20260 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / 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

Branch, Division of STD Prevention,

National Center for HIV, STD, and TB

Prevention (NCHSTP), Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),

1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E–02,

Atlanta, GA 30333, telephone (404)

639–8370, facsimile (404) 639–8609, or

via Internet

<TXM3@CPSSTD1.em.cdc.gov>.

Please refer to Announcement 616

‘‘STD Faculty Expansion Program’’

when requesting information or

submitting an application.

Potential applicants may obtain a

copy of ‘‘Healthy People 2000’’ (Full

Report: Stock No. 017–001–00474–0) or

‘‘Healthy People 2000’’ (Summary

Report: Stock No. 017–001–00473–1)

referenced in the INTRODUCTION through

the Superintendent of Documents,

Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402–9325, telephone

(202) 512–1800.

Dated: April 30, 1996.

Joseph R. Carter,

Acting Associate Director for Management

and Operations, Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC).

[FR Doc. 96–11214 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P

Health Resources and Services

Administration

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection:

Comment Request

In compliance with the requirement

of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for

opportunity for public comment on

proposed data collection projects, the

Health Resources and Services

Administration (HRSA) will publish

periodic summaries of proposed

projects being developed for submission

to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995. To request more

information on the proposed project or

to obtain a copy of the data collection

plans and instruments, call the HRSA

Reports Clearance Officer on (301) 443–

1129.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including through the

use of automated collection techniques

or other forms of information

technology.

Proposed Projects

Scholarship Program for Students of

Exceptional Financial Need (EFN) and

Program of Financial Assistance for

Disadvantaged Health Professions

Students (FADHPS): Regulatory

Requirements (OMB No. 0915–0028)—

Revision and Extension—The EFN

Scholarship Program, authorized by

section 736 of the Public Health Service

(PHS) Act, and the FADHPS Program,

authorized by section 740(a)(2)(F) of the

PHS Act, provide financial assistance to

schools of allopathic and osteopathic

medicine and dentistry for awarding

tuition scholarships to health

professions students who are of

exceptional financial need. To be

eligible for support under the FADHPS

Program, a student must also be from a

disadvantaged background. In return for

this support, students of allopathic and

osteopathic medicine must agree to

complete residency training in primary

care and practice in primary care for 5

years after completing residency

training. Students of dentistry must

agree to practice in general dentistry for

5 years after completing residency

training.

The program regulations contain

recordkeeping requirements designed to

ensure that schools maintain adequate

records for the government to monitor

program activity and that funds are

spent as intended. The program

application has been dropped from this

package because no new applications

are expected. The burden estimates for

the regulatory requirements are as

follows:

Regulatory section

Number of

recordkeepers

Hours per

year

Total burden hours

57.2804(b)(3) & 57.2904(b)(1)(ii) Documentation of Cost of Attendance ................................................ 200 0.167 hrs.

(10 min.) ....

33.4

57.2809(b) & 57.2909 (b) Records Requirements ................................................................................... 200 0.167 hrs.

(10 min.) ....

33.4

Note: Estimated total annual burden is 67 hours.

Send comments to Patricia Royston,

HRSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room

14–36, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers

Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Written

comments should be received within 60

days of this notice.

Dated: May 1, 1996.

J. Henry Montes,

Associate Administrator for Policy

Coordination.

[FR Doc. 96–11256 Filed 5–03–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–15–P

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20261

programs supported by Federal refugee funds)

during their period of coverage under their

sponsoring agency’s agreement with the Department

of State—usually two years from their date of

arrival, or until they obtain permanent resident

alien status, whichever comes first.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

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 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
20262 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

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 selfsufficiency plan is developed for each

eligible family that addresses the

family’s needs from time of arrival until

attainment of economic independence.

(See §§ 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 selfsufficiency 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 § 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

§ 400.316, as of September 30, 1995, as

part of an employability plan.

In accordance with § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 TAPfunded 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 § 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 refugeespecific 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-thejob training, or English language

training, however, need not be refugeespecific.

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 § 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 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 § 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 § 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
20264 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

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]

County and state 5-year

arrival pop.

Concentration percent Rank

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20265

TABLE 1.—TOP 38 COUNTIES ELIGIBLE FOR TARGETED ASSISTANCE—Continued

[Targeted Assistance Counties Proposed for Continuation]

County and state 5-year

arrival pop.

Concentration percent Rank

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

TABLE 2.—TARGETED ASSISTANCE COUNTIES THAT WOULD NO LONGER QUALIFY

County and state 5-year

arrival pop.

Concentration percent Rank

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

County, state

Arrivals: refugee + entrant

FY 1991–1995

$25,317,600

Proposed FY

1996 allocation

Entrants FY

1991–1995

Entrants: more

than 900

$19,000,000

Proposed FY

1996 C/H allocation

$44,317,600

Total proposed FY

1996 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
20266 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

TABLE 3.—PROPOSED TARGETED ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS BY COUNTY: FY 1996—Continued

County, state

Arrivals: refugee + entrant

FY 1991–1995

$25,317,600

Proposed FY

1996 allocation

Entrants FY

1991–1995

Entrants: more

than 900

$19,000,000

Proposed FY

1996 C/H allocation

$44,317,600

Total proposed FY

1996 allocation

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

1The 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

State

Arrivals:

Refugee + Entrant FY

1991–1995

$25,317,600

Proposed FY

1996 Allocation

$19,000,000

Proposed FY

1996 C/H Allocation

$44,317,600

Total Proposed FY

1996 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

State Targeted assistance 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20267

TABLE 5.—TARGETED ASSISTANCE AREAS—Continued

State Targeted assistance area 1 Definition

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 § 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
20268 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / 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 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

Office of Refugee Resettlement

Refugee Resettlement Program:

Proposed Allocations to States of FY

1996 Funds for Refugee Social

Services

AGENCY: Office of Refugee Resettlement

(ORR), ACF, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed allocations

to States of FY 1996 funds for refugee 1

social services.