554         1
    Fulton, GA.....................        6,580        1.0139        10
    Polk, IA.......................        2,784        0.8510         7
    City of Baltimore, MD..........        3,568        0.4848        29
    Oakland, MI....................        4,100        0.3784        38
    City of St Louis, MO...........        5,442        1.3719         8
    Lancaster, NE..................        2,894        1.3546        19
    Bernalillo, NM.................        2,776        0.5776        36
    Broome, NY.....................        2,154        1.0153        34
    Monroe, NY.....................        3,495        0.4895        30
    Oneida, NY.....................        2,300        0.9169        43
    Davidson, TN...................        3,308        0.6476        26

[[Page 20265]]

                                                                        
    Richmond, VA...................        2,165        1.0662        31
------------------------------------------------------------------------



   Table 2.--Targeted Assistance Counties That Would No Longer Qualify  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        5-year                          
          County and state             arrival    Concentration    Rank 
                                         pop.        percent            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contra Costa, CA...................        1,748        0.2175        87
Tulare, CA.........................        1,110        0.3559        85
Stanislaus, CA.....................        1,258        0.3395        81
Denver, CO.........................        5,472        0.3061        39
Broward, FL........................        3,356        0.2673        51
Hillsborough, FL...................        2,610        0.3129        56
Honolulu, HI.......................        1,363        0.1630       110
Sedgwick, KS.......................        1,572        0.3894        67
Orleans, LA........................        1,257        0.1330       118
Montgomery/Prince Georges, MD......        4,528        0.3047        48
Middlesex, MA......................        3,114        0.2227        62
Jackson, MO........................        3,233        0.4066        41
Essex, NJ..........................        2,088        0.2683        68
Hudson, NJ.........................        2,726        0.4929        45
Union, NJ..........................        1,218        0.2466       101
Providence, RI.....................        1,389        0.2329        96
Salt Lake, UT......................        2,957        0.2511        60
Arlington, VA......................        1,468        0.8588        53
Pierce, WA.........................        2,825        0.4819        42
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Table 3.--Proposed Targeted Assistance Allocations by County: FY 1996                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Arrivals:      $25,317,600                                     $19,000,000     $44,317,600 
                                                             refugee +      Proposed FY     Entrants FY   Entrants: more    Proposed FY   Total proposed
                      County, state                         entrant FY         1996          1991-1995       than 900        1996 C/H         FY 1996   
                                                             1991-1995      allocation                                      allocation      allocation  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAMEDA, CA.............................................           5,915        $352,205              16  ..............  ..............        $352,205
FRESNO, CA..............................................           6,856         408,236               0  ..............  ..............         408,236
LOS ANGELES, CA.........................................          30,383       1,809,136             604  ..............  ..............       1,809,136
MERCED, CA..............................................           1,855         112,241               0  ..............  ..............         112,241
ORANGE, CA..............................................          26,218       1,561,134              30  ..............  ..............       1,561,134
SACRAMENTO, CA..........................................          12,967         772,112               3  ..............  ..............         772,112
SAN DIEGO, CA...........................................          13,571         808,076             370  ..............  ..............         808,076
SAN FRANSCISCO, CA......................................          11,798         702,504             187  ..............  ..............         702,504
SAN JOAQUIN, CA.........................................           3,016         179,586               2  ..............  ..............         179,586
SANTA CLARA, CA.........................................          18,395       1,095,318              12  ..............  ..............       1,095,318
DISTRICT OF COL.........................................           4,467         265,985              13  ..............  ..............         265,985
DADE, FL................................................          45,405       2,703,611          33,701          33,701     $16,666,294      19,369,905
DUVAL, FL...............................................           3,267         194,531              20  ..............  ..............         194,531
PALM BEACH, FL..........................................           3,517         209,417           2,757           2,757       1,363,430       1,572,847
DE KALB, GA.............................................           5,761         343,035              18  ..............  ..............         343,035
FULTON, GA..............................................           6,580         391,802             164  ..............  ..............         391,802
COOK/KANE, IL...........................................          18,969       1,129,497             321  ..............  ..............       1,129,497
POLK, IA................................................           2,784         165,771               0  ..............  ..............         165,771
BALTIMORE, MD \1\.......................................           3,568         212,454               1  ..............  ..............         212,454
SUFFOLK, MA.............................................           6,298         375,010             270  ..............  ..............         375,010
OAKLAND, MI.............................................           4,100         244,132               8  ..............  ..............         244,132
HENNEPIN, MN............................................           5,322         316,895               0  ..............  ..............         316,895
RAMSEY, MN..............................................           4,811         286,468               8  ..............  ..............         286,468
ST LOUIS, MO \1\........................................           5,442         324,040               1  ..............  ..............         324,040
LANCASTER, NE...........................................           2,894         172,321               5  ..............  ..............         172,321
BERNALILLO, NM..........................................           2,776         165,295             950             950         469,807         635,102
BROOME, NY..............................................           2,154         128,259              29  ..............  ..............         128,259
MONROE, NY..............................................           3,495         208,107             403  ..............  ..............         208,107
NEW YORK, NY............................................          87,553       5,213,286           1,012           1,012         500,469       5,713,755
ONEIDA, NY..............................................           2,300         136,952               1  ..............  ..............         136,952
MULTNOMAH, OR...........................................          11,454         682,021             320  ..............  ..............         682,021
PHILADELPHIA, PA........................................           8,642         514,582              65  ..............  ..............         514,582
DAVIDSON, TN............................................           3,308         196,973               1  ..............  ..............         196,973

[[Page 20266]]

                                                                                                                                                        
DALLAS/TARRANT, TX......................................          13,360         795,513             441  ..............  ..............         795,513
HARRIS, TX..............................................          11,328         674,518              93  ..............  ..............         674,518
FAIRFAX, VA.............................................           4,847         288,611               3  ..............  ..............         288,611
RICHMOND, VA............................................           2,165         128,914              82  ..............  ..............         128,914
KING/SNOHOMISH, WA......................................          17,618       1,049,052              12  ..............  ..............       1,049,052
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.............................................         425,189      25,317,600          41,923          38,420      19,000,000      44,317,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The qualifying local jurisdiction is the independent City of Baltimore and the independent City of St. Louis.                                       



                      Table 4.--Proposed Targeted Assistance Allocations by State: FY 1996                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Arrivals:      $25,317,600     $19,000,000     $44,317,600 
                                                     Refugee +      Proposed FY     Proposed FY   Total Proposed
                      State                         Entrant FY         1996          1996 C/H         FY 1996   
                                                     1991-1995      Allocation      Allocation      Allocation  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIA......................................         131,004      $7,800,548  ..............      $7,800,548
DISTRICT OF COL.................................           4,467         265,985  ..............         265,985
FLORIDA.........................................          52,189       3,107,559     $18,029,724      21,137,283
GEORGIA.........................................          12,341         734,837  ..............         734,837
ILLINOIS........................................          18,969       1,129,497  ..............       1,129,497
IOWA............................................           2,784         165,771  ..............         165,771
MARYLAND........................................           3,568         212,454  ..............         212,454
MASSACHUSETTS...................................           6,298         375,010  ..............         375,010
MICHIGAN........................................           4,100         244,132  ..............         244,132
MINNESOTA.......................................          10,133         603,363  ..............         603,363
MISSOURI........................................           5,442         324,040  ..............         324,040
NEBRASKA........................................           2,894         172,321  ..............         172,321
NEW MEXICO......................................           2,776         165,295         469,807         635,102
NEW YORK........................................          95,502       5,686,604         500,469       6,187,073
OREGON..........................................          11,454         682,021  ..............         682,021
PENNSYLVANIA....................................           8,642         514,582  ..............         514,582
TENNESSEE.......................................           3,308         196,973  ..............         196,973
TEXAS...........................................          24,688       1,470,031  ..............       1,470,031
VIRGINIA........................................           7,012         417,525  ..............         417,525
WASHINGTON......................................          17,618       1,049,052  ..............       1,049,052
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................         425,189      25,317,600      19,000,000      44,317,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   Table 5.--Targeted Assistance Areas                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Targeted assistance                                
      State                area \1\                  Definition         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA...............  ALAMEDA                                              
CA...............  FRESNO                                               
CA...............  LOS ANGELES                                          
CA...............  MERCED                                               
CA...............  ORANGE                                               
CA...............  SACRAMENTO                                           
CA...............  SAN DIEGO                                            
CA...............  SAN FRANCISCO            MARIN, SAN FRANCISCO, & SAN 
                                             MATEO COUNTIES             
CA...............  SAN JOAQUIN                                          
CA...............  SANTA CLARA                                          
DC...............  DISTRICT OF COL.                                     
FL...............  DADE                                                 
FL...............  DUVAL                                                
FL...............  PALM BEACH                                           
GA...............  DEKALB                                               
GA...............  FULTON                                               
IL...............  COOK/KANE                                            
IA...............  POLK                                                 
MD...............  CITY OF BALTIMORE                                    
MA...............  SUFFOLK                                              
MI...............  OAKLAND                                              
MN...............  HENNEPIN                                             
MN...............  RAMSEY                                               

[[Page 20267]]

                                                                        
MO...............  CITY OF ST. LOUIS                                    
NE...............  LANCASTER                                            
NM...............  BERNALILLO                                           
NY...............  BROOME                                               
NY...............  MONROE                                               
NY...............  NEW YORK                 BRONX, KINGS, NEW YORK,     
                                             QUEENS, & RICHMOND         
                                             COUNTIES.                  
NY...............  ONEIDA                                               
OR...............  MULTNOMAH                CLACKAMAS, MULTNOMAH, &     
                                             WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OR. & 
                                             CLARK COUNTY, WA.          
PA...............  PHILADELPHIA                                         
TN...............  DAVIDSON                                             
TX...............  DALLAS/TARRANT                                       
TX...............  HARRIS                                               
VA...............  FAIRFAX                  FAIRFAX COUNTY & THE        
                                             INDEPENDENT CITIES OF      
                                             ALEXANDRIA, FAIRFAX AND    
                                             FALLS CHURCH.              
VA...............  RICHMOND                                             
WA...............  KING/SNOHOMISH                                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consists of named county/counties unless otherwise defined.         



VIII. Application and Implementation Process

    Under the FY 1996 targeted assistance program, States may apply for 
and receive grant awards on behalf of qualified counties in the State. 
A single allocation will be made to each State by ORR on the basis of 
an approved State application. The State agency will, in turn, receive, 
review, and determine the acceptability of individual county targeted 
assistance plans.
    Pursuant to Sec. 400.210(b), FY 1996 targeted assistance funds must 
be obligated by the State agency no later than one year after the end 
of the Federal fiscal year in which the Department awarded the grant. 
Funds must be liquidated within two years after the end of the Federal 
fiscal year in which the Department awarded the grant. A State's final 
financial report on targeted assistance expenditures must be received 
no later than two years after the end of the Federal fiscal year in 
which the Department awarded the grant. If final reports are not 
received on time, the Department will deobligate any unexpended funds, 
including any unliquidated obligations, on the basis of a State's last 
filed report.
    Although additional funding for communities affected by Cuban and 
Haitian entrants and refugees whose arrivals in recent years have 
increased is part of the appropriation amount for targeted assistance, 
the scope of activities for these additional funds will be 
administratively determined. Applications for these funds are therefore 
not subject to provisions contained in this notice but to other 
requirements which will be conveyed separately. Similarly, the 
requirements regarding the discretionary portion of the targeted 
assistance appropriation will be addressed separately in the grant 
announcement for those funds.

IX. Application Requirements

    In applying for targeted assistance funds, a State agency is 
required to provide the following:
    A. Assurance that effective October 1, 1995, targeted assistance 
funds will be used in accordance with the new ORR regulations published 
in the Federal Register on June 28, 1995.
    B. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used primarily 
for the provision of services which are designed to enable refugees to 
obtain jobs with less than one year's participation in the targeted 
assistance program. States must indicate what percentage of FY 1996 
targeted assistance formula allocation funds that are used for services 
will be allocated for employment services.
    C. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will not be used to 
offset funding otherwise available to counties or local jurisdictions 
from the State agency in its administration of other programs, e.g. 
social services, cash and medical assistance, etc.
    D. Identification of the local administering agency.
    E. The amount of funds to be awarded to the targeted county or 
counties. If a State with more than one qualifying targeted assistance 
county chooses to allocate its targeted assistance funds differently 
from the formula allocation for counties presented in the ORR targeted 
assistance notice in a fiscal year, its allocations must be based on 
the State's population of refugees who arrived in the U.S. during the 
most recent 5-year period. A State may use welfare data as an 
additional factor in the allocation of targeted assistance funds if it 
so chooses; however, a State may not assign a greater weight to welfare 
data than it has assigned to population data in its allocation formula. 
The application must provide a description of, and supporting data for, 
the State's proposed allocation plan, the data to be used, and the 
proposed allocation for each county.
    In instances where a State receives targeted assistance funding for 
impacted counties contained in a standard metropolitan statistical area 
(SMSA) which includes a county or counties located in a neighboring 
State, the State receiving those funds must provide a description of 
coordination and planning activities undertaken with the State Refugee 
Coordinator of the neighboring State in which the impacted county or 
counties are located. These planning and coordination activities should 
result in a proposed allocation plan for the equitable distribution of 
targeted assistance funds by county based on the distribution of the 
eligible population by county within the SMSA. The proposed allocation 
plan must be included in the State's application to ORR.
    F. A description of the State's guidelines for the required content 
of county targeted assistance plans and a description of the State's 
review/approval process for such county plans. Acceptable county plans 
must minimally include the following:
    1. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used in 
accordance with the new ORR regulations published in the Federal 
Register on June 28, 1995. In particular, a description of a county's 
plan to carry out the requirements of 45 CFR 400.156.
    2. Procedures for carrying out a local planning process for 
determining

[[Page 20268]]

targeted assistance priorities and service strategies. All local 
targeted assistance plans will be developed through a planning process 
that involves, in addition to the State Refugee Coordinator, 
representatives of the private sector (for example, private employers, 
private industry council, Chamber of Commerce, etc.), leaders of 
refugee/entrant community-based organizations, voluntary resettlement 
agencies, refugees from the impacted communities, and other public 
officials associated with social services and employment agencies that 
serve refugees. Counties are encouraged to foster coalition-building 
among these participating organizations.
    3. Identification of refugee/entrant populations to be served by 
targeted assistance projects, including approximate numbers of clients 
to be served, and a description of characteristics and needs of 
targeted populations. (As per 45 CFR 400.314)
    4. Description of specific strategies and services to meet the 
needs of targeted populations. These should be justified where possible 
through analysis of strategies and outcomes from projects previously 
implemented under the targeted assistance programs, the regular social 
service programs, and any other services available to the refugee 
population.
    5. The relationship of targeted assistance services to other 
services available to refugees/entrants in the county including State-
allocated ORR social services.
    6. Analysis of available employment opportunities in the local 
community. Examples of acceptable analyses of employment opportunities 
might include surveys of employers or potential employers of refugee 
clients, surveys of presently effective employment service providers, 
review of studies on employment opportunities/forecasts which would be 
appropriate to the refugee populations.
    7. Description of the monitoring and oversight responsibilities to 
be carried out by the county or qualifying local jurisdiction.
    8. Assurance that the local administrative budget will not exceed 
15% of the local allocation. Targeted assistance grants are cost-based 
awards. Neither a State nor a county is entitled to a certain amount 
for administrative costs. Rather, administrative cost requests should 
be based on projections of actual needs. Beginning with FY 1996 funds, 
all TAP counties will be allowed to spend up to 15% of their allocation 
on TAP administrative costs, as need requires. However, States and 
counties are strongly encouraged to limit administrative costs to the 
extent possible to maximize available funding for services to clients.
    9. For any State that administers the program directly or otherwise 
provides direct service to the refugee/entrant population (with the 
concurrence of the county), the State must provide ORR with the same 
information required above for review and prior approval.
    G. All applicants must establish targeted assistance proposed 
performance goals for each of the 6 ORR performance outcome measures 
for each impacted county's proposed service contract(s) or sub-grants 
for the next contracting cycle. Proposed performance goals must be 
included in the application for each performance measure. The 6 ORR 
performance measures are: entered employments, cash assistance 
reductions due to employment, cash assistance terminations due to 
employment, 90-day employment retentions, average wage at placement, 
and job placements with available health benefits. Targeted assistance 
program activity and progress achieved toward meeting performance 
outcome goals are to be reported quarterly on the ORR-6, the 
``Quarterly Performance Report.''
    States which are currently grantees for targeted assistance funds 
should base projected annual outcome goals on past performance. Current 
grantees should have adequate baseline data for at least 3 of the 6 ORR 
performance outcome measures (entered employments, 90 day retentions, 
and average wage at placement) based on a long history (in some cases, 
as much as 12 years) of targeted assistance program experience. Where 
baseline data do not exist for a specific performance outcome measure, 
current grantees should use available performance data from the current 
targeted assistance funding cycle to establish reasonable outcome goals 
for contractors and sub-grantees on all 6 measures.
    States identified as new eligible targeted assistance grantees are 
also required to set proposed outcome goals for each of the 6 ORR 
performance outcome measures. New grantees may use baseline data, as 
available, and current data as reported on the ORR-6 for social 
services program activity to assist them in the goal-setting process.
    Proposed targeted assistance outcome goals should reflect 
improvement over past performance and strive for continuous improvement 
during the project period from one year to another.
    H. An identification of the contracting cycle dates for targeted 
assistance service contracts in each county. States with more than one 
qualified county are encouraged to ensure that all counties 
participating in TAP in the State use the same contracting cycle dates.
    I. A description of the State's plan for conducting fiscal and 
programmatic monitoring and evaluations of the targeted assistance 
program, including frequency of on-site monitoring.
    J. Assurance that the State will make available to the county or 
designated local entity not less than 95% of the amount of its formula 
allocation for purposes of implementing the activities proposed in its 
plan, except in the case of a State that administers the program 
locally as described in item F9 above.
    K. A line item budget and justification for State administrative 
costs limited to a maximum of 5% of the total award to the State. Each 
total budget period funding amount requested must be necessary, 
reasonable, and allocable to the project. States that administer the 
program locally in lieu of the county, through a mutual agreement with 
the qualifying county, may add up to, but not exceed, 10% of the 
county's TAP allocation to the State's administrative budget.
    L. Assurance that the State will follow or mandate that its sub-
recipients will follow appropriate State procurement and contract 
requirements in the acquisition, administration, and management of 
targeted assistance service contracts.

X. Reporting Requirements

    Effective January 1, 1996, States will be required to submit 
quarterly reports on the outcomes of the targeted assistance program, 
using Schedule A and Schedule C of the new ORR-6 Quarterly Performance 
Report form which was sent to States in ORR State Letter 95-35 on 
November 6, 1995.

    Dated: April 29, 1996.
Lavinia Limon,
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[FR Doc. 96-11145 Filed 5-03-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P`