[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 28, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33584-33605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15701]




[[Page 33583]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Department of Health and Human Services





_______________________________________________________________________



Administration for Children and Families



_______________________________________________________________________



45 CFR Part 400



Refugee Resettlement Program; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 28, 1995 / 
Rules and Regulations   
[[Page 33584]] 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of Refugee Resettlement

45 CFR Part 400


Refugee Resettlement Program: Requirements for Employability 
Services, Job Search, and Employment; Refugee Medical Assistance; 
Refugee Social Services; Targeted Assistance Services; and Federal 
Funding for Administrative Costs

AGENCY: Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of 
Refugee Resettlement, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends or clarifies current requirements governing 
employability services, job search, employment, refugee medical 
assistance, social services, and Federal funding for State 
administrative costs and would establish requirements for the targeted 
assistance program.
    A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 12, 
1994 (59 FR 41417). Some changes have been made and clarifications 
provided in this final regulation after consideration of the written 
comments received.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children 
and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, 370 L'Enfant 
Promenade S.W., 6th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20447.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toyo A. Biddle, (202) 401-9253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Refugee Act of 1980 amended the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(INA) to create a domestic refugee resettlement program to provide 
assistance and services to refugees resettling in the United States. 
With the enactment of this legislation, the Office of Refugee 
Resettlement (ORR) issued a series of regulations, at 45 CFR Part 400, 
to establish comprehensive requirements for a State-administered 
Refugee Resettlement Program (RRP), beginning with the publication on 
September 9, 1980 (45 FR 59318) of a regulation governing State plan 
and reporting requirements. Subsequent regulations covered cash and 
medical assistance and Federal funding, published March 12, 1982 (47 FR 
10841); grants to States, child welfare services (including services to 
unaccompanied minors), and Federal funding for State expenditures, 
published January 30, 1986 (51 FR 3904); and cash and medical 
assistance, requirements for employability services, job search, and 
employment, and refugee social services published February 3, 1989 (54 
FR 5463).

Discussion of Changes

    The changes made in this final regulation, as compared with the 
proposed rule published on August 12, 1994, are as follows:
    1. The proposal to limit the definition of case management to the 
referral and tracking of refugee participation in employment-related 
services only has been withdrawn.
    2. Section 400.104 has been revised to allow a refugee medical 
assistance (RMA) recipient who becomes employed to continue to receive 
RMA for the full time-eligibility period, regardless of whether the 
recipient obtains private medical coverage, as long as the RMA payment 
is reduced by the amount of the third party payment.
    3. Section 400.145 has been revised to more clearly state that 
refugee women must have the same opportunities as men to participate in 
all services funded under the refugee program, including job placement 
services.
    4. The eligibility period for social services has been changed from 
the proposed 36 months to 60 months, consistent with the eligibility 
period for targeted assistance. In addition, referral and interpreter 
services are exempted from the time-limitation in both social services 
and targeted assistance.
    5. The proposed revision to Sec. 400.155(f) has been withdrawn; 
translation and interpreter services will continue to be allowable 
regardless of whether such services are available from another source.
    6. Section 400.156(d) has been revised to require the provision of 
refugee-specific services designed to meet refugee needs in lieu of 
requiring a separate refugee-specific service system in which refugees 
are the only client group served.
    7. We have added a provision under Sec. 400.156 which requires the 
development of a family self-sufficiency plan for any refugee who 
participates in refugee program-funded employment-related services.
    8. We have added language to Sec. 400.301 which establishes that a 
replacement designee must adhere to the same regulations that apply to 
a State-administered program, with the exception of certain specified 
provisions.
Description of the Regulation

    This rule clarifies some current policies, amends others, and sets 
forth regulatory requirements for the targeted assistance program 
(TAP).
    In recent years, annual refugee admissions have been high, 
resulting in an expanding pool of refugees in need of services. As of 
September 30, 1993, 1.6 million refugees had been resettled in the U.S. 
since 1975. All of these refugees, with the exception of those who have 
become U.S. citizens, are eligible to receive refugee program services. 
At the same time, the level of funds appropriated for services has 
remained essentially unchanged, making it difficult to serve all 
refugees in need of services with available resources. It is not 
uncommon, for example, for English language training classes, funded by 
the refugee program, to have waiting lists so that refugees who arrive 
in the country are not able to access English language training without 
a delay. Nine major States have indicated that there are currently 
waiting lists for refugee services, especially for English language 
training, in their States.
    We believe the increased demand for services makes it necessary to 
sharpen the program's priorities. Resources in the refugee program are 
no longer sufficient to provide the level of services needed to assist 
refugees for an open-ended period of time to become self-sufficient. We 
have learned from experience in the refugee program that the greatest 
impact that services can have on a refugee's social adjustment and 
economic well-being occurs during a refugee's initial years in the 
United States. These initial services often define a refugee's future 
experience.
    Findings from several studies indicate that comprehensive services, 
provided soon after a refugee's arrival in the U.S., increase the 
likelihood of early employment. Under commission from ORR in 1992, Dr. 
Robert L. Bach, in an examination of data from the Oregon Refugee Early 
Employment Project (REEP), found that refugees who received job 
services or pre-employment training in the first 90 days reduced the 
time to their initial job by almost two months. Dr. Bach's analysis 
indicated that each job service provided in the first 90 days increased 
the probability of employment by three percent. A study of the Oregon 
REEP, conducted by the Refugee Policy Group (RPG) and published in 
1989, found that REEP set up client/caseworker ratios that permitted a 
staff-intensive approach early in the resettlement experience, an 
element which in large part, according [[Page 33585]] to RPG, was 
crucial to REEP's achievement of earlier employment. Similarly, 
performance reported for the first year of the United States Catholic 
Conference (USCC) Wilson/Fish project in San Diego indicated that the 
project was able to reduce the average length of time on cash 
assistance by over two months through the provision of early 
comprehensive services aimed at employment.
    After the initial years, we believe the effect of services on the 
achievement of economic self-support diminishes significantly. A 
report, entitled ``Progress Toward Economic Self-Sufficiency Among 
Southeast Asian Refugees'', prepared for ORR in July 1989 by Dr. Robert 
L. Bach and Rita Argiros, presented findings, based on an analysis of 
data from the ORR Annual Survey of Southeast Asian Refugees, which 
underlined the importance of service interventions in the first few 
years. Bach and Argiros found that the longer a refugee remains out of 
the labor force, the less likely he or she is to begin to search for a 
job or find a job in a subsequent year. The most significant move into 
the labor force occurs in the first and second years, followed by a 
steady decline in the probability of entering the labor force for those 
who delayed their initial job search.
    We believe it is important, therefore, to target refugee program 
resources on the provision of comprehensive refugee-specific services 
to refugees during their first few years of resettlement in order to 
provide new refugees with the best foundation for economic independence 
in the future. We believe that after this initial period of special 
assistance, refugees should be treated like other U.S. residents and 
have access to the same assistance and service programs that are 
available to other eligible populations. Thus we have decided to limit 
service eligibility for refugee social services to refugees who have 
been in the U.S. 60 months (5 years) or less, effective October 1, 
1995.
    Similarly, service eligibility for the targeted assistance program 
will be limited to refugees who have been in the U.S. 60 months or 
less, effective on the same date. The 5-year limitation on service 
eligibility is consistent with the 5-year U.S. residency requirement 
for U.S. citizenship. Once refugees become U.S. citizens, they are no 
longer eligible for services under the refugee program.
    In regard to the provision of refugee social services and targeted 
assistance, we believe that States and local entities should be given 
greater flexibility to design appropriate services to fit local refugee 
needs. The program's emphasis on the provision of employment services 
to achieve economic self-support, however, will remain. However, we are 
eliminating the job search requirements currently contained in 
Sec. 400.80 and the requirement contained in Sec. 400.146 that requires 
a State to use at least 85 percent of its social service grants to 
provide employability services if the State's welfare dependency rate 
is 55 percent or more.
    To ensure that refugees receive maximum benefit and maximum results 
from services provided during the time-limited service eligibility 
period, it is essential that services be provided in the most 
efficacious and appropriate manner possible. To accomplish this, 
program experience dictates that certain principles require greater 
emphasis in the provision of services to refugees: (1) Services should 
be provided in a manner that is linguistically and culturally 
compatible with a refugee's background; (2) refugee-specific services, 
designed for refugees, should be provided during the initial years of 
resettlement; (3) English language instruction should be provided in a 
concurrent, rather than sequential, time period with employment or with 
other employment-related services; and (4) as required by the Refugee 
Act, refugee women should have the same opportunities as men to 
participate in training and instruction.
    Under current policy, if a refugee who is receiving refugee medical 
assistance becomes ineligible solely because of increased earnings from 
employment, the refugee's medical assistance is extended for a period 
of 4 months or until the refugee reaches the end of the RMA time-
eligibility period (currently the first 8 months after a refugee's 
arrival in the U.S.), whichever occurs first. The distinction between 
RMA and extended RMA has caused confusion in some States, with the 
effect of extended RMA being inappropriately denied to some eligible 
refugees. In addition, current policy generates administrative costs 
because eligibility workers need to make separate determinations of 
refugee eligibility for extended RMA once a refugee becomes ineligible 
due to increased earnings from employment.
    In order to alleviate this confusion, we are removing the 
distinction between RMA and extended RMA by eliminating the extended 
RMA provision and by making RMA available to eligible refugees for the 
full period of time-eligibility determined by the Director in 
accordance with Sec. 400.204 beginning with the first month the refugee 
entered the U.S., regardless of whether a refugee receives increased 
earnings from employment.
    Thus, under the 8-month eligibility period currently in effect, 
once a refugee is determined to be eligible for RMA at time of 
application, the refugee will be able to continue to receive RMA for a 
refugee's first 8 months in the U.S. regardless of whether a refugee 
receives increased earnings from employment during that period of time. 
This provision replaces the current 4-month extended RMA coverage for 
employed refugees. We believe this change will make the administration 
of RMA less confusing to States and, therefore, less subject to error 
than the current extended RMA provision. At the same time, this change 
will better ensure continued medical coverage to refugees for a clearly 
specified period of time.
    To summarize, the policy changes are intended to: (1) Ensure that 
comprehensive refugee-specific services are provided to both refugee 
men and women within the first few years after arrival in the United 
States for the purpose of accelerating family economic independence and 
acculturation; (2) establish a time-eligibility limitation for the 
receipt of refugee social services and targeted assistance services so 
that funds will be concentrated on recently arrived refugees to help 
ensure that employable refugees are placed in jobs as soon as possible 
after their arrival in the U.S.; (3) increase State and local 
flexibility in the provision of services; and (4) replace the current 
4-month extended RMA provision for employed refugees with a provision 
that would make RMA available for the full period (currently 8 months) 
of time-eligibility to RMA recipients, regardless of whether a refugee 
becomes employed.
    In addition, the regulation limits the administrative costs a State 
may claim to those costs that are determined to be reasonable and 
allowable as defined by the Administration for Children and Families. 
This rule also establishes procedures to be used when a State withdraws 
from the refugee program. Finally, this rule sets forth basic 
requirements for the administration of the targeted assistance program 
which has been in operation since FY 1983.
    Consistent with the preceding actions, 45 CFR 400.1, 400.4, 400.5, 
400.9, 400.11, 400.13, 400.62, 400.70, 400.71, 400.75, 400.76, 400.79, 
400.80, 400.82, 400.83, 400.94, 400.100, 400.104, 400.106, 400.107, 
400.140, 400.141, 400.145, 400.146, 400.147, 400.152, 400.153, 400.154, 
400.155, 400.156, 400.203, 400.204, 400.206, 400.207, 400.210, and 
subpart K are amended or removed and a new 400.212 and subpart L are 
added.

[[Page 33586]]

Subpart A--Introduction

    Section 400.1(a) is amended to provide that 45 CFR Part 400 
prescribes requirements concerning grants to States and other public 
and private non-profit agencies, wherever applicable, under title IV of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Subpart B--Grants to States for Refugee Resettlement

    Section 400.4(b) is amended to require that a State must certify no 
later than 30 days after the beginning of each fiscal year that the 
approved State plan is current and continues in effect. If a State 
wishes to change its plan, a State is required to submit a proposed 
amendment to the plan for ORR review and approval in accordance with 
Sec. 400.8.
    Section 400.5(h) is revised to expand the types of agencies that a 
State must meet with on a quarterly basis to plan and coordinate the 
placement of refugees in advance of their arrival. This revision 
requires the inclusion of local community service agencies and other 
agencies that serve refugees in these quarterly meetings. Section 
400.5(h), as revised, also advises States that currently have an 
approved exemption to this requirement that existing exemptions will 
expire 90 days after the effective date of this rule. Any State wishing 
an exemption may apply to ORR. An approved exemption will remain in 
effect for three years, at which time a State may reapply. A number of 
States were granted exemptions to this requirement in the early years 
of the program on the basis of the absence of problems associated with 
the planning and coordination of refugee placement or the small number 
of refugees in those States. We believe it is time to review these 
exemptions, given the passage of time, changing refugee flows, and 
changing circumstances in the States. A State wishing to request an 
exemption to the provisions regarding the holding or frequency of 
meetings under Sec. 400.5(h) must set forth the reasons why the State 
considers these meetings unnecessary because of the absence of problems 
associated with the planning and coordination of refugee placement. 
These requests should be submitted in writing to the Director of ORR.
    Section 400.11(b) is amended to clarify that States would be 
required to submit yearly estimates for reimbursable costs for cash and 
medical assistance, costs for unaccompanied minors, and related 
administrative costs for the fiscal year in accordance with guidelines 
prescribed by the Director of ORR.
    Section 400.11(b)(2) is amended by requiring that the annual social 
services plan that a State must submit to ORR must be developed on the 
basis of a local consultative process. Section 400.11(b)(2) is also 
amended by changing the submission date for the plan from a date that 
is no later than 45 days prior to the beginning of the State's planning 
cycle for social services to a date that is to be prescribed by the 
Director of ORR.
    Section 400.11(b)(3) is amended by removing the word ``quarterly'' 
before the word ``estimates''.
    Section 400.11(c) is amended by requiring that final financial 
reports must be submitted in accordance with the requirements specified 
under Sec. 400.210. The language regarding the submission of quarterly 
financial reports remains unchanged; quarterly reports will continue to 
be due 30 days after the end of each quarter. Thus States must submit 
fourth-quarter reports by October 30 of each year, instead of the 
current deadline of December 30 of each year. ORR needs to receive end-
of-year financial data from States soon after the end of the fiscal 
year to enable more timely forecasting for the next fiscal year. 
Adjustments may continue to be made, under Sec. 400.210, until one year 
after the end of the fiscal year in the case of grants for cash 
assistance, medical assistance, and related administrative costs, and 2 
years in the case of grants for social services and targeted 
assistance.
    Section 400.13(d) is revised to prohibit the charging of case 
management costs against the cash assistance, medical assistance, and 
administrative costs (CMA) grant. This revision conforms to priorities 
established by ORR in FY 1991.

Subpart E--Refugee Cash Assistance

    Section 400.62 is amended to require that refugee cash assistance 
(RCA) begin on the same date, in relation to the date of application, 
as assistance under the program of aid to families with dependent 
children (AFDC) would begin under the State's plan for AFDC. For 
example, if a State has opted under its AFDC plan to provide assistance 
no later than the date of authorization or 30 days after the receipt of 
an application, whichever is earlier, then that same rule will apply 
regarding RCA. This provision prohibits a State from adopting this rule 
for AFDC but paying assistance retroactive to the date of application 
for RCA. This provision thus assures that RCA and AFDC applications and 
assistance in a given State are treated equitably.

Subpart F--Requirements for Employability Services, Job Search, and 
Employment

    Section 400.70 is revised by removing references to refugees who 
are applicants or recipients of AFDC or GA.
    Section 400.71 is amended by adding a definition of the term 
``Family self-sufficiency plan''.
    Section 400.75(a)(1) is amended by requiring, as a condition for 
receipt of refugee cash assistance, that a refugee who is not exempt 
under Sec. 400.76 must participate in employment services within 30 
days of receipt of aid.
    Section 400.76(a)(7) is amended by exempting from participation in 
employment services and acceptance of appropriate employment, a parent 
or other caretaker relative of a child under age 3, rather than age 6, 
who provides full-time care of the child.
    Section 400.76(a)(9) is amended by exempting a pregnant woman from 
registration and participation in employment services if the child is 
expected to be born within the next 6 months, instead of the next 3 
months.
    The proposed changes in Secs. 400.76(a)(7) and (a)(9) would make 
ORR policy consistent with the requirements of the Job Opportunities 
and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program contained in the Family 
Support Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-485 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 602(a)(19)).
    Section 400.79(a) is amended to emphasize that an employability 
plan must be developed as part of a family self-sufficiency plan where 
applicable for each non-exempted recipient of refugee cash assistance 
in a filing unit.
    Section 400.80 is revised by replacing the existing job search 
requirement with the provision that a State must require job search for 
employable refugees where appropriate. Other references in the 
regulation to job search at Secs. 400.75(a)(2), 400.76(b), 
400.79(c)(3), 400.82, and 400.156(a) are removed.
    Section 400.82(b)(3) is amended by removing the paragraph on 
conciliation.
     Section 400.83 is amended by adding the paragraph on conciliation 
from Sec. 400.82 and changing the heading to ``Conciliation and fair 
hearings''.

Subpart G--Refugee Medical Assistance

    Section 400.94(a) is amended by clarifying that a State must 
determine Medicaid eligibility under its Medicaid State plan for each 
individual member of a family unit that applies for medical assistance. 
This is to clarify that if any individual in a family unit is eligible 
for medical assistance under a State's title XIX plan, then the State 
must provide that assistance under Medicaid and not [[Page 33587]] RMA. 
For example, under sections 1902(a)(10) and 1902(l) of the Social 
Security Act, certain children under age 19 who were born after 
September 30, 1983, may be eligible for Medicaid even though their 
parents are eligible for refugee medical assistance. Assistance may not 
be provided to such children under RMA if they are eligible under 
Medicaid.
    Section 400.100(d) is amended to clarify that only those recipients 
of refugee cash assistance who are not eligible for Medicaid are 
eligible for refugee medical assistance.
    Section 400.104 is revised by removing the existing provision for 
extended RMA for recipients who receive increased earnings from 
employment and replacing it with a provision that would enable RMA 
recipients who receive earnings from employment to continue to receive 
RMA until they reach the end of their time-eligibility period, in 
accordance with Sec. 400.100(b). The provision also requires that in 
cases where a refugee obtains private medical coverage, any payment of 
RMA for that individual must be reduced by the amount of the third 
party payment. Section 400.106 is amended to clarify that a State may 
provide additional medical services to refugees who are determined 
eligible under Sec. 400.94 only to the extent that sufficient 
appropriated funds are available to enable ORR to reimburse costs for 
refugee Medicaid recipients. Beginning in FY 1991, ORR had to cease 
reimbursements to States for the costs of assistance to refugee 
recipients of AFDC, SSI, and Medicaid due to insufficient appropriated 
funds. We want to make clear that additional services under 
Sec. 400.106 may not be provided to refugee Medicaid recipients with 
refugee funding as long as appropriated funds continue to be 
insufficient to enable ORR reimbursements to States for these costs.
    Section 400.107 is amended by replacing the words ``health 
assessments'' with the words ``medical screening'', the term used in 
the INA.

Subpart I--Refugee Social Services

    Section 400.140 is amended to clarify that the requirements in 
subpart I apply only to formula allocation grants to States.
    Section 400.141 is amended by removing references to title XX 
social services. We have removed references to title XX services in 
this section and in Secs. 400.152, 400.153, and 400.155 in order to 
limit the scope of services allowable under refugee social services to 
those services that are most in keeping with the goals and priorities 
of the refugee program.
    Section 400.145 is amended by adding the requirement that a State 
must insure that women have the same opportunities as men to 
participate in all services funded under this part, including job 
placement services.
    Section 400.146 is revised by removing the current requirement that 
a State must use at least 85 percent of its social service grants to 
provide employability services if a State's dependency rate is 55 
percent or more and by replacing it with a general requirement that a 
State must use its social service grants primarily for employability 
services designed to enable refugees to obtain jobs within one year of 
becoming enrolled in services in order to achieve economic self-
sufficiency as soon as possible. The proposed revision is intended to 
provide States greater flexibility in determining how to best allocate 
refugee resources in keeping with refugee service needs. Social 
services may continue to be provided after a refugee has entered a job 
to help the refugee retain employment or move to a better job. Social 
service funds may not be used for long-term training programs such as 
vocational training that last for more than a year or educational 
programs that are not intended to lead to employment within a year.
    Section 400.147 is revised by establishing client priorities for 
services in the following order of priority, except in the most extreme 
circumstances: (1) All newly arriving refugees during their first year 
in the U.S., who apply for services; (2) refugees who are receiving 
cash assistance; (3) unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash 
assistance; and (4) employed refugees in need of services to retain 
employment or to attain economic independence. Assignment of first 
priority to newly arriving refugees is intended to ensure that these 
refugees receive timely services and are not placed on waiting lists 
for core refugee services.
    Section 400.152 is amended by removing references to title XX 
services and by revising paragraph (b) to limit the provision of social 
services, with the exception of referral and interpreter services, to 
refugees who have been in the U.S. for 60 months or less, except that 
refugees who are receiving employability services, as defined in 
Sec. 400.154(a), as of September 30, 1995, as part of an employability 
plan, may continue to receive those services through September 30, 
1996, or until the services are completed, whichever occurs first, 
regardless of their length of residence in the U.S. As of the effective 
date of this requirement, the time-limitation on services will apply 
regardless of which fiscal year of funding is used to provide the 
services.
    Section 400.153 regarding the provision of title XX social services 
is removed and reserved.
    Section 400.154 is amended by adding the development of a family 
self-sufficiency plan as an allowable service under Sec. 400.154(a). 
Section 400.154 is also amended to clarify under Sec. 400.154(g) that 
day care as an allowable service means day care for children. Section 
400.154 is further amended by revising paragraph (h) to allow 
transportation as a job-related expense and by removing the note after 
paragraph (j) which allows case management costs to be charged against 
the CMA grant. Because of funding limitations, case management costs 
may not currently be charged against the CMA grant.
    Section 400.155(b) is amended to clarify that outreach services may 
include activities designed to explain the purpose of available 
services and to facilitate access to these services.
    Section 400.155(c)(1) is amended to clarify that assessment and 
short-term counseling may be provided to families as well as individual 
persons.
    Section 400.155(d) is amended to clarify that day care as an 
allowable service means day care for children.
    Section 400.155(h) is revised by removing title XX social services 
from the list of allowable services under refugee social services and 
by adding, as an allowable service subject to the approval of the 
Director of ORR, any additional service aimed at strengthening the 
ability of refugee individuals, families, and refugee communities to 
achieve and maintain economic self-sufficiency, family stability, and 
community integration. An example of an allowable service under this 
provision would be the provision of technical assistance and 
organizational development training to strengthen the capability of 
refugee mutual assistance associations (MAAs) to provide employment-
related and other services to refugees.
    Section 400.156 is amended by revising the heading to read 
``Service requirements'' and by amending Sec. 400.156(b) to clarify 
that, in planning services, States must take into account the reception 
and placement (R & P) services provided by resettlement agencies in 
order to ensure the provision of seamless, coordinated services to 
refugees that are not duplicative. Section 400.156 is also amended by 
adding new requirements that States must implement: (1) English 
[[Page 33588]] language instruction must be provided in a concurrent, 
rather than sequential, time period with employment or with other 
employment-related services; (2) refugee-specific services must be 
provided, except in the case of vocational or job skills training, on-
the-job training (OJT), or English language training, which are 
specifically designed to meet refugee needs and are in keeping with the 
rules and objectives of the refugee program; (3) services must be 
provided to the maximum extent feasible in a manner that is culturally 
and linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and cultural 
background; (4) services must be provided to the maximum extent 
feasible in a manner that includes the use of bilingual/bicultural 
women on service agency staffs to ensure adequate service access by 
refugee women; and (5) a family self-sufficiency plan must be developed 
for anyone who receives employment-related services funded under this 
part. Providing services in a manner that is culturally and 
linguistically compatible means that an agency providing services 
funded under this part 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.

Subpart J--Federal Funding

    Sections 400.203 and 400.204 are amended by clarifying that Federal 
funding is available for the cash and medical assistance programs 
described in these sections only to the extent that sufficient funds 
are appropriated. We have added this clarification in light of the 
steady decline in Federal refugee funding for the State share of aid to 
families with dependent children (AFDC), supplemental security income 
(SSI), Medicaid, and general assistance (GA) which began in FY 1986 and 
has resulted since FY 1991 in no ORR reimbursement to States for the 
State share of these programs due to insufficient appropriated funds.
    Section 400.206 is amended by changing the heading to ``Federal 
funding for social services and targeted assistance services'' and by 
adding a paragraph on Federal funding for targeted assistance services.
    Section 400.207 is revised to clarify that Federal funding is 
available for reasonable and identifiable administrative costs of 
providing only those assistance and service programs for which Federal 
funding is currently made available under the refugee program. Thus 
Federal funding under 45 CFR Part 400 is not available at this time for 
administrative costs related to the provision of AFDC, Medicaid, GA, or 
SSI to refugees. This section is further revised to limit the 
administrative costs that a State may claim to those costs that are 
determined to be reasonable and allowable as defined by the 
Administration for Children and Families.
    Section 400.10 is revised to clarify time limits for obligating and 
expending funds as well as for submitting final financial reports on 
expenditures of CMA grants and social service and targeted assistance 
grants.
    Subpart J is amended to prohibit the use of funds under this part 
for travel outside the United States, without the written approval of 
the Director.

Subpart K--Waivers

    Subpart K is amended by revising the heading to read ``Waivers and 
Withdrawals'' and by revising Sec. 400.300 to allow for a more flexible 
waiver policy in keeping with Executive Order No. 12875, issued on 
October 26, 1993, which calls for increased flexibility for State and 
local waivers. In addition, a new Sec. 400.301 is added which requires 
that if a State decides to cease participation in the refugee program, 
the State must provide 120 days advance notice to the Director before 
withdrawing from the program. Section 400.301 clarifies that in order 
to participate in the refugee program, a State is expected to operate 
all components of the refugee program. In the event that a State wishes 
to retain responsibility for only part of the refugee program, it must 
obtain prior approval from the Director of ORR. Such approval will be 
granted only under extraordinary circumstances and if it is in the best 
interest of the Government. Section 400.301 also provides that when a 
State withdraws from all or part of the refugee program, the Director 
may authorize a replacement designee or designees to administer the 
provision of assistance and/or services, as appropriate, to refugees in 
that State. Pursuant to the statutory authority in 412(c)(1)(A) and 
412(e)(1) of the INA to provide grants to, and contracts with, public 
or private non-profit agencies for services, cash assistance, and 
medical assistance to refugees, the Director may authorize a designee 
to administer the refugee program in place of a State when the State 
chooses not to participate in the refugee program. This authority is 
different from the statutory authority in 412(e)(7) of the INA which 
permits the Director to authorize the development and implementation of 
alternative projects under the Fish/Wilson program. Section 301 further 
establishes that a replacement designee must adhere to the same 
regulations under this part that apply to a State-administered program, 
with the exception of the following provisions: 45 CFR 400.5(d), 400.7, 
400.55(b)(2), 400.56(a)(1), 400.56(a)(2), 400.56(b)(2)(i), 400.94(a), 
400.94(b), 400.94(c), and subpart L.

Subpart L--Targeted Assistance

    Section 400.310 establishes that the basis and scope of this 
subpart is to set forth requirements concerning formula allocation 
grants to States under 412(c)(2) of the INA for targeted assistance.
    Section 400.311 establishes a definition for ``targeted assistance 
grants''.
    Section 400.312 requires that a State must provide any individual 
wishing to do so an opportunity to apply for targeted assistance 
services and determine the eligibility of each applicant.
    Section 400.313 requires that a State must use its targeted 
assistance grant primarily for employability services designed to 
enable refugees to obtain jobs with less than one year's participation 
in the targeted assistance program in order to achieve economic self-
sufficiency as soon as possible. Targeted assistance services may 
continue to be provided after a refugee has entered a job to help the 
refugee retain employment or move to a better job. Targeted assistance 
funds may not be used for long-term training programs such as 
vocational training that last for more than a year or educational 
programs that are not intended to lead to employment within a year.
    Section 400.314 establishes client priorities for targeted 
assistance services in the following order of priority, except in the 
most extreme circumstances: (1) Cash assistance recipients, 
particularly long-term recipients; (2) unemployed refugees who are not 
receiving cash assistance; and (3) employed refugees in need of 
services to retain employment or to attain economic independence.
    Section 400.315 establishes that the same standards and criteria 
that are applied in the determination of eligibility for refugee social 
services under Secs. 400.150 and 400.152(a) shall be applied in the 
determination of eligibility for targeted assistance services. Section 
400.315 limits the provision of targeted assistance services, except 
referral and interpreter services, to refugees who have been in the 
U.S. for 60 months or less, except that refugees who are receiving 
employability services, as defined in Sec. 400.316, as of September 30, 
1995, as [[Page 33589]] part of an employability plan, may continue to 
receive those services through September 30, 1996, or until the 
services are completed, whichever occurs first, regardless of their 
length of residence in the U.S. As of the effective date of this 
requirement, the time-limitation on services will apply regardless of 
which fiscal year of funding is used to provide the services.
    Section 400.316 establishes that a State may provide the same scope 
of services under targeted assistance as may be provided under refugee 
social services under Secs. 400.154 and 400.155, with the exception of 
Sec. 400.155(h). Since the purpose of the targeted assistance program 
is to direct resources to localities that have large refugee 
populations and high use of public assistance by refugees, our intent 
is to focus the use of targeted assistance funds on employability 
services aimed at economic self-sufficiency, while providing States and 
counties some flexibility to use the funds for non-employment-related 
services. Thus, we have included the non-employment-related services 
that are allowable under Sec. 400.155, but have not included the new 
category of services that has been added under Sec. 400.155(h), which 
includes services to strengthen family and community.
    Section 400.317 establishes that a State must adhere to the same 
limitations and restrictions in the provision of targeted assistance 
services as are applied to the provision of refugee social services 
under Sec. 400.156.
    Section 400.318 establishes that eligible grantees under the 
targeted assistance program are those agencies of State governments 
which are responsible for the refugee program under Sec. 400.5 in 
States containing counties which qualify for targeted assistance 
awards. Section 400.318 also establishes that 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).
    Section 400.319 establishes that a State with more than one 
qualifying targeted assistance county may allocate its targeted 
assistance funds differently from the formula allocations for counties 
presented in the ORR targeted assistance notice in a fiscal year, only 
on the basis of its population of refugees who arrived in the U.S. 
during the most recent 5-year period. A State may use welfare data as 
an additional factor in the allocation of targeted assistance funds if 
it so chooses; however, a State may not assign a greater weight to 
welfare data than it has assigned to population data in its allocation 
formula. Section 400.319 also establishes that a State must assure that 
not less than 95 percent of the total award to the State is made 
available to the qualified county or counties, except in those cases 
where the qualified county or counties have agreed to let the State 
administer the targeted assistance program in the county's stead.

Discussion of Comments Received

    Fifty-two letters of comments were received in response to the 
notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on 
August 12, 1994. The commenters included State and local governments, 
national and local voluntary agencies, refugee mutual assistance 
associations, and refugee service providers. These comments were taken 
into consideration in the development of this final rule.
    The comments are summarized below and are followed in each case by 
the Department's response.

Effective Date

    Comment: Six commenters expressed concern over the effective date 
for the regulation of October 1, 1994, which appeared in the NPRM. Two 
of the commenters suggested that the rule should be effective no sooner 
than 90 days after the issuance of the final regulation. Another 
commenter suggested an effective date that would allow sufficient time 
for careful consideration of the comments.
    Response: The inclusion in the NPRM of an October 1, 1994, 
effective date for a final rule was an error. We want to assure the 
commenters that ORR had no intention of imposing an October 1, 1994, 
effective date. The effective date for this final rule will be October 
1, 1995.

Comments on Subpart A
    Sec. 400.2: Comment: Eight commenters expressed opposition to 
limiting the definition of case management to the referral and tracking 
of refugee participation in employability services. One commenter 
supported the proposed elimination of case management for non-
employment-related purposes. Commenters expressed concern that the 
narrowed definition would remove the ability to case manage a wide 
range of services needed to fully assist refugee families to overcome 
barriers to self-sufficiency. Several commenters were concerned that 
the proposed change in definition would preclude coordinating services 
for the entire family, regardless of employability status. One 
commenter pointed out that the proposed change runs counter to ORR's 
emphasis on strengthening families.
    Response: After considering these comments, we have decided to drop 
the change in definition and allow case management to continue to be 
used to refer and track refugee participation in non-employment-related 
services, as well as employment-related services. However, we feel 
strongly that case management should be provided in combination with a 
package of services leading to employment and self-sufficiency.

Comments on Subpart B

    Sec. 400.4(b): Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement 
that a State must certify no later than 30 days after the beginning of 
each fiscal year that the approved State plan is current and continues 
in effect. The commenter recommended that States be given 90 days to 
provide certification.
    Response: If a State requires more time to prepare the 
certification, since the due date will remain the same each year and 
thus will be known, a State can allow itself the time it needs by 
simply starting the preparation as early as needed before the due date.
    Sec. 400.5(h): Comment: We received 5 comments on this provision. 
One commenter objected to the inclusion of local community service 
agencies in quarterly meetings as impractical and unwieldy. Another 
commenter, while agreeing with this provision, recommended giving 
States the flexibility to request meeting less frequently or using 
telephone conference calls to better use State resources to meet the 
needs of local communities in the most appropriate manner. A third 
commenter also called for flexibility, suggesting that meetings should 
be scheduled in a manner that accommodates State and local resources 
and activities. One commenter expressed concern that administrative 
costs would be greatly increased in carrying out these meetings when 
the numbers of refugees being placed in the State are expected to 
diminish. Another commenter felt that ORR should clarify the State's 
role and responsibilities in this effort. The commenter pointed out 
that the State can facilitate planning efforts and can act in an 
oversight capacity regarding resettlement within the State, but it 
cannot enforce coordination efforts.
    Response: We believe the benefit of including local community 
service agencies in quarterly meetings to enable all agencies that 
serve refugees to be informed and prepared for anticipated arrivals 
more than offsets any logistical difficulties a State may experience in 
[[Page 33590]] organizing such meetings. Regarding flexibility with 
respect to the frequency and holding of meetings, we are certainly 
willing to work with States to consider alternative approaches, as 
necessary. If a State believes it has good reason for holding fewer 
meetings, using conference calls in lieu of meetings, or using other 
alternatives to quarterly meetings, a State may request an exemption to 
this requirement, as described in this provision.
    Regarding the State's role under this provision, we agree with the 
commenter that the State's role is to facilitate coordination, not to 
enforce it.
    Sec. 400.11(b): Comment: One commenter recommended an effective 
date of October 1, 1995, for submission of a yearly CMA estimate. The 
commenter also requested input into the development of the form.
    Response: We agree with the commenter; the effective date for this 
provision is October 1, 1995. As Sec. 400.11(b) indicates, States will 
have to submit yearly CMA estimates in accordance with guidelines 
prescribed by the Director of ORR, in lieu of a form. As ORR develops 
these guidelines, States will have an opportunity to provide input and 
review before the guidelines are made final.
    Sec. 400.11(b)(2): Comment: Seven commenters commented on this 
provision. One commenter objected to the change in due date for the 
annual services plan since no replacement date was indicated in the 
NPRM. Two commenters felt a specific date needs to be given. Another 
commenter agreed with changing the due date. One commenter wondered if 
the due date for submission will change periodically for all States or 
whether the due date could vary for each State. While one commenter 
supported the emphasis on a local consultative process in the planning 
of services, another commenter recommended the inclusion of a waiver 
option regarding local consultation. The commenter recommended that 
States be given the option of determining an appropriate process for 
local input in the planning process. One commenter suggested that ORR 
strongly encourage the inclusion of State and local health departments 
in the ongoing planning of refugee resettlement services. Another 
commenter, requesting clarification, pointed out that ORR State Letter 
94-13 indicates that the Annual Services Plan is to be submitted on the 
revised Quarterly Performance Plan (QPR), thus eliminating the Annual 
Services Plan. Another commenter wanted clarification on whether ORR 
wants the services plan to reflect prospective services planned, based 
on a needs assessment, or actual services funded. The commenter 
recommended reporting actual services funded.
    Response: The Annual Services Plan has not been eliminated. ORR 
State Letter 94-13 simply instructs States to submit the Annual 
Services Plan in Schedule A, as part of the fourth quarter QPR 
submission. Therefore, the new due date for the Annual Services Plan is 
November 15 of each year, as stated in ORR State Letter 94-13. 
Regarding whether the services plan should reflect services planned, 
based on a needs assessment, or actual services funded, the 
instructions for Schedule A of the QPR ask for a reporting of actual 
services funded.
    We do not agree with the commenter's suggestion that States should 
be allowed the option of waiving local consultation in the development 
of a services plan. Regarding States having the option of determining 
an appropriate process for local input in the planning process, it is 
up to each State to determine what process it wants to use; the method 
for obtaining local consultation is not prescribed. We agree that State 
and local health departments should be included in the local 
consultation process in the planning of services and we strongly 
encourage States to do so.
    Sec. 400.11(b)(3): Comment: One commenter indicated that it is 
unclear what the phrase ``quarterly estimates required in paragraph 
(b)(1)'' refers to when Sec. 400.11(b)(1) requires a yearly, not 
quarterly, estimate.
    Response: We thank the commenter for pointing out this discrepancy. 
We have revised this provision by deleting the word ``quarterly''.
    Sec. 400.11(c): Comment: Six commenters addressed this provision. 
One commenter objected to the 30-day due date for the 4th quarter 
financial report and recommended a 90-day due date. Another commenter 
concurred. One commenter suggested a 45-day or 60-day due date. One 
commenter pointed out that RMA expenditure claims are difficult to 
obtain within the 30-day time frame and that States need 12 months 
after the end of the fiscal year to liquidate all obligations incurred 
through the end of the fiscal year. Another commenter indicated that 
the due date would require the State to estimate CMA expenditures with 
two months less of actual expenditure data, resulting in less accurate 
reporting. Another commenter expressed concern that this rule change 
could have an impact on Federal funding for the State. This commenter 
was concerned that contract obligations might be outstanding and 
recommended that the close-out date should continue to be December 30 
of each year.
    Response: Since States will continue to have until one year after 
the end of the fiscal year in which the Department awarded the grant to 
liquidate obligations and to submit a final financial report for CMA, 
and two years after the end of the fiscal year in which the Department 
awarded the grant to liquidate obligations and to submit a final 
financial report for social services and targeted assistance formula 
funds, we do not see a compelling reason to change the 30-day due date 
for the 4th quarter financial report. We understand that States may 
have to base their 4th quarter report on a shorter period of actual 
expenditure data than was the case under the current due date. The 30-
day due date for the 4th quarter report will have no impact on Federal 
funding to the State and should have no impact on the time frame for 
liquidating obligations and closing out contracts since the one-year 
and two-year time frames described above and as stated in Sec. 400.210 
remain in effect.
    Sec. 400.13(d): Comment: Three commenters expressed concern about 
this provision. Two commenters felt that States should be allowed to 
charge case management costs to CMA. One of the commenters felt that 
the program would be well-served by using CMA funds for this purpose 
especially in light of the early employment emphasis of the 
regulations. Another commenter recommended that States be allowed to 
use CMA funds to purchase equipment, software, and consultation 
services to establish and maintain a case management system. One 
commenter expressed concern that the prohibition against using CMA 
funds for case management could cause a State to spend State funds for 
some case workers and other administrative costs in the CMA program. In 
one State, State law has prohibited the expenditure of State funds for 
the refugee program. The CMA restriction could cause the State to be 
liable for possible Federal exceptions.
    Response: In FY 1991, ORR established priorities for reimbursement 
under CMA since insufficient appropriated funds were available to 
reimburse costs in all CMA categories. The priority areas to be 
reimbursed included costs for (1) unaccompanied minors, including any 
allowable administrative costs of the unaccompanied minors program, (2) 
RCA and RMA costs and associated administrative costs, and (3) 
allowable administrative costs incurred for the overall management of 
the State refugee program. Lower priority categories included (4) the 
State share of allowable [[Page 33591]] costs for AFDC, Medicaid, SSI, 
and foster care payments under title IV-E of the Social Security Act 
and lastly (5) case management costs during an RCA recipient's first 12 
months in the U.S. or an AFDC recipient's first 4 months in the U.S. 
Since FY 1991, ORR has not had sufficient appropriated funds available 
to reimburse States for the costs of either category (4) or (5). Thus 
the prohibition against using CMA funds for case management has been in 
effect since FY 1991. We do not anticipate any increase in the level of 
appropriated funds for CMA in the foreseeable future to enable any 
change in policy regarding reimbursable CMA categories.
    Regarding the commenter's concern about liability for possible 
Federal exceptions, the commenter is right to be concerned. If the 
State has been inappropriately charging case management costs to CMA, 
the State is indeed at risk of possible audit disallowances.

Comments on Subpart C

    Sec. 400.25: Comment: One commenter observed that Sec. 400.25 which 
states that a State may not impose requirements as to duration of 
residence as a condition of participation in the State's program of 
assistance or services may be in conflict with the 36- and 60-month 
time-limitation proposed for social services and targeted assistance.
    Response: This provision is not in conflict with the time-
limitation requirement for services in Secs. 400.152 and 400.315. The 
prohibition against duration of residence requirements in Sec. 400.25 
means that a State may not impose a requirement that a refugee must 
have resided in the State for a required period of time before 
qualifying for assistance or services.

Comments on Subpart E

    Sec. 400.62: Comment: Two commenters expressed support for making 
the RCA start date in relation to the date of application congruent 
with AFDC policy, while another commenter objected to this requirement, 
expressing concern that this requirement would be in conflict with 
State law in his State because the Home Relief program, which 
corresponds to the refugee program, has a different requirement than 
the AFDC program. The commenter recommended deleting this requirement 
or allowing for a waiver. One of the commenters suggested that ORR and 
the States should provide clear direction and training to ensure that 
clients are not penalized by faulty enrollment or eligibility 
determination procedures that result in delays in receipt of 
assistance.
    Response: Regardless of whether there might be a conflict with 
State law, a State would be expected to comply with this Federal 
requirement. The commenter's point regarding the need for clear 
direction and training to avoid delays in receipt of assistance is 
well-taken. We agree that States should take measures to ensure that 
eligibility determination procedures result in timely receipt of 
assistance.

Comments on Subpart F

    Secs. 400.71 and 400.79: Comment: Two commenters requested 
clarification on the definition of what constitutes a family. Another 
commenter recommended that States be allowed to define family broadly 
to include everyone in a household. One commenter felt that the concept 
of family self-sufficiency plans needs to be defined more fully to 
ensure some consistency in the implementation of this provision. One 
commenter said that family self-sufficiency plans are welcome as long 
as all employable family members are included in the plan. Another 
commenter asked whether family self-sufficiency plans would only be 
required for RCA clients or be required for refugee AFDC clients as 
well. One commenter requested clarification on whether individual 
employability plans must also be developed for recipients of AFDC and 
GA. One commenter felt that it is unclear what should be included in a 
family self-sufficiency plan and how States should monitor the 
development and implementation of such a plan. Another commenter 
suggested putting out guidelines to providers to give them concrete 
strategies regarding the development of family self-sufficiency plans.
    Response: In order to be consistent with how ORR counts families 
who move off aid, we define a family as those individuals included in a 
cash assistance filing unit whose needs are taken into account when 
determining the payment level for the filing unit. Using this 
definition, a family could constitute a one-person unit as in many RCA 
cases. States have the flexibility, however, to define family more 
broadly to include everyone in a household if it so chooses.
    We define a family self-sufficiency plan as a plan that includes 
(1) a determination of the total amount of income a particular family 
would have to earn to exceed its cash grant and move into self-support 
without suffering a monetary penalty; (2) a strategy and timetable for 
obtaining that level of family income through the placement in 
employment of sufficient numbers of employable family members at 
sufficient wage levels; and (3) employability plans for every 
employable member of the family, as a part of (2). Providers should 
focus on the family, not the individual refugee, as the unit of 
intervention. Individual employability plans for members of the same 
family, therefore, should be kept together as part of the family self-
sufficiency plan under one case file. We believe family self-
sufficiency plans should be developed with the involvement of every 
employable family member, not just the primary wage earner, to the 
extent possible.
    We appreciate the commenter raising the question of whether family 
self-sufficiency plans are to be required only for RCA recipients or 
for refugee AFDC recipients as well. We intend family self-sufficiency 
plans to be required for anyone who receives employment-related 
services funded by the refugee program, including recipients of RCA, 
AFDC, SSI, and GA, as well as refugees who are not receiving cash 
assistance but who apply for employment-related services. Thus, while 
references to family self-sufficiency plans in Secs. 400.71 and 400.79 
apply only to RCA recipients, we have added a provision under 
Sec. 400.156(g) which requires the development of a family self-
sufficiency plan for anyone who participates in refugee program-funded 
employment-related services. We would expect agencies to coordinate the 
development of family self-sufficiency plans to avoid duplication of 
effort if a family self-sufficiency plan for a refugee client already 
exists.
    States should monitor the development and implementation of family 
self-sufficiency plans in the same manner as they would monitor the 
development and implementation of employability plans: by conducting a 
case file review as part of a State's on-site monitoring.
    ORR does not plan to issue national guidelines on family self-
sufficiency planning. However, some States have developed guidance on 
family self-sufficiency planning for use within their States.
    Sec. 400.75: Comment: One commenter wondered if the requirement for 
participation in employment services within 30 days of receipt of aid 
could be required of refugees on AFDC as well. Another commenter asked 
if non-compliance would result in a client sanction or a negative 
program review. One commenter expressed concern that the level of 
funding might be inadequate, resulting in employment 
[[Page 33592]] services only to RCA refugees to the exclusion of AFDC 
recipients. The commenter recommended requiring participation in 
employment services within 30 days of receipt of aid only if funding is 
available. Another commenter was concerned that the level of funding 
might be insufficient to provide services to all RCA refugees and 
recommended that the rule be revised to require States to include an 
assurance in their State plan that newly arrived refugees will be 
enrolled promptly in employment services.
    Response: The provisions under subpart F, including the requirement 
for participation in employment services within 30 days of receipt of 
aid, apply only to RCA recipients; these regulations do not apply to 
recipients of AFDC. The AFDC program, administered by the Office of 
Family Assistance, is governed by separate regulations under 45 CFR 
Chapter II. However, we refer the commenter to 45 CFR 233.100(a)(6), 
which requires that within 30 days after the receipt of aid under the 
AFDC-UP program, unemployed principal earners will participate or apply 
for participation in a JOBS program.
    Non-compliance with Sec. 400.75 would result in a client sanction 
or a negative program review. Regarding funding availability, we 
believe it would be a rare situation where service funds would not be 
sufficient to provide services to all RCA recipients in accordance with 
Sec. 400.75.
    Sec. 400.76: Comment: Two commenters strongly supported ORR's 
proposal to make exemption requirements consistent with JOBS 
requirements, while two commenters opposed exempting a parent or 
caretaker who has a child under 3 years of age and opposed exempting 
pregnant women from registration and participation in employment 
services if the child is expected to be born within 6 months. One of 
the commenters felt that welfare parents should be required to use 
child care, as non-welfare parents do, in order to work. The commenter 
also expressed the view that since many non-welfare women continue to 
work until their 8th month of pregnancy, welfare recipients should not 
be exempted from participation because of pregnancy. Two commenters 
expressed concern about the availability of affordable day care. One 
commenter was concerned that a single parent would not be able to 
afford day care costs. Another commenter felt that ORR should take into 
consideration the possible hardship that families may experience 
finding suitable child care for non-school age refugee children.
    Response: We believe the criteria for exemptions from participation 
in the refugee program should be as consistent as possible with the 
criteria for exemptions in the JOBS program in order to maintain equity 
among welfare clients. While we recognize the potential problems that 
some refugee families may experience finding suitable and affordable 
child care, we believe there are a number of options available to 
refugee families for securing subsidized child care through ORR-funded 
day care or through the JOBS program.
    Sec. 400.80: Comment: Six commenters wrote in support of 
elimination of the job search requirement. We received no comments 
opposing elimination of this requirement.
    Response: We continue to believe that job search is an appropriate 
activity for certain types of refugees and should be required as part 
of a refugee's employability plan in such cases. Therefore, we have 
decided to modify Sec. 400.80 accordingly instead of totally 
eliminating this requirement. A refugee who refuses to carry out job 
search would be subject to sanction, in accordance with Sec. 400.77, if 
job search is a required service in the refugee's employability plan.
    Sec. 400.83: Comment: One commenter recommended that since one 
State has already obtained ORR approval to modify its timeframe for the 
conciliation period, this provision should be revised to accommodate 
the State's method of handling the conciliation period.
    Response: A revision is not necessary. The State in question was 
granted a waiver to this provision a few years ago. This waiver is not 
affected by this regulation.
    Sec. 400.94(a): Comment: One commenter was opposed to requiring 
refugees to be screened for Medicaid eligibility first. Another 
commenter expressed concern that the requirement to determine the 
Medicaid eligibility of every individual in an RMA family instead of 
making a single determination for the family as a unit could have the 
potential for increased administrative costs as a result of 
implementing this new method of determination.
    Response: The revision in Sec. 400.94(a) does not represent a 
change in policy; it is simply a clarification of a regulation that has 
been in effect since its publication as a final rule in the Federal 
Register (54 FR 5480) on February 3, 1989. Therefore, States that are 
not making Medicaid eligibility determinations for refugees who apply 
for medical assistance, or are not making Medicaid determinations for 
each member in a family unit, should take immediate steps to comply 
with the requirements under Sec. 400.94(a).
    Sec. 400.100(d): Comment: One commenter objected to the provision 
that only those recipients of RCA who are not eligible for Medicaid are 
eligible for RMA. The commenter expressed concern that RMA may be 
eliminated in one State because all RCA recipients in the State are 
eligible for Medical Assistance (MA). The commenter also questioned 
whether this provision refers to all MA benefits or only Federally 
mandated or reimbursed MA benefits. Another commenter pointed out that 
it is essential to ensure that refugees on RMA who are eligible for 
partial Medicaid benefits are not denied RMA coverage for medical 
treatment that is not covered by the partial Medicaid coverage.
    Response: This provision is simply a restatement or clarification 
of current policy and refers only to Federally reimbursed benefits 
under title XIX of the Social Security Act. Regarding RMA coverage for 
refugees who are eligible for partial Medicaid benefits, since 
Sec. 400.100(d) does not represent a change in policy, States should 
continue handling these cases as they do under current policy.
    Sec. 400.104: Comment: Twenty-four commenters indicated support for 
this provision. Two commenters questioned whether a refugee would be 
required to accept private insurance, if the employer offered the 
insurance at a cost. One commenter asked if States would be required to 
impose penalties for refusal to accept private medical coverage. In 
cases where private insurance only covers the employee, one commenter 
wondered whether remaining family members would be able to continue on 
RMA. Three commenters recommended that instead of terminating RMA once 
private insurance is obtained, RMA could be billed only after any and 
all private insurance payments were accessed, as is the arrangement in 
the Medicaid program. One commenter noted that the proposed rule 
suggests that RMA recipients would be eligible for RMA through the 8th 
month, regardless of the reason for their ineligibility. The commenter 
questioned whether RMA recipients would be eligible for continued RMA 
if they began receiving unearned income or acquired excess resources 
that would make them ineligible for RMA.
    Response: An RMA recipient who becomes employed would not be 
required to accept health insurance offered by his/her employer; if an 
RMA recipient chooses not to accept private [[Page 33593]] insurance, 
his/her eligibility for continued RMA would not be affected. If an 
employed RMA recipient obtains private health insurance which covers 
self only, the remaining family members, if they were RMA recipients, 
could continue to receive RMA for the full time-eligibility period. 
Unearned income or excess resources would only be a factor in 
determining initial eligibility for RMA; once a refugee becomes an RMA 
recipient, however, he/she would be eligible for continued RMA 
regardless of whether he/she began receiving unearned income or 
acquired excess resources.
    After considering the commenters' recommendation, we have revised 
the rule to allow an RMA recipient who becomes employed to continue to 
receive RMA for the full time-eligibility period, regardless of whether 
the recipient obtains private medical coverage. However, we have 
revised this provision to require in cases where a refugee obtains 
private medical coverage, that RMA payment must take into consideration 
any third party payments. This policy is similar to Medicaid policy set 
forth in Medicaid regulations at 42 CFR 433.139.
    Sec. 400.106: Comment: One commenter asked for clarification as 
follows: The preamble states that ``* * * additional services under 
Sec. 400.106 may not (emphasis added) be provided to refugee Medicaid 
recipients with refugee funding as long as appropriated funds continue 
to be insufficient to enable ORR reimbursements to States for these 
costs,'' while the actual proposed regulation states that ``the State 
may (emphasis added) provide to refugees who are determined eligible 
under Secs. 400.94, only to the extent that sufficient funds are 
appropriated, or 400.100 of this part the same services through public 
facilities.''
    Response: The meaning is the same; the main point is that 
appropriated funds have not been sufficient to enable ORR reimbursement 
for refugees eligible under Sec. 400.94 (Medicaid) since FY 1991, thus 
additional medical services to refugee Medicaid recipients under 
Sec. 400.106 may not be provided with ORR funding.
    Sec. 400.107: Comment: Four commenters recommended the continued 
use of the term ``health assessment'' instead of the term ``medical 
screening'', while one commenter supported the change of wording. One 
commenter felt it was unclear whether the change in terms implied a 
change in definition. Two commenters stated that the use of the term 
``medical screening'' implies that health assessments can only be done 
by physicians when in practice non-physician health care providers are 
the primary resource used for conducting health assessments. One 
commenter expressed concern that the term ``medical screening'' may 
blur the distinction between initial assessment and actual provision of 
medical care. The commenter felt that the term implied a more 
comprehensive service than will be provided and that it is important to 
distinguish that a public health setting is not a comprehensive care 
delivery setting. Two other commenters felt that the word ``screening'' 
is inaccurate to describe the set of health services needed in domestic 
resettlement. A screening should be understood as one component of a 
more comprehensive set of services. One commenter requested that ORR 
provide a definition of medical screening which would allow current 
practices to continue.
    Finally, one commenter indicated that a review of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act did not reveal the use of the term ``medical 
screening'' in relation to domestic health assessments.
    Response: We have chosen to use the term ``medical screening'' in 
place of the term ``health assessment'' simply to be consistent with 
the language of the INA. Section 412(b)(5) of the INA authorizes the 
Director ``to make grants to, and enter into contracts with, State and 
local health agencies for payments to meet their costs of providing 
medical screening and initial medical treatment to refugees.'' The use 
of the term ``medical screening'' is in no way intended to suggest that 
ORR believes that health assessments/medical screenings must be 
performed by physicians instead of non-physician health care personnel.
    We have been working with State refugee health coordinators and the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the past year to 
develop a medical screening protocol, as required under 
Sec. 400.107(a)(1), that clearly defines what are allowable services 
under medical screening. We intend to issue this protocol later this 
fiscal year.
Comments on Subpart I

    Secs. 400.141, 400.152, and 400.153: Comment: One commenter felt 
that the elimination of title XX services as allowable for refugee 
program funding would be damaging to the community. One commenter 
recommended that references to title XX be retained in ORR regulations 
to enable refugees to access services which they might not otherwise to 
able to access because of the absence of bilingual staff and limited 
resources. Another commenter supported the elimination of title XX 
services. One commenter assumed that the elimination of title XX 
services from the list of allowable services was intended to increase 
State and local flexibility in the provision of services. The commenter 
questioned whether flexibility would, in fact, be increased or whether 
the elimination would serve as an impediment to flexibility. Another 
commenter questioned what title XX services ORR considers 
inappropriate.
    Response: As we indicated in the NPRM, the purpose of eliminating 
title XX services from the list of allowable services that may be 
provided with ORR funding is to limit the scope of refugee program 
services to those services that are most in keeping with the goals and 
priorities of the refugee program. Our intention is to sharpen the 
focus of refugee funding, not necessarily to increase State 
flexibility. We do not believe that the full range of allowable 
services under the title XX program is consonant with the major 
priorities of the refugee program. We have included in our list of 
allowable refugee social services those title XX services which we 
believe fit with the goals and purpose of the refugee program. However, 
there are other title XX services that we believe go beyond ORR 
priorities. For example, ORR does not believe that title XX services 
such as preparation and delivery of meals and day care services for 
adults fall within the main priorities of employment and economic self-
sufficiency in the refugee program. While we believe there are refugees 
who may need these services, we believe these services should be 
accessed through the State's title XX program instead of through the 
refugee program. At the same time we agree with the commenter that 
refugees often have difficulty accessing mainstream services because of 
the lack of culturally and linguistically appropriate services. ORR 
intends to work with other Federal programs over the next few years to 
increase refugee access to these services. We strongly encourage States 
to do the same at the State level.
    Sec. 400.145: Comment: Six commenters wrote in support of requiring 
States to insure that women have the same opportunities as men to 
participate in training and instruction, as required in the Immigration 
and Nationality Act. One commenter, however, wondered why equal 
opportunity for employment placement was not included. The commenter 
also expressed concern that unless child care and transportation are 
provided for women, equal opportunity for services would be moot. 
Another commenter, while supporting the [[Page 33594]] provision, 
cautioned that ORR, in monitoring this requirement, should not assume 
that equal opportunity necessarily results in equal participation. The 
commenter felt that ORR tends to equate unequal participation with 
unequal access. Another commenter suggested that in light of the 
proposed time-limitation for service eligibility, the regulation should 
clearly state that pregnant women who wish to participate in employment 
services should have access to them, even though they may be exempt 
from participation under Sec. 400.76(a)(9). One commenter suggested 
that services to women should be provided within the context of a 
family self-sufficiency plan.
    Response: We agree that refugee women should have equal opportunity 
to participate in all services, including employment placements. In the 
proposed rule, we used the phrase ``to participate in training and 
instruction'' to be consistent with the language in the INA. However, 
to more clearly convey our intent to provide women equal opportunity 
for all services, we have revised Sec. 400.145 in the final rule to 
read: ``A State must insure that women have the same opportunities as 
men to participate in all services funded under this part, including 
job placement services.''
    We concur that services to women should be provided within the 
context of a family self-sufficiency plan, as should services to 
refugee men and other employable members of a family. As part of that 
self-sufficiency plan, we would expect States to make sure that service 
providers make every effort to arrange transportation and child care 
for those women who are not able to participate in services without 
such assistance. We agree with the commenter that without these 
supportive services equal access to services would be unattainable for 
many women.
    We also agree with the comment that equal access does not 
necessarily result in equal participation. The emphasis, in our mind, 
is on providing to refugee women the same opportunity to participate in 
services as refugee men have. We understand that providing access to 
services does not guarantee that refugee women will necessarily choose 
to participate in services or employment placement due to certain 
cultural constraints. On the other hand, since ORR regulations require 
that all employable refugee women, with the exception of those who meet 
the exemption requirements of Sec. 400.76, must participate in 
employment services, we would not expect to see a great disparity in 
participation between refugee men and women.
    Given the time-limitations for service eligibility that will go 
into effect with this final regulation, we agree with the comment that 
pregnant women who wish to participate in employment services may 
access these services, even though they may be exempt. Section 
400.75(b) already requires that a State must permit anyone in any of 
the exempted categories under Sec. 400.76 to register for employment 
services if he/she so chooses.
    Sec. 400.146: Comment: Eight commenters concurred with the 
elimination of the 85/15 rule that required any State with a refugee 
welfare dependency rate of 55% or more to use 85% of its social service 
funds for employability services and no more than 15% of its social 
service funds for non-employment-related services.
    Three commenters wrote in support of the requirement that 
employment services must be designed to enable refugees to obtain jobs 
with less than one year's participation in services. Another commenter 
disagreed with the prohibition against vocational training that lasts 
for more than a year or education programs that are not intended to 
lead to employment within a year, stating that many refugees receiving 
AFDC will not be able to become self-sufficient in one year due to 
limited English language ability and job skills. The commenter 
requested a later effective date if this provision were made final. One 
commenter requested clarification on whether ESL is considered an 
educational program and if the one year starts at the beginning of the 
educational program or at the end of the educational program. Another 
commenter recommended that a percentage of funds be allowed for the 
purchase of selected long-term training for qualified refugees as long 
as the training leads to employment soon after training is completed.
    Response: This rule does not require refugees to become self-
sufficient with less than one year's participation in services. Section 
400.146 requires that services be designed to help a refugee to become 
employed, not necessarily self-sufficient, with less than one year's 
participation in services. We recognize that a refugee's first job may 
not provide sufficient wages to enable self-support; nonetheless, we 
believe that that first job is an essential step towards self-
sufficiency and should occur as soon as possible. Section 400.146 
permits the continued provision of services to a refugee for more than 
one year, as needed, to move a refugee and his or her family to full 
self-support. We believe the prohibition against training programs that 
last for more than a year or educational programs that are not intended 
to lead to employment within a year is reasonable, given limited 
resources, and is in keeping with the refugee program's statutory 
requirement that refugees be placed in employment as soon as possible 
after arrival in the U.S.
    We consider ESL to be an educational program that may be provided 
for more than a year as long as other services designed to lead to 
employment within one year are being provided concurrently to a refugee 
as part of an overall self-sufficiency plan. Under the requirements of 
Sec. 400.146, it would be unacceptable to provide only ESL to a 
refugee, without the provision of other employment-related services 
that are intended to lead to employment within one year, since ESL 
alone is unlikely to enable a refugee to obtain employment with less 
than one year's participation in ESL. The one year starts at the 
beginning of the educational program, not at the end.
    Sec. 400.147: Comment: Four commenters supported the proposed 
client priorities. Two commenters agreed that new arrivals should be 
given first priority. One commenter recommended limiting first priority 
to all newly arriving refugees on cash assistance during their first 
year in the U.S. The commenter noted that while Sec. 400.147 places 
refugees on cash assistance on a lower priority than newly arrived 
refugees, Sec. 400.75 requires that RCA recipients who are not exempt 
must participate in employment services within 30 days of receipt of 
aid. The commenter expressed concern that some counties might not have 
sufficient funds to serve the top two priority groups. Another 
commenter asked why RCA clients couldn't be given the same priority 
status as the first priority group since RCA recipients are within 
their first year of residence in the U.S. Another commenter recommended 
that second priority be given to serving employed refugees in need of 
services to maintain employment so that these refugees would not be 
tempted to lose their jobs in order to become a higher priority for 
services. Another commenter noted that according to the proposed client 
priorities, a newly arrived refugee in priority group #1 who is 
employed and making $25,000 a year and who wants to upgrade his job, 
would receive services before a client in priority group #3 who is 
time-expired, unemployed, and living on the streets but anxious to 
work. Another commenter wrote that he interprets the priority order to 
mean that (1) refugees [[Page 33595]] within their first year of 
residence in the U.S. and receiving cash assistance will have priority 
over refugees within their first year of residence who are not 
receiving cash assistance; and (2) refugees within their first year of 
residence who are not receiving cash assistance will have priority, 
regardless of their employment status, over refugees receiving cash 
assistance, but residing in the U.S. longer than one year. The 
commenter recommends that maximum flexibility be given to States and 
local service providers in applying these priorities.
    Response: To clarify, the first priority group includes both 
refugees receiving cash assistance, including RCA and AFDC recipients, 
during their first year in the U.S. and refugees who are not receiving 
cash assistance during their first year in the U.S. who apply for 
services. For refugees in their first year in the U.S., we are not 
making a distinction in terms of priority between refugees on cash 
assistance and refugees not on cash assistance. We believe that most 
States and counties would have sufficient refugee funds to serve all 
first-year refugees, regardless of cash assistance status. However, if 
for some reason sufficient funds are not available to serve both first 
year cash assistance and non-cash assistance clients, common sense 
would suggest that priority be given to RCA recipients for service in 
order to meet the requirements of Sec. 400.75.
    The commenter is correct that refugees in their first year in the 
U.S. who are not receiving cash assistance are a higher priority, 
regardless of their employment status, than refugees receiving cash 
assistance but residing in the U.S. longer than one year. While this 
rule will require States to follow these priorities, we recognize there 
may be some instances where States and providers will need to exercise 
their best judgement in determining who is in greater need of services 
on a case-by-case basis. We, therefore, have added the phrase ``except 
in certain individual extreme circumstances'' at Sec. 400.147 regarding 
client priorities for the social services program and at Sec. 400.314 
regarding client priorities for the targeted assistance program. For 
example, it may be the best judgement of a provider that a refugee 
recipient of cash assistance in need of a job who has been in the U.S. 
for more than a year needs to be served before a refugee in priority 
group #1 who is earning enough to support his/her family and is not in 
danger of being laid off, but wants a job upgrade.
    Regarding the case of the first-year refugee earning $25,000 a year 
having priority over the time-expired refugee in priority group #3 who 
is unemployed, if the refugee is time-expired in terms of being in the 
U.S. longer than the time frames specified in Secs. 400.152 and 
400.315, that refugee would not be eligible to receive services funded 
by the refugee program except those services specified under 
Secs. 400.152(b) and 400.315(b). If, however, the refugee in priority 
group #3 is not time-expired, and if $25,000 a year is sufficient to 
enable the first-year refugee to support his/her family, common sense 
would suggest that you serve the refugee in priority #3.
    We do not agree with the commenter who believes that second 
priority should be given to employed refugees who have been in the U.S. 
more than one year (priority #4) to avoid the possibility of refugees 
needing to lose their jobs in order to become a higher priority for 
services. We do not believe that this scenario is likely to become a 
problem.
    Sec. 400.152(b) and 400.315: Comment: Nineteen commenters opposed 
the proposed time-limitation for refugee social services and targeted 
assistance services, while 11 commenters wrote in support of the 
proposed limitation. One commenter felt that the time-limitation should 
be advisory, not mandatory. One commenter agreed with the longer time-
limitation for targeted assistance, while another commenter supported 
the staggered implementation of the time-limitation. One commenter felt 
that limitations on service eligibility impose a needed discipline on 
providers and recipients alike.
    A variety of concerns was expressed regarding the proposed time-
limitation: the time-limitation might preclude refugee women, who delay 
participating in services due to cultural reasons, from accessing 
services at a later date; the time-limitation will result in the most 
needy populations being abandoned without a safety net; it will leave a 
significant number of refugees and entrants without the means to 
achieve true economic self-sufficiency; the long-term refugee welfare 
population will no longer receive the services they need; many 
community-based organizations will fold due to lack of funding; refugee 
adjustment services, such as mental health and family counseling are 
required beyond 3 years and will not be provided due to limited State 
and local resources; many refugees will continue to need bilingual 
services which are only provided through the refugee program; the time-
limitation will pass fiscal responsibility to State and local 
governments that do not have the resources to serve this population; 
the time-limitation has the potential of provoking adverse public 
reaction to the presence of refugees if certain services are not 
provided to post-36-month refugees with refugee program funding; the 
limitation will result in bilingual workers having to meet the needs of 
the time-expired refugees during their lunch break, after regular work 
hours, or on weekends; and the time-limitation on services will 
severely limit MAA eligibility for refugee social service funding.
    Two commenters questioned limiting services in all States based on 
the existence of waiting lists in just a few States. One commenter also 
questioned making a regulatory change for refugees in the 1990s based 
on study findings primarily of Southeast Asians in the 1980s. One 
commenter questioned ORR's authority to limit eligibility for services 
for entrants, citing title V, Sec. 501(d) of the Refugee Education 
Assistance Act of 1980, which states: ``* * * the authorities provided 
in this section are applicable to assistance and services provided with 
respect to Cuban and Haitian entrants at any time after their arrival 
in the United States * * *.'' Another commenter felt that if ORR 
ensures that discretionary social service and TAP funds respond to the 
needs of refugees over 36 months, appropriate attention will have been 
given to this population.
    Several commenters cited problems with having different eligibility 
periods for social services and targeted assistance. One commenter felt 
that this difference would create an inequitable situation in service 
availability between States that have TAP grants and those that do not, 
and would also create inequity in service availability among 
communities within a State. Another commenter pointed out that having 
two different time periods for the provision of social services and 
TAP, which are often provided by the same agency to the same client, 
would likely generate considerable confusion for both the refugees and 
the agencies. One commenter felt it is inconsistent to permit impacted 
communities to provide employment services for 5 years but not allow 
other communities to do so. Another commenter indicated that the 36-
month time limit for social services would place great stress on TAP 
funds, since staffing for the post-36 month population would have to be 
funded solely with TAP funding. One commenter felt that the time limit 
would force voluntary agencies to place new arrivals only in urban 
areas where targeted assistance is available. Another commenter felt 
the two eligibility periods would make data collection 
[[Page 33596]] more complex and cumbersome at the agency and State 
level. One commenter raised the question of when, if a client is served 
by a dually funded program (social services and TAP), would the refugee 
cease to be eligible for services--at 36 months or at 60 months. 
Another commenter asked whether clients who are in the U.S. less than 
60 months at the start of the fiscal year, who pass the 60-month mark 
during the fiscal year, would be allowed to complete the service plan.
    Four commenters expressed concern about the lack of refugee access 
to mainstream services. One commenter was concerned that adding refugee 
clients to mainstream service systems would have a negative impact on 
the existing service system, in light of decreasing funds in mainstream 
programs. Two commenters emphasized that if refugees are to be treated 
like other U.S. residents and have access to the same assistance and 
service programs available to other populations after the first 3 years 
in the U.S., it is incumbent upon ORR to foster interagency cooperation 
at the Federal level to ensure that refugees have equal access to 
mainstream programs. One commenter made the point that if we achieved 
the two goals of obtaining equal access for refugees to mainstream 
services and achieving citizenship, we wouldn't need to impose a time-
limitation on refugee services.
    One commenter requested clarification on whether discretionary 
grants provided by ORR would be subject to the 36-month and 60-month 
limitation on eligibility. Another commenter requested clarification on 
whether the time-limitation applies to all services or only to those 
services listed under Sec. 400.154.
    Several commenters offered alternative recommendations to the 
proposed time-limitations: One commenter recommended allowing the 
States the flexibility to provide services as they are needed within 
the priorities described in Sec. 400.147; another commenter recommended 
adding post-36-month refugees as the last priority under Sec. 400.147; 
several commenters recommended that a State be allowed the flexibility 
to serve deserving clients beyond 36 months if a State is able to meet 
the needs of new arrivals as indicated by an effective and efficient 
job placement rate; another commenter recommended that the time-
limitation should not apply to outreach and crisis services; one 
commenter recommended excluding community strengthening activities from 
the time-limitation, while another commenter recommended that services 
such as mental health services should be excluded from the time-
limitation.
    One commenter recommended that the time-limitations should be 
waived for each county that is impacted with Lao-Hmong, Cambodian, or 
Soviet Pentecostal refugees, while another commenter recommended a 
waiver to States that have a substantial time-expired welfare 
population and can demonstrate that they are able to enroll newly 
arrived refugees in employment services within 30 days of receipt of 
aid.
    Five commenters recommended that, if a time-limited eligibility 
period must be established, the same time limit of 5 years should apply 
to both refugee social services and targeted assistance, in congruence 
with the 5-year residency requirement for citizenship. One of the 
commenters alternatively suggested that TAP funding be restricted to 
clients who are not served through refugee social service funding. One 
commenter proposed that the time-limitation be extended to 60 months 
for elderly refugees who apply for non-employment-related services such 
as social adjustment, health, and mental health services. Another 
commenter recommended that if a time limit must be imposed it should be 
no less than 10 years after arrival in the U.S. Two commenters 
recommended allowing a State to spend no more than a fixed percentage 
of a State's refugee funding on services for post-36-month refugees. 
One of the commenters suggested allowing a certain percentage of 
funding for post-36-month refugees only in non-targeted assistance 
areas.
    Response: We continue to believe in the necessity and efficacy of 
limiting eligibility for services funded by the refugee program to a 
specified time period after a refugee arrives in the U.S. However, 
after considering the comments, we have made two revisions to the time-
limitation provision: (1) We have extended the eligibility period for 
social services from 36 months to 60 months, in congruence with the 
proposed time-limitation for the targeted assistance program and with 
the 5-year residency requirement for U.S. citizenship; and (2) we are 
exempting referral and interpreter services from the time-limitation in 
both programs to enable referral of post-60-month refugees to 
mainstream services and emergency interpreter services regardless of 
time in the country. By extending the social services time-limitation 
to 60 months, refugees will have a longer time to access the services 
needed to attain self-sufficiency and States and providers will be 
spared the difficulty of administering different eligibility periods 
for social services and targeted assistance. We believe these changes 
will go a long way towards alleviating many of the areas of concern to 
commenters, while maintaining the time-limitation principle.
    On the question of whether title V, section 501(d) of the Refugee 
Education Assistance Act of 1980 would prohibit ORR from limiting 
eligibility for services to a certain time period for Cuban and Haitian 
entrants, the intent of section 501(d) needs to be examined within the 
context of section 501(a)(1). Section 501(a)(1) states that ``[t]he 
President shall exercise authorities with respect to Cuban and Haitian 
entrants which are identical to the authorities which are exercised 
under chapter 2 of title IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act.'' 
Regarding this provision, the legislative history states that ``it is 
the intent of the Congress that services provided pursuant to this 
section shall be provided to Cuban and Haitian entrants by the same 
agencies, under the same conditions, and to the same extent, that 
assistance is provided to persons determined to be refugees in 
accordance with the terms of the Refugee Act of 1980.'' 126 Cong. Rec. 
28470 (September 30, 1980). This indicates that Congress clearly 
intended that Cuban and Haitian entrants should receive the same 
benefits that refugees receive pursuant to the INA. We believe the only 
way to interpret section 501(d) in a way that makes sense in 
conjunction with section 501(a)(1) is that benefits provided to 
entrants should not be any more constrained by time barriers than 
benefits provided to refugees. If interpreted the way the commenter 
suggests, Cuban and Haitian entrants would receive more extensive 
services than refugees because services would only be time-limited for 
refugees. Congress clearly did not intend such unequal treatment.
    To clarify, the time limitation applies to all services, not just 
to those services listed under Sec. 400.154. The time limitation, 
however, does not apply to services funded with ORR discretionary 
grants, including both social service discretionary and targeted 
assistance 10% discretionary grants.
    The concerns about the lack of refugee access to mainstream 
services are well taken. We agree with the commenters' suggestion that 
more has to be done at the Federal level with other programs to ensure 
better access by refugees to mainstream programs. We are making it an 
ORR priority to work with other Federal agencies and mainstream 
programs over the next two years to increase access and quality of 
services for refugees. [[Page 33597]] 
    Sec. 400.154: Comment: Two commenters who supported elimination of 
job search as a mandatory requirement recommended that job search be 
included as an allowable employment service. One commenter also 
recommended including the development of family self-sufficiency plans 
as an allowable service. Another commenter recommended adding job-
related expenses as an allowable employability service. One commenter 
asked whether match grant clients are excluded from all employment-
related services listed under Sec. 400.154. One commenter wrote in 
support of the day care definition in Sec. 400.154.
    Response: Job search is already included as an allowable 
employability service under Sec. 400.154(a). We have revised 
Sec. 400.154 to include the development of family self-sufficiency 
plans as an allowable service under Sec. 400.154(a). Regarding job-
related expenses, we believe the most important job-related expenses to 
include as allowable services are child care and transportation 
expenses. Child care as a job-related expense is already allowable 
under Sec. 400.154 and we have amended Sec. 400.154(h) to allow 
transportation as a job-related expense.
    Match grant clients are not excluded from participating in the 
employment-related services listed under this provision.
    Sec. 400.155: Comment: Two commenters expressed concern about the 
proposed change to Sec. 400.155(f). One of the commenters was concerned 
that the change in language implies that translation and interpreter 
services may not be provided as a distinct service in its own right; 
thus translation/interpretation for a refugee in traffic court or 
juvenile court might not be allowable under this provision. The 
commenter recommended that translation and interpreter services be 
allowed to remain as distinct adjustment services. The other commenter 
objected to the proposed change to Sec. 400.155(f), arguing that the 
provision as amended would reduce a State's ability to fund refugee 
mutual assistance associations for services such as interpreter 
services. The commenter also felt that by restricting interpreter 
services to instances in which these services are not available from 
any other source, ORR would be hampering the desirable goal of 
assisting refugees to take advantage of mainstream services.
    One commenter requested clarification on proposed Sec. 400.155(g) 
regarding the process for submission, the criteria that will be used to 
approve additional services, and whether requests will be reviewed 
uniformly or on a case-by-case basis. Another commenter asked whether 
volunteer coordination and training for ESL tutors, for example, would 
require special approval under proposed Sec. 400.155(g). One commenter 
suggested that technical assistance to strengthen MAA capability is not 
a direct service and thus would more appropriately be supported through 
ORR's discretionary program.
    One commenter suggested that fraud prevention education should be 
addressed through refugee orientation and acculturation services.
    Response: We have decided to drop the proposed revision to 
Sec. 400.155(f). Translation and interpreter services will continue to 
be allowable under Sec. 400.155(f) regardless of whether such services 
are available from another source.
    If a State wishes to provide additional services under proposed 
Sec. 400.155(g), which now will be Sec. 400.155(h), the State should 
submit as part of its annual services plan a request which describes 
the proposed services, documents the absence of waiting lists in the 
State for core refugee services (employment services, ESL, job 
training, and case management), demonstrates that the proposed services 
fit the purpose of strengthening the ability of refugee individuals, 
families, and refugee communities to achieve and maintain economic 
self-sufficiency, family stability, and community integration, 
documents the need for such services, and describes the results the 
State expects to achieve with the provision of these services.
    Volunteer coordination and training for ESL tutors would not 
require special approval under Sec. 400.155(h). We do not agree with 
the comment regarding technical assistance to strengthen the capability 
of MAAs; we believe this is an appropriate activity under 
Sec. 400.155(h).
    Fraud prevention education is allowable as a consumer education 
service under Sec. 400.155(c)(3).
    Sec. 400.156: Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the 
meaning of the phrase ``to the maximum extent feasible''. The commenter 
recommended adding the words ``as determined by the State'' after the 
words ``to the maximum extent feasible''. Another commenter felt that 
the phrase ``to the maximum extent feasible'' regarding the hiring of 
bilingual women on staff would provide a convenient out for agencies.
    Two commenters requested flexibility regarding the applicability 
and feasibility of Secs. 400.156 (c), (d), (e), and (f). One of the 
commenters suggested changing the phrase ``must be provided'' to 
``should be provided'' to allow some flexibility.
    Response: We have revised section 400.156 by removing the phrase 
``to the maximum extent feasible'' in paragraphs (c) and (d) because we 
believe that in the refugee program, ESL should always be provided 
concurrently with other employment-related services or employment and 
that services should always be refugee-specific services designed for 
refugees and in keeping with the rules and objectives of the refugee 
program, with the exception of those services stated in 
Sec. 400.156(d). The phrase ``to the maximum extent feasible'' is 
retained in paragraphs (e) and (f) and means that these requirements 
must be carried out to the fullest extent possible, while recognizing 
that there may be some circumstances where it may not be feasible or 
possible to require full compliance with this requirement. For example, 
it may not be feasible for a service agency to provide linguistically 
and culturally compatible services for a new ethnic group that includes 
only 2 individuals. Thus, while we believe these requirements must be 
met in most cases, we recognize there may be some exceptions where it 
may be unreasonable, and perhaps not in the best interests of the 
program, to require full compliance. The use of the phrase ``to the 
maximum extent feasible'' should not provide a convenient out regarding 
the hiring of bilingual women. The phrase acknowledges that there may 
some exceptions when it may not be feasible; but it does not open the 
door to non-compliance.
    We believe the phrase ``to the maximum extent feasible'' provides 
sufficient flexibility regarding feasibility. We do not agree with the 
suggestion to replace the word ``must'' with the word ``should''.
    Sec. 400.156(b): Comment: One commenter asked for a definition of 
seamless services and examples to show that they work. Another 
commenter, while commenting that the provision of seamless services 
between reception and placement (R & P) services and State-administered 
social services is a laudable goal, noted that voluntary agencies 
provide R & P services under contract with their national offices 
through a Department of State (DOS) contract. The commenter suggested 
that a similar requirement should be included in the DOS agreement. 
Another commenter recommended that coordination as called for under 
Sec. 400.156(b) should be expressed in a State plan and should reflect 
policies that ensure service continuity from R & P through self-
sufficiency. The [[Page 33598]] commenter recommended that the case 
management authority of the voluntary agencies should be respected as 
refugees move through the service system.
    Response: Seamless services means 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. This works because 
avoidance of service duplication results in a more efficient use of 
resources, and an absence of service gaps results in better service to 
refugees.
    We will forward to the Department of State the commenter's 
recommendation to add a requirement on seamless services in the R & P 
agreement.
    We do not believe it is necessary to require States to address the 
coordination required in this provision in State plans. Section 
400.11(b)(2), as revised, requires States to develop annual social 
services plans on the basis of a local consultative process. This would 
be the logical vehicle for carrying out the coordination required under 
Sec. 400.156(b).
    We believe the case management authority of voluntary agencies 
should be respected in those cases where the voluntary agency continues 
to be a refugee family's principal provider as it moves through the 
service system. In cases where a refugee family's principal provider is 
another agency, such as an MAA or other organization, the case 
management authority of that agency should be respected regarding that 
particular family.
    Section 400.156(c): Comment: Seven commenters indicated support for 
the provision of ESL concurrent with employment-related services. 
Another commenter emphasized that ESL concurrent with employment-
related services is not appropriate for all populations. Another 
commenter wondered in the case of an ESL program where job readiness 
activities are part of the curriculum and/or the ESL student is also 
looking for job training, whether these activities constitute 
employment services. Another commenter wondered whether a student 
enrolled in an ESL program, who is employed, may attend another ESL 
program after he/she completes the current ESL program. One commenter 
recommended that this provision should be expanded to allow for 
worksite ESL and literacy as desirable services.
    Response: We do not believe there is any refugee population that 
would not benefit, in most cases, from participation in ESL concurrent 
with participation in other employment-related services. We believe 
this is an appropriate arrangement for all employable refugees, 
regardless of ethnic background. The purpose of requiring that ESL be 
provided concurrently, instead of sequentially, with other employment-
related services is to ensure that refugees receive a comprehensive set 
of services needed to maximize a refugee's chance of becoming employed 
and self-sufficient in a timely manner. Therefore, the example of 
enrollment in an ESL class only, even though job readiness activities 
are a part of the curriculum, as well as the example of an ESL student 
who happens also to be looking for job training, would not, in our 
view, constitute ESL concurrent with other services and would not meet 
the requirement under Sec. 400.156(c).
    It is perfectly allowable for an ESL student, who is employed, to 
enroll in another ESL program after he/she completes the current ESL 
program. Worksite ESL and literacy are currently allowable under 
Sec. 400.154.
    Sec. 400.156(d): Comment: Ten commenters indicated support for 
providing services through refugee-specific service systems, while 6 
commenters opposed making this a requirement. One commenter recommended 
making this provision an option instead of a requirement. One commenter 
noted that the proposed rule would preclude funding to a refugee 
service unit in a JTPA agency, a refugee mutual assistance association 
(MAA) that serves refugees along with immigrants and citizens, or a 
school that provides ESL. Several commenters felt that their current 
service system effectively provides services tailored to refugees while 
ensuring refugee access to suitable mainstream programs. They felt that 
such combined programs have resulted in the leveraging of mainstream 
program dollars and services in a beneficial way for refugees. One 
commenter argued that States that can demonstrate effective use of 
mainstream resources to provide culturally compatible services focused 
on early employment should be allowed to continue to use these systems. 
Another commenter felt that as Federal resources diminish, it is 
particularly incumbent upon States to utilize other resources and to 
mainstream refugees where possible and where appropriate for the 
client. One commenter stressed the importance of making clear that this 
provision is not intended to relieve mainstream providers of their 
obligation to serve refugees seeking other than employment services or 
those refugees who have been in the U.S. beyond the 36-month time 
period.
    Response: We concur with the commenters concerns and have revised 
Sec. 400.156(d) to require the provision of refugee-specific services 
and have eliminated the requirement that services must be provided 
through a separate refugee-specific service system in which refugees 
are the only client group served. We believe this change will address 
all of the commenters' concerns. The revised provision will allow 
funding to a refugee service unit in a mainstream agency such as a JTPA 
agency; it will allow funding to an MAA that serves refugees along with 
immigrants and citizens, or to a school that provides ESL; and it will 
not preclude the leveraging of mainstream funds for refugees or the use 
of mainstream systems that have demonstrated the ability to provide 
refugee-specific services.
    Specifically, Sec. 400.156(d), as revised, requires the provision 
of refugee-specific services which must be designed to meet the needs 
of refugees and must be in keeping with the rules and objectives of the 
refugee program. There are, however, some exceptions to which this 
requirement does not apply; the following services are exempt from this 
rule: Vocational or job skills training and on-the-job training (OJT) 
which involves the purchase of slots for refugees in mainstream 
programs; and English language training. We do not believe it would be 
cost-efficient or necessary to require refugee-specific vocational 
training or OJT. Nor do we feel it is as essential for ESL to be 
designed specifically for refugees as long as the ESL is effectively 
designed for non-English speaking populations in general and is 
provided concurrently with other employment services to refugees.
    Sec. 400.156(e): Comment: Five commenters wrote in support of the 
proposed rule to require culturally and linguistically compatible 
services. Two commenters cautioned that while culturally and 
linguistically compatible services can be provided for large groups, it 
is not possible to do for all groups; it would be too expensive and 
impractical to provide for just a few refugees of a particular 
background. One commenter recommended adding language to this provision 
that would permit the use of ``qualified'' volunteers. Another 
commenter asked how providers can be expected to lay off staff with 15 
years' experience just because the ethnic groups they represent no 
longer need services. One commenter felt that the expertise of existing 
ethnic staff should not be discarded as new refugee populations arrive. 
The commenter felt that volunteers can often support the cultural and 
linguistic needs of new populations in concert [[Page 33599]] with 
experienced staff who may not represent the ethnicity of the new 
groups.
    One commenter suggested that a requirement should be included in 
the Department of State R & P agreement with voluntary agencies which 
would require these agencies to work together to facilitate the cluster 
resettlement of refugees of the same language background so that States 
and localities can develop culturally and linguistically compatible 
services.
    Response: We learned early in the refugee program that it was 
important to use bilingual staff who were culturally compatible with 
the refugee groups being served in order to provide effective 
resettlement services to these groups. We believe the new incoming 
groups deserve the same consideration as the earlier groups. It is 
important to balance the expertise of current staff, regardless of 
ethnicity, with the linguistic and cultural needs of the new 
populations. We expect States and providers to be as responsive as 
possible in carrying out this provision by incorporating the new ethnic 
groups on staff as much as is needed, either through new hires, 
contract employment, or when appropriate, through the use of qualified 
volunteers, while maintaining the expertise of existing staff as much 
as possible. If volunteers are to be used, we feel strongly that these 
volunteers need to be properly trained by the agency to ensure that 
refugees are receiving appropriate and useful bilingual services.
    We will forward the commenter's recommendation regarding the 
cluster resettlement of refugees to the Department of State.
    Sec. 400.156(f): Comment: One commenter felt that the principle of 
equal access for refugee women, which is critical, should not be 
translated into the rigid staffing pattern suggested by the language in 
Sec. 400.156(f).
    Response: 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. For this reason it is important to ensure that women are 
adequately represented on service agency staff.

Comments on Subpart J

    Secs. 400.203 and 400.204: Comment: One commenter expressed concern 
that the policy of reimbursing States for only those cash and medical 
assistance costs for which ORR has sufficient appropriated funds has 
the potential of transferring costs for non-reimbursed expenditures to 
States.
    Response: ORR has not had sufficient appropriated funds to cover 
the costs of all the cash and medical assistance programs listed in 
Secs. 400.203 and 400.204 since FY 1991 and has, since FY 1991, only 
reimbursed States for the costs of RCA, RMA, State administration, and 
the unaccompanied minors program. The commenter is correct that the 
costs for non-reimbursed expenditures have been born by the States.
    Sec. 400.207: Comment: One commenter felt it is unclear what change 
is proposed in this provision. Another commenter questioned who will 
determine ``reasonableness'' and felt there should be an appeals 
process if ACF and the States do not agree on what is allowed. Another 
commenter recommended that ACF should publish its definition of 
reasonable and allowable costs and provide States and other interested 
parties a chance to comment. One commenter felt that ORR should be 
consistent with the requirements in a variety of OMB Circulars 
regarding allowable administrative expenses. The commenter further 
recommended that if ORR decides to further limit allowable 
administrative costs, it should specify these limitations in rule form.
    Two commenters expressed concern that the language in this 
provision would prohibit States from claiming costs for overall State 
coordination activities and recommended that ORR clarify in the final 
rule that overall State coordination and management of the refugee 
program are allowable costs under Sec. 400.207. One commenter felt that 
reimbursable costs for State coordination should not be restricted to 
the 3-year time-limited population since a State Coordinator's work 
involves coordination beyond the funded services to the time-limited 
population. Two commenters were concerned that the proposed language in 
this provision implies that ORR intends to impose percentage 
limitations on State administrative costs. The commenters pointed out 
that percentage limitations would make it very difficult for States 
with small funding allocations to operate. One commenter supported 
limiting administrative costs a State may charge to refugee social 
services and to targeted assistance. Two commenters opposed the 
limitation of Federal reimbursement for only those programs for which 
funding is currently available under the refugee program, which 
eliminates reimbursement for administrative costs related to 
categorical programs such as AFDC and Medicaid. The commenters felt 
this limitation is unfair since States are required to determine 
eligibility for AFDC and Medicaid prior to determining RCA/RMA 
eligibility, which requires extra staff time, resulting in increased 
State costs.
    Response: States may continue to claim administrative costs for the 
overall management and coordination of the refugee program as they 
always have. No change was intended to prohibit the claiming of costs 
for coordination and oversight activities; administrative costs for 
these activities are allowable under Sec. 400.13(c). Reimbursement of 
costs for a State Coordinator's oversight activities is not limited to 
the 3 or 5-year time-eligible population. We also have no intentions of 
imposing an administrative cap or percentage limitation on State 
administrative costs. We do intend to review the issue of what 
constitutes reasonable and allowable administrative costs in the 
refugee program and, if needed, to develop guidelines defining 
reasonable and allowable costs in consultation with States. The 
guidelines, if developed, will be consistent with the requirements in 
relevant OMB Circulars regarding allowable administrative costs and 
will be distributed to States for review and comment.

Comments on Subpart K

    Sec. 400.301: Comment: One commenter recommended that the advance 
notice that a State must provide ORR before withdrawing from the 
refugee program should be 90 days instead of the proposed 120 days. The 
commenter felt that ORR should not require a longer period of advance 
notice than the 90-day notice that ORR provides for changes in the RCA/
RMA eligibility period. Another commenter recommended that the final 
rule should clarify that the Director's designation of an alternate 
agency does not preclude a Wilson/Fish demonstration and operates only 
as an interim arrangement to ensure service continuity to refugees. 
Another commenter recommended that if a State withdraws, ORR must make 
sure that the replacement designee adheres to the same standards as a 
State-run program, is monitored according to the same standards as a 
State-run program, and that all assistance and services provided are 
equitable with State-provided assistance and services. The commenter 
requested clarification on whether suspension of assistance payments by 
a State due to a lack of Federal funding would be considered 
withdrawing from the program or withdrawing from part of the program, 
without proper notice. [[Page 33600]] 
    Response: We believe 120 days notice is a reasonable period of time 
to require when a State is planning to drop out of the program. The 
purpose of requiring the advance notice is to allow enough time to 
enable ORR to make alternative arrangements to ensure that refugees in 
that State continue to receive assistance and services without a break 
in service. The commenter is correct that the designation of a 
replacement agency does not preclude the possibility of a Wilson/Fish 
demonstration project at a later date. Regarding whether a replacement 
designee would operate as an interim arrangement, the replacement 
designee would administer the provision of assistance and services to 
refugees in the State for a period of time allowable in accordance with 
Federal grant-making rules, followed by the selection of an agency 
through a competitive grant process.
    The replacement designee will be required to adhere to the same ORR 
regulations that apply to a State-administered program, with the 
exception of certain provisions described under Sec. 400.301 of this 
regulation. Certain provisions are excepted because they apply only to 
States and become moot when a State withdraws and is replaced by 
another entity. States would continue to be responsible for 
administering the other excepted provisions because these provisions 
refer to the administration of other State-run public assistance 
programs.
    ORR would not consider the suspension of RCA/RMA assistance 
payments by a State due to a lack of Federal funding to be a withdrawal 
from the program, unless the State indicated that it intended to 
withdraw from the refugee program.

Comments on Subpart L

    Comment: Two commenters wrote in support of establishing 
regulations for the targeted assistance program (TAP). Another 
commenter asked for clarification on whether TAP regulations would 
apply to FY 1994 dollars used for the FY 1995 program.
    Response: These regulations would apply to whatever dollars are 
being used to provide services on October 1, 1995, the effective date 
of this final rule.
    Sec. 400.312: Comment: One commenter felt that the requirement to 
provide any client with targeted assistance-funded services places an 
undue burden on a limited funding stream. Another commenter asked what 
a State's responsibility is if a client is eligible for TAP services 
but there is insufficient funding to provide services to lower priority 
applicants. One commenter felt that the language regarding the 
opportunity to apply for TAP services is vague regarding eligible 
persons and should be revised to be more specific by stipulating that a 
State must provide any individual wishing to apply for services who has 
been in the U.S. 60 months or less the opportunity to do so. Another 
commenter recommended adding the words ``or agencies'' after the word 
``individuals'' to read: ``* * * a State must provide any individual or 
agencies wishing to do so an opportunity to apply for targeted 
assistance services and determine the eligibility of each applicant.''
    Response: This provision parallels the language regarding social 
services in the current regulation under Sec. 400.145 which has been in 
effect since 1989. The provision simply allows any refugee to have the 
opportunity to apply for services and to have his/her eligibility for 
services determined, nothing more. Eligibility would be determined 
based on the eligibility requirements in this regulation, including the 
time-eligibility requirement. This provision does not require a State 
to provide services to all individuals who apply for services. If a 
State does not have sufficient funds to serve lower-priority 
applicants, it is not required to do so. We do not agree with the 
suggestion to add the words ``or agencies'' to this provision. To do so 
would be inappropriate since agencies do not apply for services under 
the refugee program; only clients do.
    Sec. 400.313: Comment: One commenter recommended that ESL and adult 
basic education should be allowed to be provided as long as these 
activities are provided concurrently with other employment services and 
are within an employment plan designed to lead to employment within one 
year.
    Response: These services are allowed under the targeted assistance 
program if they are provided concurrently with other employment 
services designed to lead to employment within one year.
    Sec. 400.314: Comment: One commenter felt that the client 
priorities for the targeted assistance program do not address the 60-
month time limit. The commenter recommended adding language to this 
provision that specifies ``refugees who have been in the U.S. less than 
61 months''. One commenter indicated that the proposed client 
priorities are not fully consistent with client priorities that were 
approved for one State's TAP program. Another commenter indicated that 
the priority #1 emphasis on long-term recipients seemed to be 
contradictory to the proposed time-limitation of 60 months for the 
targeted assistance program. Another commenter expressed concern that 
the TAP formula allocations may not be adequate to cover the additional 
service costs of the persistently unemployable welfare population in 
certain States, which raises the specter of cost shifts from the 
Federal government to the States.
    Response: The 60-month eligibility time limit for targeted 
assistance is included under Sec. 400.315, ``General eligibility 
requirements''; these requirements apply to the client priorities under 
Sec. 400.314, as well as to all sections under subpart L. The reference 
to long-term recipients in priority #1 refers to recipients who have 
been on welfare for a number of years within the 60-month time limit. 
We would consider an individual who has been a welfare recipient for 3-
5 years a long-term recipient. The commenter's concern that the TAP 
formula allocation in certain States may not be adequate to cover the 
service costs for the persistently unemployable welfare population, the 
population in priority #1, is somewhat puzzling, since long-term 
welfare recipients have always been a priority group for TAP services. 
It would seem that States would have a better chance of covering the 
service costs for a 60-month time-limited welfare population with TAP 
funds than for a welfare population that has been in the U.S. for an 
open-ended period of time. The State whose approved client priorities 
may be different from those listed in this provision will be required 
to adhere to the new client priorities when this rule becomes 
effective.
    Sec. 400.316: Comment: One commenter questioned why services to 
strengthen families and communities were not included as an allowable 
service under TAP when one of the client priorities is long-term cash 
assistance recipients. Another commenter recommended that assistance to 
emerging refugee community leadership to develop their own resources 
should be an allowable service under TAP, particularly in light of the 
proposed time-limitations. One commenter stressed that services 
designed to employ women must include child care. The commenter felt 
that there is a need to renew limited funding for child care under the 
targeted assistance program.
    Response: As we explained in the August 12, 1994, NPRM, services to 
strengthen families and communities, including assistance to refugee 
community leadership, were not included in the list of allowable 
services under the targeted assistance program because we wished to 
focus the use of TAP funds on employability services aimed at helping 
refugees become self-supporting. We feel this focus is 
[[Page 33601]] particularly important since the targeted assistance 
program is the last opportunity to use refugee program dollars to help 
long-term welfare recipients and other unemployed refugees into 
employment before they become time-ineligible for our program. Services 
to strengthen families and communities and to develop refugee 
leadership may be provided through refugee social service funds and ORR 
discretionary programs.
    We agree that services that are designed to employ women must 
include child care services. We expect States to emphasize to their 
providers the need to arrange for child care as part of a family's 
self-sufficiency plan. Targeted assistance funding has always been 
available for child care. We have given special emphasis each year to 
the need for child care services in the notice of targeted assistance 
allocations to States.
    Sec. 400.319: Comment: Four commenters objected to the proposed 
requirement that States with more than one qualifying TAP county that 
wish to allocate differently from the formula allocations presented in 
the ORR TAP notice, must allocate TAP funds based on the most recent 5-
year refugee population. One commenter supported this requirement and 
recommended that States should not be allowed to allocate TAP funds 
based solely on the numbers of refugees receiving welfare. Two 
commenters suggested that States should be authorized to allocate 
social services and targeted assistance funds using welfare data.
    Response: We believe it makes sense to require a State that wishes 
to re-allocate TAP funds to do so based on a population formula that is 
consistent with the population the TAP program is allowed to serve. 
Since this rule will limit eligibility for TAP services to refugees who 
have been in the U.S. 5 years or less, it is reasonable to require that 
funds be allocated based on the most recent 5-year refugee population. 
States may use welfare data as an additional factor, but not as the 
sole factor, in the allocation of targeted assistance funds if they so 
choose, without additional authorization; however, we do not require 
them to do so. A State that chooses to use welfare data in its 
allocation formula may not assign a greater weight to welfare data than 
it has assigned to population data.

General Comments

    Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed rule does not allow 
for an MAA set-aside. The commenter recommended that there should be at 
least a 10-20% set-aside for MAAs and that specific language be 
included which ensures that States and counties give funding priority 
to MAAs for service provision. The commenter also recommended that the 
regulation should include language that ensures that MAAs are treated 
as full partners in all refugee programs. Another commenter urged ORR 
to consider allocating resources for capacity building in communities 
that have an over-36-month refugee population. The commenter felt it 
would be particularly helpful to strengthen MAAs in order to better 
serve their communities.
    Response: We do not believe that regulatory language is the 
appropriate way to ensure full and equal participation by MAAs in the 
refugee program. We plan to review our policy on MAAs and to develop a 
more comprehensive strategy regarding refugee community development 
over the next few years in order to help refugee communities develop 
their capacity to be viable, self-sustaining communities. As part of 
this effort, we will be reviewing the social service and targeted 
assistance allocations notices to determine if changes are needed to 
better ensure service funding to qualified MAAs.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that ORR and JOBS staff consult 
to amend any JOBS regulations that may impede refugee AFDC recipients 
from enrollment in JOBS services. The commenter recommended allowing 
States with large refugee populations the option to make refugee AFDC 
recipients a JOBS target group.
    Response: We intend to consult with JOBS staff on these issues.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the impact that the 
implementation of the proposed rule will have on the changes to the 
quarterly performance report (QPR) that ORR is proposing. The commenter 
recommended that ORR wait to make changes in the QPR reporting form 
until final decisions are reached on the proposed rule.
    Response: Implementation of this rule will not have an adverse 
impact on the revised QPR. The final QPR form will be consistent, 
rather than at odds, with the new regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Procedures

Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be reviewed to 
ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set 
forth in the Executive Order. The Department has determined that this 
rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. An assessment 
of the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives 
(including not regulating) demonstrated that the approach taken in the 
regulation is the most cost-effective and least burdensome while still 
achieving the regulatory objectives.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain collection-of-information requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354) requires the 
Federal government to anticipate and reduce the impact of regulations 
and paperwork requirements on small entities. The primary impact of 
these rules is on State governments and individuals. Therefore, we 
certify that these rules will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because they affect benefits to 
individuals and payments to States. Thus, a regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required.

Statutory Authority

    Section 412(a)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1522(a)(9), authorizes the Secretary of HHS to issue regulations needed 
to carry out the program.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Programs: 93.566, Refugee and Entrant 
Assistance--State-Administered Programs)
List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 400

    Grant programs--Social programs, Health care, Public assistance 
programs, Refugees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 9, 1995.
Mary Jo Bane,
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
    Approved: May 17, 1995.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 45 CFR part 400 is 
amended as follows:

PART 400--REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation for part 400 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Section 412(a)(9), Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1522(a)(9)).


Sec. 400.1  [Amended]

    2. Section 400.1(a) is amended by adding the words ``and other 
public and private non-profit agencies, wherever applicable'' after the 
word ``States''.
    3. Section 400.4(b) is revised to read as follows: [[Page 33602]] 


Sec. 400.4  Purpose of the plan.

* * * * *
    (b) A State must certify no later than 30 days after the beginning 
of each Federal fiscal year that the approved State plan is current and 
continues in effect. If a State wishes to change its plan, a State must 
submit a proposed amendment to the plan. The proposed amendment will be 
reviewed and approved or disapproved in accordance with Sec. 400.8.
    4. Section 400.5(h) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 400.5  Content of the plan.

* * * * *
    (h) Provide that the State will, unless exempted from this 
requirement by the Director, assure that meetings are convened, not 
less often than quarterly, whereby representatives of local affiliates 
of voluntary resettlement agencies, local community service agencies, 
and other agencies that serve refugees meet with representatives of 
State and local governments to plan and coordinate the appropriate 
placement of refugees in advance of the refugees' arrival. All existing 
exemptions to this requirement will expire 90 days after the effective 
date of this rule. Any State that wishes to be exempted from the 
provisions regarding the holding and frequency of meetings may apply by 
submitting a written request to the Director. The request must set 
forth the reasons why the State considers these meetings unnecessary 
because of the absence of problems associated with the planning and 
coordination of refugee placement. An approved exemption will remain in 
effect for three years, at which time a State may reapply.


Sec. 400.9  [Amended]

    5. Section 400.9(g) is amended to correct the spelling of the word 
``initiable'' to ``initial''.


Sec. 400.11  [Amended]

    6. Section 400.11(b)(1) is amended by removing the words ``on a 
form'' after the word ``year'' at the end of the paragraph and adding 
in their place the words ``in accordance with guidelines''.
    7. Section 400.11(b)(2) is amended by adding the words ``developed 
on the basis of a local consultative process'' after the word ``plan'' 
and by removing the words ``no later than 45 days prior to the 
beginning of the State's annual planning cycle for social services'' 
and adding the words ``and at a time'' after the word ``form''.
    8. Section 400.11(b)(3) is amended by removing the word 
``quarterly'' before the word ``estimates''.
    9. Section 400.11(c) is amended by adding a period ``.'' after the 
word ``quarter'', removing the remainder of the sentence, beginning 
with the word ``except'' and ending with the word ``year'', and 
replacing it with a new sentence that reads as follows:
* * * * *
    (c) * * * Final financial reports must be submitted in accordance 
with the requirements described in Sec. 400.210.
* * * * *


Sec. 400.13  [Amended]

    10. Section 400.13(a) is amended by adding the words ``Refugee 
Resettlement Program'' before the word ``RRP'' and placing the word 
``RRP'' in parentheses.
    11. Section 400.13(d) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 400.13  Cost allocation.

* * * * *
    (d) Costs of case management services, as defined in Sec. 400.2, 
may not be charged to the CMA grant.
    12. Section 400.62 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 400.62  Need standards and payment levels.

* * * * *
    (c) The date refugee cash assistance begins must be the same date, 
in relation to the date of application, as assistance would begin under 
a State's plan for AFDC under Sec. 206.10(a)(6) of this title.

Subpart F--Requirements for Employability Services and Employment

    13. The heading of subpart F is revised to read as set forth above.
    14. Section 400.70 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 400.70  Basis and scope.

    This subpart sets forth requirements for applicants for and 
recipients of refugee cash assistance concerning registration for 
employment services, participation in social services or targeted 
assistance, and acceptance of appropriate employment under section 
412(e)(2)(A) of the Act. A refugee who is an applicant for or recipient 
of refugee cash assistance must comply with the requirements in this 
subpart.


Sec. 400.71  [Amended]

    15. Section 400.71 is amended by alphabetically adding the 
definition for the term ``family self-sufficiency plan'' to read as 
follows:
* * * * *
    Family self-sufficiency plan means a plan that addresses the 
employment-related service needs of the employable members in a family 
for the purpose of enabling the family to become self-supporting 
through the employment of one or more family members.
* * * * *


Sec. 400.75  [Amended]

    16. Section 400.75(a)(1) is amended by adding the words ``, within 
30 days of receipt of aid,'' after the word ``and''. Section 
400.75(a)(2) is removed and paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), 
and (a)(7) are redesignated as paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), 
(a)(5), and (a)(6), respectively.
    17. Section 400.76 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(7) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 400.76  Criteria for exemption from registration for employment 
services, participation in employability service programs, and 
acceptance of appropriate offers of employment.

    (a) * * * 
    (7) A parent or other caretaker relative of a child under age 3 who 
personally provides full-time care of the child with only very brief 
and infrequent absences from the child. Only one parent or other 
relative in a case may be exempt under this paragraph.
* * * * *
    18. Section 400.76(a)(9) is amended by removing the number ``3'' 
and adding in its place the number ``6''.
    19. Section 400.76(b) is amended by removing the words ``carrying 
out job search,'' after the word ``programs,''.


Sec. 400.79  [Amended]

    20. Section 400.79(a) is amended by adding the words ``as part of a 
family self-sufficiency plan where applicable'' after the words ``must 
be developed'' and by adding the words ``in a filing unit'' after the 
words ``refugee cash assistance''.
    21. Section 400.79(c)(3) is removed.
    22. Section 400.80 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 400.80  Job search requirements.

    A State must require job search for employable refugees where 
appropriate.


Sec. 400.82  [Amended]

    23. The heading in section 400.82 and the undesignated centerhead 
immediately preceding it are amended by removing the words ``to carry 
out job search or'' after the word ``refusal'' in the title.
    24. Section 400.82(a) is amended by removing the words ``to carry 
out job search,'' after the word ``services,''.
    25. Section 400.82 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(3)(iii). 
[[Page 33603]] 
    26. The heading of Sec. 400.83 is revised to read as set forth 
below.
    27. Section 400.83 is amended by redesignating the current text as 
paragraph (b) and by adding a new paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec. 400.83  Conciliation and fair hearings.
    (a) A conciliation period prior to the imposition of sanctions must 
be provided for in accordance with the following time-limitations: The 
conciliation effort shall begin as soon as possible, but no later than 
10 days following the date of failure or refusal to participate, and 
may continue for a period not to exceed 30 days. Either the State or 
the recipient may terminate this period sooner when either believes 
that the dispute cannot be resolved by conciliation.
* * * * *


Sec. 400.94  [Amended]

    28. Section 400.94(a) is amended by removing the words ``refugees 
who apply'' and adding in their place the words ``each individual 
member of a family unit that applies'' before the words ``for medical 
assistance''.


Sec. 400.100  [Amended]

    29. Section 400.100(d) is amended by adding the words ``who are not 
eligible for Medicaid'' after the words ``cash assistance''.
    30. Section 400.104 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 400.104  Continued coverage of recipients who receive increased 
earnings from employment.

    If a refugee who is receiving refugee medical assistance receives 
increased earnings from employment, the increased earnings shall not 
affect the refugee's continued medical assistance eligibility. The 
refugee shall continue to receive refugee medical assistance until he/
she reaches the end of his or her time-eligibility period for refugee 
medical assistance, in accordance with Sec. 400.100(b). In cases where 
a refugee obtains private medical coverage, any payment of RMA for that 
individual must be reduced by the amount of the third party payment.


Sec. 400.106  [Amended]

    31. Section 400.106 is amended by adding the words ``, only to the 
extent that sufficient funds are appropriated,'' after the words 
``Secs. 400.94''.


Sec. 400.107  [Amended]

    32. The heading of Sec. 400.107 is amended by removing the words 
``Health assessments'' and adding in their place the words ``Medical 
screening''.
    33. Section 400.107(a) is amended by removing the words ``a health 
assessment'' and adding in their place the words ``medical screening'' 
and by replacing the word ``assessment'' with the word ``screening'' 
each time the word ``assessment'' is used.


Sec. 400.140  [Amended]

    34. Section 400.140 is amended by adding the words ``formula 
allocation'' before the word ``grants''.


Sec. 400.141  [Amended]

    35. Section 400.141 is amended by removing the words ``any title XX 
social service as defined below or'' from the first paragraph and by 
removing the second paragraph.
    36. Section 400.145 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) that 
reads as follows:


Sec. 400.145  Opportunity to apply for services.

* * * * *
    (c) A State must insure that women have the same opportunities as 
men to participate in all services funded under this part, including 
job placement services.
    37. Section 400.146 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 400.146  Use of funds.

    The State must use its social service grants primarily for 
employability services designed to enable refugees to obtain jobs 
within one year of becoming enrolled in services in order to achieve 
economic self-sufficiency as soon as possible. Social services may 
continue to be provided after a refugee has entered a job to help the 
refugee retain employment or move to a better job. Social service funds 
may not be used for long-term training programs such as vocational 
training that last for more than a year or educational programs that 
are not intended to lead to employment within a year.
    38. Section 400.147 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 400.147  Priority in provision of services.

    A State must plan its social service program and allocate its 
social service funds in such a manner that services are provided to 
refugees in the following order of priority, except in certain 
individual extreme circumstances:
    (a) All newly arriving refugees during their first year in the 
U.S., who apply for services;
    (b) Refugees who are receiving cash assistance;
    (c) Unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash assistance; and
    (d) Employed refugees in need of services to retain employment or 
to attain economic independence.
    39. The heading of Sec. 400.152 is revised to read as set forth 
below.
    40. Section 400.152(b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 400.152  Limitations on eligibility for services.

* * * * *
    (b) A State may not provide services under this subpart, except for 
referral and interpreter services, to refugees who have been in the 
United States for more than 60 months, except that refugees who are 
receiving employability services, as defined in Sec. 400.154, as of 
September 30, 1995, as part of an employability plan, may continue to 
receive those services through September 30, 1996, or until the 
services are completed, whichever occurs first, regardless of their 
length of residence in the U.S.


Sec. 400.153  [Removed]

    41. Section 400.153 is removed.


Sec. 400.154  [Amended]

    42. Section 400.154(a) is amended by adding the words ``a family 
self-sufficiency plan and'' after the words ``development of''.
    43. Section 400.154(g) is amended by adding the words ``for 
children'' after the words ``Day care''.
    44. Section 400.154(h) is amended by adding the words ``or for the 
acceptance or retention of employment'' after the words ``employability 
service''.
    45. Section 400.154 is amended by removing the note after paragraph 
(j).
    46. Section 400.155(b) is amended by adding the words ``, to 
explain the purpose of these services, and facilitate access to these 
services'' after the words ``available services'' at the end of the 
paragraph.
    47. Section 400.155(c)(1) is amended by adding the words ``or 
families'' after the word ``persons'' and before the word ``in''.
    48. Section 400.155(d) is amended by adding the words ``for 
children'' after the words ``Day care''.
    49. Section 400.155(h) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 400.155  Other services.

* * * * *
    (h) Any additional service, upon submission to and approval by the 
Director of ORR, aimed at strengthening and supporting the ability of a 
refugee individual, family, or refugee community to achieve and 
maintain economic self-sufficiency, family stability, or community 
integration which has been demonstrated as [[Page 33604]] effective and 
is not available from any other funding source.


Sec. 400.156  [Amended]

    50. Section 400.156 is amended by revising the heading to read as 
set forth below:
    51. Section 400.156(a) is amended by removing the words ``job 
search and'' after the word ``refugee''.
    52. Section 400.156(b) is amended by removing the words ``and not 
duplicate the provision of such services to such refugee'' after the 
word ``sponsors'' and adding in their place the words ``in order to 
ensure the provision of seamless, coordinated services to refugees that 
are not duplicative''.
    53. Section 400.156 is amended by adding new paragraphs (c), (d), 
(e), (f) and (g) that read as follows:


Sec. 400.156  Service requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) English language instruction funded under this part must be 
provided in a concurrent, rather than sequential, time period with 
employment or with other employment-related services.
    (d) Services funded under this part must be refugee-specific 
services which are designed specifically to meet refugee needs and are 
in keeping with the rules and objectives of the refugee program, except 
that vocational or job skills training, on-the-job training, or English 
language training need not be refugee-specific.
    (e) Services funded under this part must be provided to the maximum 
extent feasible in a manner that is culturally and linguistically 
compatible with a refugee's language and cultural background.
    (f) Services funded under this part must be provided to the maximum 
extent feasible in a manner that includes the use of bilingual/
bicultural women on service agency staffs to ensure adequate service 
access by refugee women.
    (g) A family self-sufficiency plan must be developed for anyone who 
receives employment-related services funded under this part.


Sec. 400.203  [Amended]

    54. Section 400.203 is amended by adding the words ``To the extent 
that sufficient funds are appropriated,'' before the words ``Federal 
funding'' at the beginning of paragraphs (a) and (c).


Sec. 400.204  [Amended]

    55. Section 400.204 is amended by adding the words ``To the extent 
that sufficient funds are appropriated,'' before the words ``Federal 
funding'' at the beginning of paragraphs (a) and (c).
    56. Sections 400.206 is amended by revising the section heading as 
set forth below, by designating the existing paragraph as paragraph 
(a), and by adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 400.206  Federal funding for social services and targeted 
assistance services.

* * * * *
    (b) Federal funding is available for targeted assistance services 
as set forth in subpart L of this part, including reasonable and 
necessary identifiable State administrative costs of providing such 
services, not to exceed 5 percent of the total targeted assistance 
award to the State.
    57. Section 400.207 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 400.207  Federal funding for administrative costs.

    Federal funding is available for reasonable and necessary 
identifiable administrative costs of providing assistance and services 
under this part only for those assistance and service programs set 
forth in Secs. 400.203 through 400.205 for which Federal funding is 
currently made available under the refugee program. A State may claim 
only those costs that are determined to be reasonable and allowable as 
defined by the Administration for Children and Families. Such costs may 
be included in a State's claims against its quarterly grants for the 
purposes set forth in Secs. 400.203 through 400.205 of this part.
    58. Section 400.210 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 400.210  Time limits for obligating and expending funds and for 
filing State claims.

    Federal funding is available for a State's expenditures for 
assistance and services to eligible refugees for which the following 
time limits are met:
    (a) CMA grants, as described at Sec. 400.11(a)(1) of this part:
    (1) Except for services for unaccompanied minors, a State must use 
its CMA grants for costs attributable to the Federal fiscal year (FFY) 
in which the Department awards the grants. With respect to CMA funds 
used for services for unaccompanied minors, the State may use its CMA 
funds for services provided during the Federal fiscal year following 
the FFY in which the Department awards the funds.
    (2) A State's final financial report on expenditures of CMA grants, 
including CMA expenditures for services for unaccompanied minors, must 
be received no later than one year after the end of the FFY in which 
the Department awarded the grant. At that time, the Department will 
deobligate any unexpended funds, including any unliquidated 
obligations.
    (b) Social service grants and targeted assistance grants, as 
described, respectively, at Secs. 400.11(a)(2) and 400.311 of this 
part:
    (1) A State must obligate its social service and targeted 
assistance grants no later than one year after the end of the FFY in 
which the Department awards the grant.
    (2) A State's final financial report on expenditures of social 
service and targeted assistance grants must be received no later than 
two years after the end of the FFY in which the Department awarded the 
grant. At that time, the Department will deobligate any unexpended 
funds, including any unliquidated obligations.
    59. Subpart J is amended by adding a new Sec. 400.212 that reads as 
follows:


Sec. 400.212  Restrictions in the use of funds.

    Federal funding under this part is not available for travel outside 
the United States without the written approval of the Director.

Subpart K--Waivers and Withdrawals

    60. The heading of subpart K is revised to read as set forth above:
    61. Subpart K is amended by revising Sec. 400.300 and adding a new 
Sec. 400.301, that read as follows:


Sec. 400.300  Waivers.

    If a State wishes to apply for a waiver of a requirement of this 
part, the Director may waive such requirement with respect to such 
State, unless required by statute, if the Director determines that such 
waiver will advance the purposes of this part and is appropriate and 
consistent with Federal refugee policy objectives. To the fullest 
extent practicable, the Director will approve or disapprove an 
application for a waiver within 130 days of receipt of such 
application. The Director shall provide timely written notice of the 
reasons for denial to States whose applications are disapproved.


Sec. 400.301  Withdrawal from the refugee program.

    (a) In the event that a State decides to cease participation in the 
refugee program, the State must provide 120 days advance notice to the 
Director before withdrawing from the program.
    (b) To participate in the refugee program, a State is expected to 
operate all components of the refugee program, including refugee cash 
and medical assistance, social services, preventive health, and an 
unaccompanied minors program if appropriate. A State is also expected 
to play a coordinating role in [[Page 33605]] the provision of 
assistance and services in accordance with Sec. 400.5(b). In the event 
that a State wishes to retain responsibility for only part of the 
refugee program, it must obtain prior approval from the Director of 
ORR. Such approval will be granted only under extraordinary 
circumstances and if it is in the best interest of the Government.
    (c) When a State withdraws from all or part of the refugee program, 
the Director may authorize a replacement designee or designees to 
administer the provision of assistance and services, as appropriate, to 
refugees in that State. A replacement designee must adhere to the same 
regulations under this part that apply to a State-administered program, 
with the exception of the following provisions: 45 CFR 400.5(d), 400.7, 
400.55(b)(2), 400.56(a)(1), 400.56(a)(2), 400.56(b)(2)(i), 400.94(a), 
400.94(b), 400.94(c), and subpart L. Certain provisions are excepted 
because they apply only to States and become moot when a State 
withdraws from participation in the refugee program and is replaced by 
another entity. States would continue to be responsible for 
administering the other excepted provisions because these provisions 
refer to the administration of other State-run public assistance 
programs.
    62. Part 400 is amended by adding a new subpart L, that reads as 
follows:

Subpart L--Targeted Assistance

Sec.
400.310  Basis and scope.
400.311  Definitions.
400.312  Opportunity to apply for services.

Funding and Service Priorities

400.313  Use of funds.
400.314  Priority in provision of services.
400.315  General eligibility requirements.
400.316  Scope of targeted assistance services.
400.317  Service requirements.
400.318  Eligible grantees.
400.319  Allocation of funds.

Subpart L--Targeted Assistance


Sec. 400.310  Basis and scope.

    This subpart sets forth requirements concerning formula allocation 
grants to States under section 412(c)(2) of the Act for targeted 
assistance.


Sec. 400.311  Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart--
    ``Targeted assistance grants'' means formula allocation funding to 
States for assistance to counties and similar areas in the States 
where, because of factors such as unusually large refugee populations 
(including secondary migration), high refugee concentrations, and high 
use of public assistance by refugees, there exists and can be 
demonstrated a specific need for supplementation of available resources 
for services to refugees.
Sec. 400.312  Opportunity to apply for services.

    A State must provide any individual wishing to do so an opportunity 
to apply for targeted assistance services and determine the eligibility 
of each applicant.

Funding and Service Priorities


Sec. 400.313  Use of funds.

    A State must use its targeted assistance funds primarily for 
employability services designed to enable refugees to obtain jobs with 
less than one year's participation in the targeted assistance program 
in order to achieve economic self-sufficiency as soon as possible. 
Targeted assistance services may continue to be provided after a 
refugee has entered a job to help the refugee retain employment or move 
to a better job. Targeted assistance funds may not be used for long-
term training programs such as vocational training that last for more 
than a year or educational programs that are not intended to lead to 
employment within a year.


Sec. 400.314  Priority in provision of services.

    A State must plan its targeted assistance program and allocate its 
targeted assistance funds in such a manner that services are provided 
to refugees in the following order of priority, except in certain 
individual extreme circumstances:
    (a) Cash assistance recipients, particularly long-term recipients;
    (b) Unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash assistance; and
    (c) Employed refugees in need of services to retain employment or 
to attain economic independence.


Sec. 400.315  General eligibility requirements.

    (a) For purposes of determining eligibility of refugees for 
services under this subpart, the same standards and criteria shall be 
applied as are applied in the determination of eligibility for refugee 
social services under Secs. 400.150 and 400.152(a).
    (b) A State may not provide services under this subpart, except for 
referral and interpreter services, to refugees who have been in the 
United States for more than 60 months, except that refugees who are 
receiving employability services, as defined in Sec. 400.316, as of 
September 30, 1995, as part of an employability plan, may continue to 
receive those services through September 30, 1996, or until the 
services are completed, whichever occurs first, regardless of their 
length of residence in the U.S.


Sec. 400.316  Scope of targeted assistance services.

    A State may provide the same scope of services under this subpart 
as may be provided to refugees under Secs. 400.154 and 400.155, with 
the exception of Sec. 400.155(h).


Sec. 400.317  Service requirements.

    In providing targeted assistance services to refugees, a State must 
adhere to the same requirements as are applied to the provision of 
refugee social services under Sec. 400.156.


Sec. 400.318  Eligible grantees.

    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 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).


Sec. 400.319  Allocation of funds.

    (a) A State with more than one qualifying targeted assistance 
county may allocate its targeted assistance funds differently from the 
formula allocations for counties presented in the ORR targeted 
assistance notice in a fiscal year only on the basis of its population 
of refugees who arrived in the U.S. during the most recent 5-year 
period. A State may use welfare data as an additional factor in the 
allocation of targeted assistance funds if it so chooses; however, a 
State may not assign a greater weight to welfare data than it has 
assigned to population data in its allocation formula.
    (b) A State must assure that not less than 95 percent of the total 
award to the State is made available to the qualified county or 
counties, except in those cases where the qualified county or counties 
have agreed to let the State administer the targeted assistance program 
in the county's stead.

[FR Doc. 95-15701 Filed 6-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P