[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 116 (Friday, June 17, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14758]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 17, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Refugee Resettlement

 

Refugee Resettlement Program: Allocations to States of FY 1994 
Funds for Refugee Social Services and for Refugees Who Are Former 
Political Prisoners From Vietnam

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

ACTION: Final notice of allocations to States of FY 1994 funds for 
refugee\1\ social services and for refugees who are former political 
prisoners from Vietnam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\In addition to persons who meet all requirements of 45 CFR 
400.43, ``Requirements for documentation of refugee status,'' 
eligibility for refugee social services also includes: (1) Cuban and 
Haitian entrants, under section 501 of the Refugee Education 
Assistance Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-422); (2) certain Amerasians from 
Vietnam who are admitted to the U.S. as immigrants under section 584 
of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act, 1988, as included in the FY 1988 Continuing 
Resolution (Pub. L. 100-202); and (3) certain Amerasians from 
Vietnam, including U.S. citizens, under title II of the Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations 
Acts, 1989 (Pub. L. 100-461), 1990 (Pub. L. 101-167), and 1991 (Pub. 
L. 101-513). For convenience, the term ``refugee'' is used in this 
notice to encompass all such eligible persons unless the specific 
context indicates otherwise.
    Refugees admitted to the U.S. under admissions numbers set aside 
for private-sector-initiative admissions are not eligible to be 
served under the social service program (or under other programs 
supported by Federal refugee funds) during their period of coverage 
under their sponsoring agency's agreement with the Department of 
State--usually two years from their date of arrival or until they 
obtain permanent resident alien status, whichever comes first.

SUMMARY: This notice establishes the allocations to States of FY 1994 
funds for social services under the Refugee Resettlement Program (RRP). 
In order to help meet the special needs of former political prisoners 
from Vietnam, the Director has added to the formula allocation 
$2,000,000 in funds previously set aside for social services 
discretionary projects. This notice eliminates the set-aside for mutual 
assistance associations (MAAs) as a separate component of the social 
service allocations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children 
and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toyo Biddle (202) 401-9250.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of the proposed social service 
allocations to States was published in the Federal Register on March 
14, 1994 (59 FR 11794). The population estimates that were used in the 
proposed notice have been adjusted as a result of additional population 
information submitted by 7 States.

I. Allocation Amounts

    The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $80,802,000 
in FY 1994 refugee social service funds as part of the FY 1994 
appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services (Pub. L. 
103-112).
    Of the total of $80,802,000, the Director of ORR will make 
available to States $68,681,700 (85%) under the allocation formula set 
out in this notice. These funds would be made available for the purpose 
of providing social services to refugees. In addition, the Director of 
ORR is making available $2,000,000 from discretionary social service 
funds to be allocated under the formula in this notice for additional 
services to former political prisoners from Vietnam. ORR intends FY 
1994 to be the last year in which a special set-aside will be allocated 
for additional services for former political prisoners from Vietnam.

A. Discretionary Social Service Funds for Vietnamese Political 
Prisoners

    In recognition of the special vulnerability of refugees who are 
former political prisoners from Vietnam, the Director of ORR has set 
aside $2,000,000 from discretionary social service funds to be 
allocated under the formula set forth in this announcement, based on 
the number of actual political prisoner arrivals in FY 1993. This 
formula allocation is shown separately in Table 1 (cols. 7 and 8). 
States are required to use this allocation to provide additional 
services, as described below, to recent arrivals from Vietnam who are 
former political prisoners and members of their families.
    Allowable services for the above-cited funds for political 
prisoners include the following direct services: (1) Specialized 
orientation and adjustment services, including peer support activities; 
and (2) specialized employment-related services, as needed. Adjustment 
services include any service listed under 45 CFR 400.155(c) of the ORR 
regulations. Under no circumstances may these funds be used for direct 
cash payments or stipends, or for the purchase of advertising space or 
air time.
    Allowable services under this allocation for Vietnamese political 
prisoners are intended to supplement, not to supplant, those services 
provided to refugees in general under the social service formula 
allocation, discussed below.
    ORR intends to provide technical assistance to States and 
organizations that request it to assure effective program development 
and implementation.
    Because these funds are being provided specifically for services 
for former political prisoners from Vietnam, States which allocate 
social service funds to other local administrative jurisdictions, such 
as counties, shall do so for these funds, using a formula which 
reflects arrivals of this target population during FY 1993.
    ORR strongly encourages States and other contracting jurisdictions, 
in selecting service providers for the above, to award these funds, to 
the extent possible, to qualified refugee mutual assistance 
associations with experience serving the target population. All 
contractors receiving these funds should have Vietnamese language 
capacity and Vietnamese cultural understanding.
    States are required to provide to ORR program performance 
information on the Vietnamese political prisoner program that meets the 
reporting requirements contained in 45 CFR 92.40, under the terms and 
conditions of the social services grant awards to States. The 
information to be contained in the narrative portion of State quarterly 
performance reports must include: (1) Names of service contractors; (2) 
categories of activities provided; (3) numbers of persons served; and 
(4) outcomes, to the extent possible.

B. Refugee Social Service Funds

    The population figures for the social service allocation include 
refugees, Cuban/Haitian entrants, and Amerasians from Vietnam since 
these populations may be served through funds addressed in this notice. 
(A State must, however, have an approved State plan for the Cuban/
Haitian Entrant Program in order to use funds on behalf of entrants as 
well as refugees.)
    The Director will allocate $68,681,700 to States on the basis of 
each State's proportion of the national population of refugees who had 
been in the U.S. 3 years or less as of October 1, 1993 (including a 
floor amount for States which have small refugee populations).
    The use of the 3-year population base in the allocation formula is 
required by section 412(c)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(INA) which states that the ``funds available for a fiscal year for 
grants and contracts [for social services] * * *. shall be allocated 
among the States based on the total number of refugees (including 
children and adults) who arrived in the United States not more than 36 
months before the beginning of such fiscal year and who are actually 
residing in each State (taking into account secondary migration) as of 
the beginning of the fiscal year.''
    As established in the FY 1991 social services notice published in 
the Federal Register of August 29, 1991, section I, ``Allocation 
Amounts'' (56 FR 42745), a variable floor amount for States which have 
small refugee populations is calculated as follows: If the application 
of the regular allocation formula yields less than $100,000, then--
    (1) a base amount of $75,000 is provided for a State with a 
population of 50 or fewer refugees who have been in the U.S. 3 years or 
less; and
    (2) For a State with more than 50 refugees who have been in the 
U.S. 3 years or less: (a) A floor has been calculated consisting of 
$50,000 plus the regular per capita allocation for refugees above 50 up 
to a total of $100,000 (in other words, the maximum under the floor 
formula is $100,000); (b) if this calculation has yielded less than 
$75,000, a base amount of $75,000 is provided for the State.
    ORR has consistently supported floors for small States in order to 
provide sufficient funds to carry out a minimum service program. Given 
the range in numbers of refugees in the small States, we have concluded 
that a variable floor, as established in the FY 1991 notice, will be 
more reflective of needs than previous across-the-board floors.
    The $12,120,300 in remaining social service funds (15% of the total 
funds available) will be used by ORR on a discretionary basis to 
provide funds for individual projects intended to contribute to the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the refugee resettlement program. Grant 
announcements on discretionary initiatives will be issued separately.
Population To Be Served
    Although the allocation formula is based on the 3-year refugee 
population, in accordance with the requirements of 45 CFR Part 400 
Subpart I--Refugee Social Services, States are not required to limit 
social service programs to refugees who have been in the U.S. only 3 
years. In keeping with 45 CFR 400.147(a), a State must allocate an 
appropriate portion of its social service funds, based on population 
and service needs, as determined by the State, for services to newly 
arriving refugees who have been in the U.S. less than one year.
    While 45 CFR 400.147(b) requires that in providing employability 
services, a State must give priority to a refugee who is receiving cash 
assistance, social service programs should not be limited exclusively 
to refugees who are cash assistance recipients. If a State intends to 
provide services to refugees who have been in the U.S. more than 3 
years, 45 CFR 400.147(c) requires the State to specify and justify as 
part of its Annual Services Plan those funds that it proposes to use to 
provide services to those refugees.
    ORR expects States to ensure that refugee social services are made 
available to special populations such as Amerasians and former 
political prisoners from Vietnam, in addition to special funding that 
ORR may designate to address the special needs of these populations.
    ORR funds may not be used to provide services to United States 
citizens, since they are not covered under the authorizing legislation, 
with the following exceptions: (1) Under current regulations at 45 CFR 
400.208, services may be provided to a U.S.-born minor child in a 
family in which both parents are refugees or, if only one parent is 
present, in which that parent is a refugee; and (2) under the FY 1989 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 100-461), services may be provided to an 
Amerasian from Vietnam who is a U.S. citizen and who enters the U.S. 
after October 1, 1988.
Service Priorities
    Refugee social service funding should be used to assist refugee 
families to achieve economic independence. To this end, ORR expects 
States to ensure that a coherent plan of services is developed for each 
eligible family that addresses the family's needs from time of arrival 
until attainment of economic independence. Each service plan should 
address a family's needs for both employment-related services and other 
needed social services.
    Reflecting section 412(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA, the Director 
expects States to ``insure that women have the same opportunities as 
men to participate in training and instruction.'' In addition, States 
are expected to make sure that services are provided in a manner that 
encourages the use of bilingual women on service agency staffs to 
ensure adequate service access by refugee women. In order to facilitate 
refugee self-support, the Director also expects States to implement 
strategies which address simultaneously the employment potential of 
both male and female wage earners in a family unit, particularly in the 
case of large families. States are expected to make every effort to 
assure the availability of day care services in order to allow women 
with children the opportunity to participate in employment services or 
to accept or retain employment. To accomplish this, day care may be 
treated as a priority employment-related service under the refugee 
social services program. Refugees who are participating in employment 
services or have accepted employment are eligible for day care 
services. For an employed refugee, day care funded by refugee social 
service dollars must be limited to one year after the refugee becomes 
employed. States are expected to use day care funding from other 
publicly funded mainstream programs as a prior resource and are 
expected to work with service providers to assure maximum access to 
other publicly funded resources for day care.
    In accordance with 45 CFR 400.146, if a State's cash assistance 
dependency rate for refugees (as defined in Sec. 400.146(b)) is 55% or 
more, funds awarded under this notice (with the exception of the 
political prisoner set-aside) are subject to a requirement that at 
least 85% of the State's award be used for employability services as 
set forth in Sec. 400.154. ORR expects these funds to be used for 
services which directly enhance refugee employment potential, have 
specific employment objectives, and are designed to enable refugees to 
obtain jobs in less than one year as part of a plan to achieve self-
sufficiency. This reflects the Congressional objective that 
``employable refugees should be placed on jobs as soon as possible 
after their arrival in the United States'' and that social service 
funds be focused on ``employment-related services, English-as-a-second-
language training (in non-work hours where possible), and case-
management services'' (INA, Sec. 412(a)(1)(B)). If refugee social 
service funds are used for the provision of English language training, 
such training should be provided concurrently, rather than 
sequentially, with employment or with other employment-related 
services, to the maximum extent possible. ORR also encourages the 
continued provision of services after a refugee has entered a job to 
help the refugee retain employment or move to a better job.
    Since current welfare dependency data are not available, those 
States that historically have had dependency rates at 55% and above are 
invited to submit a request for a waiver of the 85% requirement if they 
can provide reliable documentation that demonstrates a lower dependency 
rate.
    ORR will consider granting a waiver of the 85% provision if a State 
meets one of the following conditions:
    1. The State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of 
ORR that the dependency rate of refugees who have been in the U.S. 24 
months or less is below 55% in the State.
    2. The State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that 
(a) less than 85% of the State's social service allocation is 
sufficient to meet all employment-related needs of the State's refugees 
and (b) there are non-employment-related service needs which are so 
extreme as to justify an allowance above the basic 15%. Or
    3. In accordance with section 412(c)(1)(C) of the INA, the State 
submits to the Director a plan (established by or in consultation with 
local governments) which the Director determines provides for the 
maximum appropriate provision of employment-related services for, and 
the maximum placement of, employable refugees consistent with 
performance standards established under section 106 of the Job Training 
Partnership Act.
    Refugee social services should be provided in a manner that is 
culturally and linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and 
cultural background. In light of the increasingly diverse population of 
refugees who are resettling in this country, refugee service agencies 
will need to develop practical ways of providing culturally and 
linguistically appropriate services to a changing ethnic population. To 
the maximum extent possible, particularly during a refugee's initial 
years of resettlement, refugee social services should be provided 
through a refugee-specific service system rather than through a system 
in which refugees are only one of many client groups being served. When 
planning State refugee services, States are strongly encouraged to 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 services 
to refugees.
    In order to provide culturally and linguistically compatible 
services in as cost-efficient a manner as possible in a time of limited 
resources, ORR encourages States and counties to promote and give 
special consideration to the provision of refugee social services 
through coalitions of refugee service organizations, such as coalitions 
of MAAs, voluntary resettlement agencies, or a variety of service 
providers. ORR believes it is essential for refugee-serving 
organizations to form close partnerships in the provision of services 
to refugees in order to be able to respond adequately to a changing 
refugee picture. Coalition-building and consolidation of providers is 
particularly important in communities with multiple service providers 
in order to ensure better coordination of services and maximum use of 
funding for services by minimizing the funds used for multiple 
administrative overhead costs.
    States should also expect to use funds available under this notice 
to pay for social services which are provided to refugees who 
participate in alternative projects. Section 412(e)(7)(A) of the INA 
provides that:

The Secretary [of HHS] shall develop and implement alternative 
projects for refugees who have been in the United States less than 
thirty-six months, under which refugees are provided interim 
support, medical services, support [social] services, and case 
management, as needed, in a manner that encourages self-sufficiency, 
reduces welfare dependency, and fosters greater coordination among 
the resettlement agencies and service providers.

    This provision is generally known as the Wilson/Fish Amendment. The 
Department has already issued a separate notice in the Federal Register 
with respect to applications for such projects (50 FR 24583, June 11, 
1985). The notice on alternative projects does not contain provisions 
for the allocation of additional social service funds beyond the 
amounts established in this notice. Therefore a State which may wish to 
consider carrying out such a project should take note of this in 
planning its use of social service funds being allocated under the 
present notice.
Funding to MAAs
    ORR has eliminated the set-aside for refugee mutual assistance 
associations as a separate component under the social service notice 
and instead has folded these funds into the social service formula 
allocation to States. Elimination of the MAA set-aside, however, is not 
intended to represent any reduction in ORR's commitment to MAAs as 
important participants in refugee resettlement. ORR believes that the 
continued and/or increased utilization of qualified refugee mutual 
assistance associations in the delivery of social services helps to 
ensure the provision of culturally and linguistically appropriate 
services as well as increasing the effectiveness of the overall service 
system. Therefore, at a minimum, ORR expects States to continue to use 
MAAs as service providers at a level comparable to previous years. ORR 
strongly encourages States when contracting for services, including 
employment services, to give consideration to the special strengths of 
MAAs, whenever contract bidders are otherwise equally qualified, 
provided that the MAA has the capability to deliver services in a 
manner that is culturally and linguistically compatible with the 
background of the target population to be served. ORR also expects 
States to continue to assist MAAs in seeking other public and/or 
private funds for the provision of services to refugee clients.
    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.

State Administration

    States are reminded that under current regulations at 45 CFR 
400.206 and 400.207, States have the flexibility to charge the 
following types of administrative costs against their refugee program 
social service grants, if they so choose: Direct and indirect 
administrative costs incurred for the overall management and operation 
of the State refugee program, including its coordination, planning, 
policy and program development, oversight and monitoring, data 
collection and reporting, and travel. See also State Transmittal No. 
88-40.

II. Discussion of Comments Received

    We received 17 letters of comment in response to the notice of 
proposed FY 1994 allocations to States for refugee social services. The 
comments are summarized below and are followed in each case by the 
Department's response.
    Comment: Fourteen commenters expressed their views regarding the 
proposed elimination of the MAA set-aside. Eleven commenters expressed 
concern over the proposed elimination of the MAA set-aside, while two 
commenters supported the elimination. One commenter was concerned that 
without the Federal requirement for a set-aside, the State would not be 
able to continue a State MAA set-aside in order to adhere to its 
general procurement requirements for contracting for social services. 
One commenter felt that the MAA set-aside represents the only structure 
through which ORR can recognize the role of MAAs in refugee 
resettlement. Another commenter felt that elimination of the set-aside 
reflected a distancing of ORR from the MAAs and did not create a level 
playing field for MAAs. Five commenters felt that elimination of the 
set-aside would represent a hardship on MAAs and would preclude MAAs 
from receiving any State social service funding. One commenter felt 
that there would be public pressure on States to award the exact amount 
of previous set-asides to MAAs and would create the need for a new 
tracking system to document the level of funding to MAAs to compare MAA 
funding with previous set-asides. One commenter asked for clarification 
on whether ORR will continue to require States to assist MAAs to seek 
other public and/or private funds as it has in the past.
    Response: The elimination of the MAA set-aside is not intended to 
convey a diminution of ORR's commitment to MAAs. We continue to believe 
in the importance of the role of MAAs in service provision and firmly 
believe that the involvement of MAAs is essential to effective refugee 
resettlement.
    ORR first instituted a set-aside for MAAs over 10 years ago as an 
incentive to States to work with and fund MAAs. At that time, MAAs were 
emerging as important organizations in the refugee resettlement field. 
We felt that States needed to be encouraged to begin funding these 
organizations as service providers. Today, the situation is quite 
different; we believe that MAAs are now in a position to compete 
effectively for refugee social services funds. Many MAAs have succeeded 
in becoming highly qualified and experienced service agencies and, in 
many States, have been able to obtain a much higher level of refugee 
social service funding than is available under the MAA set-aside. For 
this reason, we believe the MAA set-aside has served its purpose and 
should be discontinued at the Federal level. This in no way suggests 
that States should lower their commitment to using MAAs to provide 
services to refugees; to the contrary, we expect and encourage States 
to continue to use MAAs as service providers at levels comparable to 
previous years. In addition, MAAs may compete for funding under ORR's 
discretionary programs which are open to nonprofit organizations.
    We inadvertently deleted the language that has appeared in previous 
notices requiring States to assist MAAs in seeking other public and/or 
private funds for the provision of services to refugee clients. We have 
included similar language in this notice which strongly encourages, but 
does not require, States to assist MAAs in seeking other public and/or 
private funds for the provision of services.
    Comment: Two commenters requested clarification regarding ORR's 
expectation that States should ensure that refugee social services are 
provided to special populations such as Amerasians and former political 
prisoners from Vietnam. One commenter made the point that all refugees 
are special populations. Another commenter felt that while a State can 
ensure that services are made available to special populations, a State 
cannot ensure that services are provided, since it cannot ensure that 
refugees will access the services offered. The commenter suggested that 
the language in the notice be revised to acknowledge this distinction.
    Response: The phrase ``such as'' is not intended to suggest an 
inclusive list of special populations, but simply to provide examples 
of such special populations. We agree that States can only ensure that 
services are made available to refugees. The language in the notice has 
been changed to reflect ORR's expectation that States should ensure 
that refugee social services are made available to special populations.
    Comment: Two commenters requested clarification regarding ORR's 
expectation that States should ensure that a coherent plan of services 
is developed for each eligible family that addresses the family's needs 
from time of arrival until attainment of economic independence. One 
commenter pointed out that a plan of services can only be developed for 
individuals and families that access services and recommended that the 
language in the notice be revised to clarify this point. The commenter 
also questioned how the definition of an ``eligible family'' would 
apply to recent arrivals who are single. Another commenter questioned 
what is meant by ``a coherent plan of services from time of arrival 
until attainment of economic independence''.
    Response: Our intent regarding a coherent plan of services is for 
such a plan to be developed for every family that applies for services 
or receives cash assistance. We believe that a State can ensure that 
this is carried out by requiring its providers to develop such plans. 
Refugees who are single individuals, without family, should be 
considered an eligible one-person family unit. ``A coherent plan of 
services from time of arrival until attainment of economic 
independence'' means the development of a comprehensive service plan 
that includes the provision of employment-related and other services 
needed to help a newly arrived family move to a point of economic self-
support.
    Comment: Three commenters commented on ORR's expectation that 
services should be provided in a manner that is culturally and 
linguistically compatible. Two of the commenters indicated that this 
expectation would require the provision of services through a refugee-
specific system which, they felt, would be financially impractical. 
Both commenters felt that it would be more cost-effective to fold 
refugee services into the existing mainstream system. Another commenter 
expressed support for the provision of services through a refugee-
specific system. One commenter asked for a clear definition of what 
``culturally and linguistically compatible'' means.
    Response: What ORR means by the provision of services in a manner 
that is culturally and linguistically compatible is that an agency 
providing refugee social services must employ or contract with staff 
who (1) speak the native language of and (2) are either from the same 
ethnic background as, or are culturally knowledgeable of, the refugee 
populations the agency serves, and must use these staff in the 
provision of services to refugee clients.
    Regarding the cost-effectiveness of a refugee-specific service 
system, we believe that the investment of refugee program funds in a 
refugee-specific service system, particularly in the initial years 
after a refugee's arrival in the U.S., will prove to be more cost-
effective in the long run than serving refugees through a mainstream 
system. The provision of services through a service provider system 
whose only clientele is refugees is likely to result in more tailored 
and comprehensive services to refugees, resulting, we believe, in 
earlier employment and self-sufficiency than what would otherwise occur 
when refugees are served through a mainstream system. Refugees often 
tend to receive minimal services or are the last to be served in 
mainstream systems where they are one of many client groups served. We 
wish to emphasize, however, that there is nothing to preclude, and in 
fact we encourage, the use of mainstream resources to augment the 
services provided through a refugee-specific service system.
    Comment: Two commenters had concerns regarding ORR's encouragement 
to States and counties to give special consideration to coalitions of 
refugee service organizations. One commenter expressed concern about 
how coalitions would be more cost-effective. The commenter also 
questioned how ORR envisions special consideration for coalitions in 
relation to the competitive procurement process. Another commenter felt 
that coordination should not be mandated as an end in itself. The 
commenter felt that if early employment is the goal, local service 
systems should be as uncomplicated as possible in order to get the job 
done efficiently. The commenter was concerned that current providers 
that are doing an effective job would be dismantled prematurely.
    Response: We believe that the formation of coalitions among refugee 
service agencies ought to lead to service delivery efficiencies and to 
a rational downsizing of existing systems that will be necessary to 
keep pace with the changing nature of the refugee population to be 
served. We believe the formation of coalitions will enable the pooling 
of varied talents and skills within the agencies to more efficiently 
serve the changing population of refugee arrivals that will occur over 
the next few years. We also believe that the formation of coalitions 
should result in the reduction of administrative costs such as 
accounting and reporting costs, making coalitions more competitive. In 
addition, we believe the formation of coalitions will result in better 
coordination of services to refugees.
    Encouragement of or special consideration for coalitions should not 
interfere with State procurement requirements. Coalitions will have to 
compete along with other applicants. However, States in their Requests 
for Proposals (RFPs) could choose to include language that encourages 
the formation of coalitions or could include bonus points for 
coalitions in the scoring criteria, as long as these actions do not 
violate State procurement rules.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether language 
in the notice such as ``States are strongly encouraged'' and ``the 
State should'' is advisory or is a mandatory requirement.
    Response: When ORR uses phrases such as ``States are strongly 
encouraged,'' ``States are expected to,'' or ``the State should,'' the 
language is advisory in nature and should not be interpreted as a 
mandatory requirement.
    Comment: Six commenters made comments regarding requirements for 
the use of discretionary funds for services to former political 
prisoners (FPP) from Vietnam. One commenter requested that ORR specify 
which family members are eligible for services under the FPP set-aside 
or allow States and counties to make that determination. The commenter 
also requested that ORR define what adjustment services may be provided 
under the FPP program and recommended that ORR use the same definition 
as used in 45 CFR 400.155(c) of the ORR regulations. One commenter, 
noting ORR's prohibition against the purchase of advertising space and 
air time with FPP funds, recommended that paid outreach announcements 
through refugee community media and Vietnamese newspapers be allowed 
under the FPP program.
    One commenter noted that ORR requires States to allocate FPP funds 
using a formula that reflects recent and anticipated arrivals of former 
political prisoners. The commenter pointed out that there is no timely 
or reliable source of anticipated arrivals by State and recommended 
limiting the State allocation formula to recent arrivals and 
recommended defining the term ``recent arrivals.'' One commenter 
recommended that counties which administer FPP programs be granted 10% 
for administrative costs and that States should be limited to no more 
than 2% for administrative costs.
    Two commenters recommended dropping outcomes as a performance 
reporting requirement under the FPP program. One of the commenters 
questioned the increased reporting requirements when the FPP program is 
entering its last year of operation. Another commenter recommended 
accepting available individual contract data on outcomes since it would 
be difficult in some States with a wide range of FPP services to 
provide a program-wide outcomes report. One commenter supported the 
proposed FPP reporting requirements and did not feel the increased 
reporting requirements would add significantly to existing workloads. 
Another commenter recommended that FPP projects be supported that 
demonstrate accountability for outcomes such as those that occurred in 
the Amerasian projects. The commenter further suggested that ORR should 
require coordination between the agencies that provide FPP services and 
the voluntary agencies that resettle former political prisoners.
    Response: Family members who are eligible for services under the 
FPP set-aside include any relative of a former political prisoner who 
lives in the same household with the FPP. Adjustment services are 
defined as those services listed under 45 CFR 400.155(c) of the ORR 
regulations. This definition is included in this notice. Regarding the 
use of FPP funds for paid outreach announcements through the refugee 
media, our position is unchanged on this issue; we do not feel that the 
purchase of advertising space and air time constitutes an effective use 
of FPP funds. FPP providers should work with the voluntary agencies 
that resettled FPP refugees to contact these refugees within the 
constraints of the Privacy Act.
    We agree with the comment regarding the difficulty of basing a 
State allocation formula on anticipated arrivals and have dropped this 
factor from the formula. In the interest of consistency, we have 
changed the notice to require States to allocate FPP funds using a 
formula which reflects arrivals during FY 1993 to local jurisdictions, 
the same formula used by ORR to allocate FPP funds to States. We have 
no specific guidance regarding the distribution of administrative costs 
between county and State; this is an issue that should be resolved 
between the county and the State. All costs claimed against grants must 
be in conformity with HHS grants regulations at 45 CFR part 92 and 
other applicable Federal requirements.
    In regard to performance requirements for the FPP program, we have 
not added any new reporting requirements. As in FY 1993, States are 
required to provide program performance information on the FPP program 
consistent with the reporting requirements contained in 45 CFR 92.40, 
under the terms and conditions of the social services grant awards to 
States. In addition, we have simply clarified that the information to 
be reported must include the four items listed in this notice. 
Regarding program outcomes, States may provide available outcome data 
from individual contracts. In regard to suggestions for additional 
requirements for FPP projects, we have decided not to consider 
additional requirements since this is the last year of the FPP set-
aside program.
    Comment: Five commenters addressed the issue of ORR's use of 15% of 
social service funds for ORR discretionary grants. Two commenters 
indicated support for the 15% discretionary use, while two commenters 
objected it. One commenter recommended that there should be equitable 
distribution of discretionary funding with input and involvement of 
States, an expansion of selection panels, more lead time to develop 
proposals, and the development of meaningful evaluation criteria. 
Another commenter felt that the notice should describe the focus of 
discretionary funds for FY 1994, as has been done in previous years.
    Response: We continue to believe that it is necessary to maintain a 
portion of social service funds for discretionary use in order to carry 
out national initiatives and special projects that respond to changing 
needs and circumstances in the refugee program. Regarding the issue of 
equitable distribution, discretionary funds are awarded on a 
competitive basis, based on the quality of applications in relation to 
the evaluation criteria, rather than on the basis of a population-based 
allocation formula. Therefore, the geographic distribution of funds 
awarded on the basis of merit may not be the same as a distribution by 
formula. Regarding more State involvement in discretionary funding, 
since States are frequently competitors for ORR discretionary funds, 
along with other applicants, it is not possible to involve States in 
funding decisions without creating a conflict of interest, a violation 
of Federal grant rules. We do not believe our selection panels need to 
be expanded; ORR selection panels have traditionally been broad-based, 
involving a varied group of experts from the resettlement field and 
other disciplines. We agree that sufficient lead time is necessary to 
develop proposals; we are committed to allowing as much lead time as 
the grant process timetable will bear. We also agree that the use of 
meaningful evaluation criteria is essential in the review of grant 
applications; such evaluation criteria are included in our grant 
announcements. We have not included a description of our discretionary 
focus for FY 1994 because we have been in the process of revamping our 
discretionary program agenda this year. FY 1994 grant announcements 
have recently been made available in the Federal Register.
    Comment: Three commenters expressed support for the concurrent 
provision of English language training with employment and employment-
related services. One commenter recommended that the provision of 
English language training be tied to the provision of vocational 
training and that the notice reflect this emphasis.
    Response: We do not believe that English language training should 
be tied exclusively to one type of employment-related service such as 
vocational training. Our intent is to encourage the concurrent 
provision of English language training in concert with other 
employment-related services to speed the process of a refugee becoming 
employed and self-sufficient. At the same time, we want to discourage 
the provision of English language training in a sequential manner, as a 
prerequisite to receiving other employment-related services.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding the 
meaning of ``appropriate coordination'' with reception and placement (R 
& P) agencies to ensure the provision of seamless services to refugees.
    Response: Appropriate coordination means working with R & P 
agencies to ensure that there is a smooth transition between services 
provided by the R & P agencies and services provided to refugees 
through the State program. When planning services, a State should take 
into account what services are provided by R & P agencies so that there 
is a relationship and a continuum between R & P services and State-
funded services and an absence of service gaps or service duplication.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concurrence with the need for 
continued provision of services after employment to help a refugee 
retain employment or move to a better job. The commenter recommended 
that ORR review the list of services in 45 CFR 400.153 through 400.156 
and if additional services are desired, specify them in the notice.
    Response: We are reviewing the list of allowable services in 45 CFR 
subpart I to determine if changes should be made. Such changes would 
have to be made through a regulatory change, not through the notice.
    Comment: Two commenters commended ORR for not restricting services 
to a 36-month refugee population, while one commenter expressed 
disappointment that ORR did not limit services to a 36-month 
population.
    Response: As a point of clarification, a restriction of services to 
a time-limited population could only be effected through regulatory 
action.
    Comment: One commenter complained that the requirement that States 
must specify and justify the use of funds for services to refugees who 
have been in the U.S. more than 3 years is a reversal from previous 
years when a justification was required to use social service funds for 
newly-arrived refugees.
    Response: ORR regulations under 45 CFR 400.147 require that both 
the use of funds for services to newly arriving refugees 
(Sec. 400.147(a)) and the use of funds for services to refugees who 
have been in the U.S. more than 36 months (Sec. 400.147(c)) must be 
specified and justified as part of a State's annual services plan. This 
regulation has been in effect since July 1, 1989. The notice this year 
simply emphasized Sec. 400.147(c) instead of Sec. 400.147(a).
    Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement that funds 
should be used for services designed to get refugees a job in less than 
one year, while one commenter supported the one-year requirement.
    Response: We have responded to this comment in previous notices. 
Since our position remains unchanged, we refer the commenter to our 
response in the FY 1993 final social service notice, published in the 
Federal Register on July 28, 1993 (58 FR 40437).
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the notice clarify that 
social service funds may be used to serve unemployed refugees who are 
not receiving cash assistance as long as cash assistance recipients 
make up a percentage of the social services caseload which is at or 
above the State's welfare dependency rate. The commenter indicated that 
the State currently interprets the ORR notice to mean that only cash 
assistance clients may receive services.
    Response: We believe the notice is clear that social services funds 
may be used to serve non-cash-assistance recipients. The notice, under 
the section ``Population to be Served,'' states that ``social service 
programs should not be limited exclusively to refugees who are cash 
assistance recipients.'' However, as the wording indicates, this is not 
a mandatory requirement. States are not required to ensure that cash 
assistance recipients make up a percentage of the social services 
caseload that is not less than the State's welfare dependency rate. 
States, however, are required to give priority to a refugee who is 
receiving cash assistance.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the use of a floor amount for 
small States.
    Response: We have responded to this comment in previous notices. 
Since our position has not changed on this issue, we refer the 
commenter to our response in the FY 1993 final social service notice, 
published in the Federal Register on July 28, 1993 (58 FR 40437).
    Comment: Two commenters objected to unlimited State administrative 
costs for social services. One commenter recommended capping 
administrative costs at 5% for any State receiving more than $12 
million in social service funds and recommended that counties be 
allowed a maximum of 20% for administrative costs.
    Response: Since the statute does not specify a limitation on the 
amount of social service funds that can be used for administrative 
costs, we have not imposed a limit on States, choosing instead to allow 
States to make that determination. In regard to the percentage of funds 
that counties may use for administrative costs, this is an issue that 
needs to be resolved between county and State, not ORR. As noted 
earlier, all costs must meet Federal grant requirements.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that ORR consider safeguards to 
ensure that primary emphasis is placed on serving new arrivals, with 
services beyond the initial period being the exception and only 
allowable if a State has been successful in meeting the needs of new 
arrivals.
    Response: Such a requirement could be put into effect only through 
regulatory action. We are giving this issue consideration.
    Comment: One commenter felt that it is unwise to rely heavily on 
the presence of bilingual female staff as the key factor in improving 
services to refugee women. The commenter felt that the relevance of 
service matters much more.
    Response: The issue is access to services, not just relevance of 
service. We believe that access to services and communication between 
client and provider improve significantly for refugee women when there 
are bilingual women on staff to provide services to these clients.

III. Allocation Formula

    Of the funds available for FY 1994 for social services, $68,681,700 
is allocated to States in accordance with the formula specified below. 
A State's allowable allocation is calculated as follows:
    1. The total amount of funds determined by the Director to be 
available for this purpose; divided by--
    2. The total number of refugees and Cuban/Haitian entrants who 
arrived in the United States not more than 3 years prior to the 
beginning of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated and 
the number of Amerasians from Vietnam eligible for refugee social 
services, as shown by the ORR Refugee Data System. The resulting per 
capita amount will be multiplied by--
    3. The number of persons in item 2, above, in the State as of 
October 1, 1993, adjusted for estimated secondary migration.
    The calculation above yields the formula allocation for each State. 
Minimum allocations for small States are taken into account.
    Allocations for political prisoners are based on FY 1993 arrival 
numbers for this group in each State from the Refugee Data Center and 
are limited to States with 170 or more political prisoner arrivals. We 
have limited the population base to FY 1993 political prisoner arrival 
numbers because these funds are intended to serve recent arrivals. We 
have not included States with fewer than 170 former political prisoners 
in the political prisoner allocations formula because the resulting 
level of funding would be insignificant. In these States, we believe 
the small number of political prisoners could be adequately served 
under the State's refugee social services program.

IV. Basis of Population Estimates

    The population estimates for the allocation of funds in FY 1994 are 
based on data on refugee arrivals from the ORR Refugee Data System, 
adjusted as of October 1, 1993, for estimated secondary migration. The 
data base includes refugees of all nationalities, Amerasians from 
Vietnam, and Cuban and Haitian entrants.
    For fiscal year 1994, ORR's formula allocations for the States for 
social services are based on the numbers of refugees and Amerasians who 
arrived, and on the numbers of entrants who arrived or were resettled, 
during the preceding three fiscal years: 1991, 1992, and 1993, based on 
final arrival data by State. Therefore, estimates have been developed 
of the numbers of refugees and entrants with arrival or resettlement 
dates between October 1, 1990, and September 30, 1993, who are thought 
to be living in each State as of October 1, 1993. Refugees admitted 
under the Federal Government's private-sector initiative are not 
included, since their assistance and services are to be provided by the 
private sponsoring organizations under an agreement with the Department 
of State.
    The estimates of secondary migration were based on data submitted 
by all participating States on Form ORR-11. The total migration 
reported by each State was summed, yielding in- and out-migration 
figures and a net migration figure for each State. The net migration 
figure was applied to the State's total arrival figure, resulting in a 
revised population estimate. Because the reporting period covered on 
Form ORR-11 was a maximum of only 8 months as of June 1993 for the 
majority of States whose reporting base was their cash/medical 
assistance caseload, extra weight was given to the secondary migration 
reported by those States to arrive at estimates of secondary migration 
over a 36-month period. In 1993, no count of recently-arrived refugee 
children was available from the Department of Education for use as a 
comparison.
    Estimates were developed separately for refugees and entrants and 
then combined into a total estimated 3-year refugee/entrant population 
for each State. Eligible Amerasians are included in the refugee 
figures.
    Table 1, below, shows the estimated 3-year populations, as of 
October 1, 1993, of refugees (col. 1), entrants (col. 2), and total 
refugees and entrants (col. 3); the formula amounts which the 
population estimates yield (col. 4); and the allocation amounts after 
allowing for the minimum amounts (col. 5). Table 1 also shows the 
number of former political prisoner arrivals in FY 1993 (col. 6); and 
the allocation amounts for services to this population (col. 7).

V. Allocation Amounts

    Funding subsequent to the publication of this notice will be 
contingent upon the submittal and approval of a State annual services 
plan, as required by 45 CFR 400.11(b)(2). The following amounts are 
allocated for refugee social services in FY 1994:

Table 1.--Estimated 3-Year Refugee/Entrant Populations of States Participating in the Refugee Program and Social Service Formula Amounts and Allocations
                                     for FY 1994; and Former Political Prisoner Arrivals and Allocations for FY 1994                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                              Former                    
                                                                                                                             political        Former    
                                                                               Total                                         prisoner        political  
                  State                      Refugees        Entrants       population    Formula amount    Allocation     arrivals from     prisoner   
                                                                                                                           Vietnam in FY    allocation  
                                                                                                                               1993                     
                                                     (1)             (2)             (3)             (4)             (5)             (6)             (7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................             894              19             913        $163,826        $163,826              39              $0
Alaskaa.................................             134               0             134          24,045          75,000              14               0
Arizona.................................           4,023              40           4,063         729,053         729,053             183          16,029
Arkansas................................             296               0             296          53,113          94,142              64               0
Californiab.............................          96,019             499          96,518      17,318,904      17,318,904          10,279         900,324
Colorado................................           3,915               2           3,917         702,855         702,855             230          20,145
Connecticut.............................           3,401              75           3,476         623,723         623,723             130               0
Delaware................................             112              12             124          22,250          75,000               6               0
District of Columbia....................           2,760              18           2,778         498,476         498,476             181          15,854
Florida.................................          12,898          15,989          28,887       5,183,398       5,183,398             546          47,823
Georgia.................................           8,811              51           8,862       1,590,171       1,590,171           1,294         113,340
Hawaii..................................             982               0             982         176,207         176,207             119               0
Idaho...................................             925               4             929         166,697         166,697             111               0
Illinois................................          13,511             102          13,613       2,442,676       2,442,676             358          31,357
Indiana.................................           1,160               6           1,166         209,224         209,224              73               0
Iowa....................................           3,139               2           3,141         563,612         563,612             250          21,897
Kansas..................................           2,201               3           2,204         395,479         395,479             282          24,700
Kentucky................................           1,911              16           1,927         345,775         345,775             159               0
Louisiana...............................           2,503              58           2,561         459,538         459,538             306          26,802
Maine...................................             627               0             627         112,507         112,507               4               0
Maryland................................           7,501             174           7,675       1,377,179       1,377,179             342          29,955
Massachusetts...........................          10,973             294          11,267       2,021,717       2,021,717             601          52,641
Michigan................................           7,212              38           7,250       1,300,919       1,300,919             241          21,109
Minnesota...............................           7,458               0           7,458       1,338,241       1,338,241             421          36,875
Mississippi.............................             176               0             176          31,581          75,000              19               0
Missouri................................           5,052              26           5,078         911,181         911,181             330          28,904
Montana.................................             345               0             345          61,906         100,000               0               0
Nebraska................................           2,242               0           2,242         402,298         402,298             215          18,832
Nevada..................................             828             168             996         178,719         178,719              38               0
New Hampshire...........................             571               0             571         102,459         102,459              88               0
New Jersey..............................           7,558             496           8,054       1,445,186       1,445,186             262          22,948
New Mexico..............................           1,086             164           1,250         224,296         224,296              39               0
New York................................          65,250             760          66,010      11,844,639      11,844,639             527          46,159
North Carolina..........................           3,543              22           3,565         639,693         639,693             177          15,503
North Dakota............................           1,024               0           1,024         183,744         183,744              48               0
Ohio....................................           6,042              39           6,081       1,091,157       1,091,157             164               0
Oklahoma................................           1,629               1           1,630         292,482         292,482             288          25,226
Oregon..................................           5,913              58           5,971       1,071,419       1,071,419             373          32,671
Pennsylvania............................          11,048              86          11,134       1,997,852       1,997,852             353          30,919
Rhode Island............................           1,066              11           1,077         193,254         193,254               3               0
South Carolina..........................             450               2             452          81,106         100,000              79               0
South Dakota............................           1,223               0           1,223         219,451         219,451               0               0
Tennessee...............................           3,294              32           3,326         596,808         596,808             196          17,167
Texas...................................          16,672             178          16,850       3,023,514       3,023,514           2,272         199,001
Utah....................................           1,758               0           1,758         315,450         315,450             135               0
Vermont.................................             714               0             714         128,118         128,118              16               0
Virginia................................           6,195              22           6,217       1,115,560       1,115,560             805          70,509
Washington..............................          19,170               1          19,171       3,439,987       3,439,987           1,522         133,310
West Virginia...........................              85               0              85          15,252          75,000               0               0
Wisconsin...............................           4,876               1           4,877         875,114         875,114              22               0
Wyoming.................................               0               0               0               0          75,000               0               0
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.............................         361,176          19,469         380,645      68,301,811      68,681,700          24,204       2,000,000
aThe Alaska allocation has been awarded for a Wilson/Fish demonstration project.                                                                        
bA portion of the California allocation is expected to be awarded to continue a Wilson/Fish project in San Diego.                                       

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This notice does not create any reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements requiring OMB clearance.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 93.566 Refugee 
Assistance--State Administered Programs)

    Dated: June 6, 1994.
Lavinia Limon,
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[FR Doc. 94-14758 Filed 6-16-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P