[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19270-19276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9365]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Refugee Resettlement


Refugee Resettlement Program; Proposed Availability of Formula 
Allocation Funding for FY 1995 Targeted Assistance Grants for Services 
to Refugees in Local Areas of High Need

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed availability of formula allocation funding 
for FY 1995 targeted assistance grants to States for services to 
refugees\1\ in local areas of high need.

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

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the proposed availability of funds and 
award procedures for FY 1995 targeted assistance grants for services to 
refugees under the Refugee Resettlement Program (RRP). These grants are 
for service provision in localities with large refugee populations, 
high refugee concentrations, and high use of public assistance, and 
where specific needs exist for supplementation of currently available 
resources. The formula has been updated to take into account FY 1994 
arrivals.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by May 17, 1995.

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

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

CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (CDFA) NUMBER: 93.584.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Scope

    This notice announces the proposed availability of funds for grants 
for targeted assistance for services to refugees in counties where, 
because of factors such as unusually large refugee populations, high 
refugee concentrations, and high use of public assistance, there exists 
and can be demonstrated a specific need for supplementation of 
resources for services to this population.
    The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $49,397,000 
in FY 1995 funds for the targeted assistance program (TAP) as part of 
the FY 1995 appropriation for the Department of Health and Human 
Services (Pub. L. 103-333).
    The House Appropriations Committee Report reads as follows with 
respect to targeted assistance funds (H.R. Rept. No. 103-553, p. 93):
    This program provides grants to States for counties which are 
impacted by high concentrations of refugees and high dependency rates. 
The Committee intends that $19,000,000 of the total recommended for 
targeted assistance be provided to continue the current program of 
support to communities affected as a result of the massive influx of 
Cuban and Haitian entrants. The Committee also intends that 10 percent 
of the total appropriated for targeted assistance be used for grants to 
localities most heavily impacted by the influx of refugees such as 
Laotian Hmong, Cambodians, and Soviet Pentecostals, including secondary 
migrants who entered the United States after October 1, 1979. The 
Committee expects these grants to be awarded to communities not 
presently receiving targeted assistance because of previous 
concentration requirements and other factors in the grant formulas, as 
well as those who do currently receive targeted assistance grants.
    The Senate Appropriations Committee Report (S. Rept. No. 103-318, 
p. 154) is consistent with the above-quoted House Report.
    The Conference Report on Appropriations (H. Rept. No. 103-733, p. 
24) clarifies Congress' intent on the use of the $19 million for 
communities affected by Cuban and Haitian entrants as follows:
    The conferees are agreed that $19,000,000 of the $49,397,000 
appropriated for targeted assistance is to serve communities affected 
by the Cuban and Haitian entrants and refugees whose arrivals in recent 
years have increased.
    The Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) proposes 
to use the $49,397,000 appropriated for FY 1995 targeted assistance as 
follows:
     $25,457,300 will be allocated under the updated formula, 
as set forth in this notice.
     $19,000,000 will be awarded to serve communities most 
heavily affected by recent Cuban and Haitian entrant and refugee 
arrivals.
     $4,939,700 (10% of the total) will be awarded as second-
year continuation grants in a two-year project period under a 
discretionary grant announcement that was issued in FY 1994.
    In addition, the Office of Refugee Resettlement has available an 
additional $6,000,000 in FY 1995 funds to augment the targeted 
assistance 10% program through the Foreign Operations, Export 
[[Page 19271]] Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act (Pub. 
L. 103-306). These funds will be awarded under a separate discretionary 
grant announcement which will be issued setting forth application 
requirements and evaluation criteria.
    The purpose of targeted assistance grants is to provide, through a 
process of local planning and implementation, direct services intended 
to result in the economic self-sufficiency and reduced welfare 
dependency of refugees through job placements.
    The targeted assistance program reflects the requirements of 
section 412(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 
which provides that targeted assistance grants shall be made available 
(i) primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment and 
achievement of self-sufficiency, (ii) in a manner that does not 
supplant other refugee program funds and that assures that not less 
than 95 percent of the amount of the grant award is made available to 
the county or other local entity.

II. Authorization

    Targeted assistance projects are funded under the authority of 
section 412(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as 
amended by the Refugee Assistance Extension Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-
605), 8 U.S.C. 1522(c); section 501(a) of the Refugee Education 
Assistance Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-422), 8 U.S.C. 1522 note, insofar as 
it incorporates by reference with respect to Cuban and Haitian entrants 
the authorities pertaining to assistance for refugees established by 
section 412(c)(2) of the INA, as cited above; section 584(c) of the 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act, 1988, as included in the FY 1988 Continuing 
Resolution (Pub. L. 100-202), insofar as it incorporates by reference 
with respect to certain Amerasians from Vietnam the authorities 
pertaining to assistance for refugees established by section 412(c)(2) 
of the INA, as cited above, including certain Amerasians from Vietnam 
who are U.S. citizens, as provided under title II of the Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Acts, 
1989 (Pub. L. 100-461), 1990 (Pub. L. 101-167), and 1991 (Pub. L. 101-
513).

III. Client and Service Priorities

    Targeted assistance funding should be used to assist refugee 
families to achieve economic independence. To this end, ORR expects 
States and counties to ensure that a coherent plan of services is 
developed for each eligible family that addresses the family's needs 
from time of arrival until attainment of economic independence. Each 
service plan should address a family's needs for both employment-
related services and other needed social services. In local 
jurisdictions that have both targeted assistance and refugee social 
services programs, one plan of services may be developed for a family 
that incorporates both targeted assistance and refugee social services.
    Services funded under the targeted assistance allocations are 
required to focus primarily on those refugees who, either because of 
their protracted use of public assistance or difficulty in securing 
employment, continue to need services beyond the initial years of 
resettlement. The targeted assistance program, however, is not intended 
to be limited to cash assistance recipients. TAP-funded services may 
also be provided to other refugees in need of services, regardless of 
whether the refugees are receiving cash assistance.
    In addition to the statutory requirement that TAP funds be used 
primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment (section 
412(c)(2)(B)(i)), funds awarded under this program are intended to help 
fulfill the Congressional intent that employable refugees should be 
placed on jobs as soon as possible after their arrival in the United 
States (section 412(a)(1)(B)(i) of the INA). Therefore targeted 
assistance funds must be used primarily for services which directly 
enhance refugee employment potential, have specific employment 
objectives, and are designed to enable refugees to obtain jobs with 
less than one year's participation in the targeted assistance program. 
Examples of these activities are: job development; job placement; job-
related and vocational English; short-term job training specifically 
related to opportunities in the local economy; on-the-job training; 
business and employer incentives (such as on-site employee orientation, 
vocational English training, or bilingual supervisor assistance); and 
business technical assistance. General or remedial educational 
activities--such as adult basic education (ABE) or preparation for a 
high school equivalency or general education diploma (GED)--may be 
provided within the context of an individual employability plan for a 
refugee which is intended to result in job placement in less than one 
year. ORR encourages the continued provision of services after a 
refugee has entered a job to help the refugee retain employment or move 
to a better job. Targeted assistance funds cannot be used for long-term 
training programs such as vocational training that last for more than a 
year or educational programs that are not intended to lead to 
employment within a year. If TAP funds are used for the provision of 
English language training, such training should be provided 
concurrently, rather than sequentially, with employment or with other 
employment-related services, to the maximum extent possible.
    A portion of a local area's allocation may be used for services 
which are not directed toward the achievement of a specific employment 
objective in less than one year but which are essential to the 
adjustment of refugees in the community, provided such needs are 
clearly demonstrated and such use is approved by the State.
    Reflecting section 412(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA, the Director of ORR 
expects States to insure that women have the same opportunities as men 
to participate in training and instruction. In addition, States are 
expected to make sure that services are provided in a manner that 
encourages the use of bilingual women on service agency staffs to 
ensure adequate service access by refugee women. In order to facilitate 
refugee self-support, the Director also expects States to implement 
strategies which address simultaneously the employment potential of 
both male and female wage earners in a family unit. States and counties 
are expected to make every effort to assure availability of day care 
services in order to allow women with children the opportunity to 
participate in employment services or to accept or retain employment. 
To accomplish this, day care may be treated as a priority employment-
related service under the targeted assistance program. Refugees who are 
participating in TAP-funded or social services-funded employment 
services or have accepted employment are eligible for day care 
services. For an employed refugee, TAP-funded day care must be limited 
to one year after the refugee becomes employed. States and counties, 
however, are expected to use day care funding from other publicly 
funded mainstream programs as a prior resource and are encouraged to 
work with service providers to assure maximum access to other publicly 
funded resources for day care.
    Targeted assistance services should be provided in a manner that is 
culturally and linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and 
cultural background. In light of the increasingly diverse population of 
refugees who are resettling in this country, refugee service agencies 
will need to develop practical ways of providing culturally and 
linguistically appropriate services [[Page 19272]] to a changing ethnic 
population. To the maximum extent possible, particularly during a 
refugee's initial years of resettlement, targeted assistance services 
should be provided through a refugee-specific service system rather 
than through a system in which refugees are only one of many client 
groups being served.
    ORR strongly encourages States and counties when contracting for 
targeted assistance services, including employment services, to give 
consideration to the special strengths of MAAs, whenever contract 
bidders are otherwise equally qualified, provided that the MAA has the 
capability to deliver services in a manner that is culturally and 
linguistically compatible with the background of the target population 
to be served. States may use a portion of their targeted assistance 
funds, either through contracts or through the use of State/county 
staff, to provide technical assistance and organizational training to 
strengthen the capability of MAAs to provide employment services, 
particularly in States where MAA capability is weak or undeveloped. If 
a State chooses to use State employees to provide technical assistance 
to MAAs, this would be an administrative cost which must be included 
within the State administrative cost limit of 5% for the targeted 
assistance program.
    ORR defines MAAs as organizations with the following 
qualifications:
    a. The organization is legally incorporated as a nonprofit 
organization; and
    b. Not less than 51% of the composition of the Board of Directors 
or governing board of the mutual assistance association is comprised of 
refugees or former refugees, including both refugee men and women.
    Finally, in order to provide culturally and linguistically 
compatible services in as cost-efficient a manner as possible in a time 
of limited resources, ORR strongly encourages States and counties to 
promote and give special consideration to the provision of services 
through coalitions of refugee service organizations, such as coalitions 
of MAAs, voluntary resettlement agencies, or a variety of service 
providers. ORR believes it is essential for refugee-serving 
organizations to form close partnerships in the provision of services 
to refugees in order to be able to respond adequately to a changing 
refugee picture. Coalition-building and consolidation of providers is 
particularly important in communities with multiple service providers 
in order to ensure better coordination of services and maximum use of 
funding for services by minimizing the funds used for multiple 
administrative overhead costs.
    The award of funds to States under this notice would be contingent 
upon the completeness of a State's application as described in section 
IX, below.

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

V. Eligible Grantees

    The following requirements, which have previously applied to TAP, 
will continue to apply with respect to FY 1995 awards:
    Eligible grantees are those agencies of State governments which are 
responsible for the refugee program under 45 CFR 400.5 in States 
containing counties which qualify for FY 1995 targeted assistance 
awards. The use of targeted assistance funds for services to Cuban and 
Haitian entrants is limited to States which have an approved State plan 
under the Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program (CHEP).
    The State agency will submit a single application on behalf of all 
county governments of the qualified counties in that State. Subsequent 
to the approval of the State's application by ORR, local targeted 
assistance plans will be developed by the county government or other 
designated entity and submitted to the State.
    A State with more than one qualified county is permitted, but not 
required, to determine the allocation amount for each qualified county 
within the State. However, if a State chooses to determine county 
allocations differently from those set forth in this notice, the FY 
1995 allocations proposed by the State must be included in the State's 
application.
    Applications submitted in response to this notice are not subject 
to review by State and areawide clearinghouses under Executive Order 
12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.

VI. Qualification and Allocation Formulas

A. Qualifying New Counties

    ORR does not intend to consider data for the purpose of determining 
the eligibility of new counties to participate in TAP in FY 1995. The 
reason is that in FY 1996 we intend to modify the qualifying criteria 
and allocations formula for targeted assistance. At that time, the 
eligibility of all counties for participation in TAP will be reviewed 
against the new qualifying criteria. We do not believe it makes sense 
to invite new counties to submit evidence of eligibility in FY 1995 
when these counties may become ineligible in FY 1996 under the new 
qualifying criteria.

B. Allocation Formula
    The FY 1995 TAP formula allocations are based on the same formula 
as in FY 1994, updated to reflect arrivals through September 30, 1994.
    Under this formula, one portion of the allocation is based on 
refugee and Cuban/Haitian entrant arrivals during FY 1980-1982; funds 
for this portion of the formula are allocated on the same proportionate 
basis among participating counties as in FY 1994. The second portion of 
the allocation is based on refugee and entrant placements in these 
counties during calendar year (CY) 1983-September 30, 1994.
    For the participating counties, the $25,457,300 which is allocated 
by formula is apportioned as follows:
    a. $7,891,763 or 31%, is allocated on the basis of the formula 
which has been used for all previous targeted assistance allocations 
(old formula) and which is based on initial placements during FY 1980-
1982 and other factors as described under Formula Used to Date in the 
FY 1989 TAP notice published in the Federal Register on July 3, 1989 
(54 FR 27944).
    b. $17,565,537 or 69%, is allocated on the basis of arrivals during 
CY 1983-September 30, 1994 (new formula).
    The above percentages are based on the proportion of initial 
placements in these counties during the two periods: 338,247 refugee 
arrivals, or 31% of the total number of placements, during the old-
formula period; and 768,750 or 69%, during the new-formula period.
    The old-formula allocation of $7,891,763 follows the same 
distribution among counties as in the past.
    The new-formula allocation of $17,565,537 is based on the number of 
initial placements in each county during CY 1983-September 30, 1994. 
Welfare dependency rates were not used as a factor in this portion of 
the formula.

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

    Proposed allocations for recent Cuban and Haitian refugee and 
entrant arrivals are based on arrival numbers during the 3-year period 
beginning October 1, 1991 through September 30, 1994. Allocations are 
limited to targeted assistance counties with 3 percent or more of the 
total 3-year Cuban and Haitian arrival population (35,863 arrivals) in 
the 42 targeted assistance counties. We have established a 3 percent 
threshold for allocations in [[Page 19273]] order to target the most 
impacted communities.

VII. Proposed Allocations

    Table 1 lists the participating counties, the number of placements 
in each county during CY 1983--September 30, 1994, the amount of each 
county's proposed allocation which is based on the old formula, the 
amount of each county's allocation which is based on the new formula, 
and the county's total proposed allocation.
    Although Table 1 shows an amount for each county, the Director 
proposes, in the case of a State which contains more than one qualified 
county, to continue to permit the State to determine (in accordance 
with the requirements set forth in this notice) the appropriate 
allocation of the State's targeted assistance award among the qualified 
counties in the State. If a State chooses to make allocations which are 
different from the notice, the State, as in the FY 1994 TAP, would be 
responsible for determining an appropriate and equitable basis for 
allocating the funds among the qualified counties in the State and for 
including in its application a description of this allocation basis, 
the data to be used, and the allocation proposed for each county.
    Table 2 lists the participating counties, the number of Cuban and 
Haitian refugee and entrant arrivals in each county during FY 1992-FY 
1994, each county's percentage of the aggregate total Cuban/Haitian 
arrivals in the 42 targeted assistance counties, and the proposed 
allocation amount for each county that has an arrival threshold of 3 
percent or above.
    Table 3 provides State totals for targeted assistance allocations.
    Table 4 indicates the areas that each participating county 
represents.

                      Table 1.--Proposed Targeted Assistance Allocations by County: FY 1995                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Portion of    Portion of                  
                                                          Arrivals   proposed FY    proposed FY   Total proposed
                                                         Jan. 1983-      1995          1995           FY 1995   
                 County                       State      Sep. 1994    allocation    allocation     allocation\1\
                                                            (A)       under old      under new          (D)     
                                                                     formula (B)    formula (C)                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda.................................  CA                 15,342     $196,075        $350,557        $546,632
Contra Costa............................  CA                  4,291       56,063          98,047         154,110
Fresno..................................  CA                 14,168      108,273         323,731         432,004
Los Angeles.............................  CA                 96,369      990,155       2,201,981       3,192,136
Merced..................................  CA                  4,419      132,156         100,972         233,128
Orange..................................  CA                 45,042      440,587       1,029,186       1,469,773
Sacramento..............................  CA                 17,687      167,821         404,139         571,960
San Diego...............................  CA                 25,354      328,383         579,326         907,709
San Francisco...........................  CA                 25,207      254,838         575,967         830,805
San Joaquin.............................  CA                  9,352      169,342         213,688         383,030
Santa Clara.............................  CA                 34,492      327,990         788,124       1,116,114
Stanislaus..............................  CA                  3,433       30,639          78,442         109,081
Tulare..................................  CA                  5,345            0         122,130         122,130
Denver..................................  CO                  9,863       66,147         225,364         291,511
Broward.................................  FL                  3,549      109,568          81,093         190,661
Dade....................................  FL                 55,469    1,911,490       1,267,438       3,178,928
Hillsboro...............................  FL                  3,484       34,433          79,608         114,041
Palm Beach..............................  FL                  3,574       45,517          81,664         127,181
Honolulu................................  HI                  3,417       72,838          78,077         150,915
Cook/Kane...............................  IL                 36,432      342,151         832,452       1,174,603
Sedgwick................................  KS                  4,038       81,534          92,266         173,800
Orleans.................................  LA                  3,902       55,699          89,159         144,858
Montgomery/Prince Georges...............  MD                  8,850       67,761         202,218         269,979
Middlesex...............................  MA                  6,357       53,529         145,254         198,783
Suffolk.................................  MA                 16,107      122,853         368,037         490,890
Hennepin................................  MN                 10,446       86,311         238,686         324,997
Ramsey..................................  MN                 10,263      121,357         234,504         355,861
Jackson.................................  MO                  4,320       31,685          98,710         130,395
Essex...................................  NJ                  5,925       18,336         135,383         153,719
Hudson..................................  NJ                  2,946      122,698          67,315         190,013
Union...................................  NJ                  1,810       24,631          41,358          65,989
New York................................  NY                135,633      273,761       3,099,143       3,372,904
Multnomah...............................  OR                 17,069      185,998         390,018         576,016
Philadelphia............................  PA                 18,645      127,317         426,028         553,345
Providence..............................  RI                  4,850       90,936         110,820         201,756
Dallas/Tarrant..........................  TX                 26,000            0         594,086         594,086
Harris..................................  TX                 21,914      149,237         500,723         649,960
Salt Lake...............................  UT                  7,209       45,368         164,722         210,090
Arlington...............................  VA                  3,183       78,619          72,730         151,349
Fairfax.................................  VA                  9,011       94,800         205,897         300,697
KIng/Snohomish..........................  WA                 29,264      226,469         668,667         895,136
Pierce..................................  WA                  4,719       48,398         107,827         156,225
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
      Total.............................  ............      768,750    7,891,763      17,565,537     25,457,300 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Based on arrivals through September 30, 1994.                                                                


                                                                                                                
[[Page 19274]]
     Table 2.--Proposed Targeted Assistance Allocations for Communities Affected by Recent Cuban and Haitian    
                                                Arrivals: FY 1995                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Amount to be 
                                                                            FY 92-94                allocated:  
                                                                          total Cuban               $19,000,000 
                                                                          and Haitian   Percent  ---------------
                          County                                State     refugee and   of total     Proposed   
                                                                            entrant     arrivals  allocation: 3%
                                                                            arrivals                  arrival   
                                                                                                     threshold  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda...................................................  CA                      6       0.02                
Contra Costa..............................................  CA                      1       0.00                
Fresno....................................................  CA                      3       0.01                
Los Angeles...............................................  CA                    660       1.84                
Merced....................................................  CA                      0       0.00                
Orange....................................................  CA                     24       0.07                
Sacramento................................................  CA                     13       0.04                
San Diego.................................................  CA                    191       0.53                
San Francisco.............................................  CA                    274       0.76                
San Joaquin...............................................  CA                      2       0.01                
Santa Clara...............................................  CA                      4       0.01                
Stanislaus................................................  CA                      0       0.00                
Tulare....................................................  CA                      0       0.00                
Denver....................................................  CO                     56       0.16                
Broward...................................................  FL                   1973       5.50      $1,247,695
Dade......................................................  FL                 24,336      67.86      15,389,715
Hillsboro.................................................  FL                    800       2.23                
Palm Beach................................................  FL                   2601       7.25       1,644,833
Honolulu..................................................  HI                      0       0.00                
Cook/Kane.................................................  IL                    242       0.67                
Sedgwick..................................................  KS                      6       0.02                
Orleans...................................................  LA                     94       0.26                
Montgom./Pr. G............................................  MD                     58       0.16                
Middlesex.................................................  MA                     84       0.23                
Suffolk...................................................  MA                    385       1.07                
Hennepin..................................................  MN                     51       0.14                
Ramsey....................................................  MN                      0       0.00                
Jackson...................................................  MO                    310       0.86                
Essex.....................................................  NJ                    368       1.03                
Hudson....................................................  NJ                   1058       2.95                
Union.....................................................  NJ                    118       0.33                
New York..................................................  NY                   1135       3.16         717,757
Multnomah.................................................  OR                    132       0.37                
Philadelphia..............................................  PA                    156       0.43                
Providence................................................  RI                     11       0.03                
Dallas/Tarrant............................................  TX                    346       0.96                
Harris....................................................  TX                    132       0.37                
Salt Lake.................................................  UT                      0       0.00                
Arlington.................................................  VA                     12       0.03                
Fairfax...................................................  VA                      2       0.01                
King/Snohomish............................................  WA                    219       0.61                
Pierce....................................................  WA                      0       0.00                
                                                                         ---------------------------------------
      Total...............................................  ............       35,863     100.00      19,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 3.--Proposed Targeted Assistance Allocations by State: FY 1995  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             FY 1995    
                         State                            allocation\1\ 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California............................................       $10,068,612
Colorado..............................................           291,511
Florida...............................................     \2\21,893,054
Hawaii................................................           150,915
Illinois..............................................         1,174,603
Kansas................................................           173,800
Louisiana.............................................           144,858
Maryland..............................................           269,979
Massachusetts.........................................           689,673
Minnesota.............................................           680,858
Missouri..............................................           130,395
New Jersey............................................           409,721
New York..............................................      \2\4,090,661
Oregon................................................           576,016
Pennsylvania..........................................           553,345
[[Page 19275]]
                                                                        
Rhode Island..........................................           201,756
Texas.................................................         1,244,046
Utah..................................................           210,090
Virginia..............................................           452,046
Washington............................................         1,051,361
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................        44,457,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Based on arrivals through September 30, 1994.                        
\2\The allocations for Florida and New York include $18,282,243 and     
  $717,757 respectively for communities affected by Cuban and Haitian   
  entrants and refugees. This is referred to in the Conference Report on
  the appropriation: ``to serve communities affected by the Cuban and   
  Haitian entrants and refugees whose arrivals in recent years have     
  increased.''                                                          


                   Table 4.--Targeted Assistance Areas                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State      Targeted assistance area\1\           Definition         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA            Alameda                                                   
CA            Contra Costa                                              
CA            Fresno                                                    
CA            Los Angeles                                               
CA            Merced                                                    
CA            Orange                                                    
CA            Sacramento                                                
CA            San Diego                                                 
CA            San Francisco...............  Marin, San Francisco and San
                                             Mateo Counties.            
CA            San Joaquin                                               
CA            Santa Clara                                               
CA            Stanislaus                                                
CA            Tulare                                                    
CO            Denver......................  Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,   
                                             Denver and Jefferson       
                                             Counties.                  
FL            Broward                                                   
FL            Dade                                                      
FL            Hillsborough                                              
FL            Palm Beach                                                
HI            Honolulu                                                  
IL            Cook/Kane                                                 
KS            Sedgwick                                                  
LA            Orleans.....................  Jefferson and Orleans       
                                             Parishes.                  
MD            Montgomery/Prince Georges                                 
MA            Middlesex                                                 
MA            Suffolk                                                   
MN            Hennepin                                                  
MN            Ramsey                                                    
MO            Jackson.....................  Jackson County, Mo and      
                                             Wyandotte County KS.       
NJ            Essex                                                     
NJ            Hudson                                                    
NJ            Union                                                     
NY            New York....................  Bronx, Kings, New York,     
                                             Queens, and, Richmond      
                                             Counties.                  
OR            Multnomah...................  Clackamas, Multnomah and    
                                             Washington Counties, OR and
                                             Clark County, WA           
PA            Philadelphia                                              
RI            Providence                                                
TX            Dallas/Tarrant                                            
TX            Harris                                                    
UT            Salt Lake...................  Davis, Salt Lake and Utah   
                                             Counties.                  
VA            Arlington                                                 
VA            Fairfax.....................  Fairfax County and the      
                                             indep. cities of           
                                             Alexandria, Fairfax and    
                                             Falls Church.              
WA            King/Snohomish                                            
WA            Pierce                                                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Consists of named county/counties unless otherwise defined.          

VIII. Application and Implementation Process

    Under the FY 1995 targeted assistance program, States would apply 
for and receive grant awards on behalf of qualified counties in the 
State. A single allocation would be made to each State by ORR on the 
basis of an approved State application. The State agency would, in 
turn, receive, review, and determine the acceptability of individual 
county targeted assistance plans.
    TAP funds will be awarded through a more streamlined grant process 
similar to that used for the ORR social services formula grant program. 
An application [[Page 19276]] and assurances are still required of the 
States eligible to receive TAP funding. FY 1995 funds must be obligated 
by the State agency no later than one year after the end of the Federal 
fiscal year in which the Department awarded the grant. There will be no 
carryover of unobligated funds into the FY 1996 grant award. Funds must 
be liquidated within two years after the end of the Federal fiscal year 
in which the Department awarded the grant. A State's final financial 
report on targeted assistance expenditures must be received no later 
than two years after the end of the Federal fiscal year in which the 
Department awarded the grant. If final reports are not received on 
time, the Department will deobligate any unexpended funds, including 
any unliquidated obligations, on the basis of a State's last filed 
report.
    Although additional funding to Florida and New York for communities 
affected by Cuban and Haitian entrants and refugees whose arrivals in 
recent years have increased is part of the appropriation amount for 
targeted assistance, the scope of activities for these additional funds 
will be administratively determined. Applications for these funds are 
therefore not subject to provisions contained in this notice but to 
other requirements which will be conveyed separately. Similarly, the 
requirements regarding the 10% portion of the targeted assistance 
appropriation as well as the supplemental funds to the 10% portion of 
the targeted assistance appropriation that will be awarded separately 
have been addressed in the grant announcements for those funds.

IX. Application Requirements

    The proposed State application requirements for grants for the FY 
1995 targeted assistance formula allocation are as follows:
    States that are currently operating under approved management plans 
for their FY 1994 targeted assistance program and wish to continue to 
do so for their FY 1995 grants may provide the following in lieu of 
resubmitting the full currently approved plan:
    The State's application for FY 1995 funding shall provide:
    A. Assurance that the State's current management plan for the 
administration of the targeted assistance program, as approved by ORR, 
will continue to be in full force and effect for the FY 1995 targeted 
assistance program, subject to any additional assurances or revisions 
required by this notice which are not reflected in the current plan. 
Any proposed modifications to the approved plan will be identified in 
the application and are subject to ORR review and approval. Any 
proposed changes must address and reference all appropriate portions of 
the FY 1994 application content requirements to ensure complete 
incorporation in the State's management plan.
    B. Assurance that, for each qualified local area, targeted 
assistance funds will be used primarily for, but not limited to, 
services to cash assistance recipients.
    C. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used primarily 
for the provision of services which directly enhance refugee employment 
potential, have specific employment objectives, and are designed to 
enable refugees to obtain jobs with less than one year's participation 
in the targeted assistance program. States must indicate what 
percentage of FY 1995 targeted assistance formula allocation funds that 
are used for services will be allocated for employment services.
    D. A line item budget and justification for State administrative 
costs limited to a maximum of 5% of the total award to the State. Each 
total budget period funding amount requested must be necessary, 
reasonable, and allocable to the project.
    States administering the program locally: States that have 
administered the program locally or provide direct service to the 
refugee population (with the concurrence of the county) must submit a 
program summary to ORR for prior review and approval. The summary must 
include a description of the proposed services; a justification for the 
projected allocation for each component including relationship of funds 
allocated to numbers of clients served, characteristics of clients, 
duration of training and services, projected outcomes, and cost per 
placement. In addition, the program component summary must describe any 
ancillary services or subcomponents such as day care, transportation, 
or language training.
    States with two or more counties receiving targeted assistance 
funds: As in FY 1994, a State with two or more local areas which 
qualify for the program may choose to determine respective county 
allocations. If the State chooses to determine county allocations 
differently from those set forth in Table 1 of this notice, the State 
must provide a description of the State's proposed allocation plan and 
the basis for the proposed allocations. The application must contain a 
description of the allocation approach, data used in its determination, 
the calculated allocation amount for each county, and the rationale for 
the proposed allocations. States are encouraged to revise allocation 
formulas to assure appropriate funding among eligible counties for the 
duration of the grant such that targeted assistance activities within 
the State conclude simultaneously. Where the State chooses not to 
determine county allocation amounts, the State must provide the 
allocations which are specified in this notice.

X. Reporting Requirements

    States will be required to submit quarterly reports on the outcomes 
of the targeted assistance program, using the same form which States 
use for reporting on refugee social services formula grants. This is 
Schedule A and Schedule C of the ORR-6 Quarterly Performance Report 
form. ORR is no longer using the ORR-12 form which was originally used 
to report on the outcomes of the targeted assistance program. ORR is 
consolidating its reporting requirements. The new reporting form will 
consolidate social services and targeted assistance performance 
reporting in one format in order to simplify and coordinate reporting. 
The new form will be available when reporting on FY 1995 grants begins, 
which would be at the end of the first quarter of FY 1996.

    Dated: April 10, 1995.
Regina Lee,
Deputy Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[FR Doc. 95-9365 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P