[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 135 (Friday, July 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36292-36299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17338]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Refugee Resettlement


Refugee Resettlement Program: Allocations to States of FY 1995 
Funds for Refugee Social Services and for Refugees Who Are Former 
Political Prisoners From Vietnam

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

ACTION: Final notice of allocations to States of FY 1995 funds for 
refugee\1\ social services and for refugees who are former political 
prisoners from Vietnam.

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

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

SUMMARY: This notice establishes the allocations to States of FY 1995 
funds for social services under the Refugee Resettlement Program (RRP). 
In order to help meet the special needs of former political prisoners 
from Vietnam, the Director has added to the formula allocation 
$2,000,000 in funds 

[[Page 36293]]
previously set aside for social services discretionary projects.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 14, 1995.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of the proposed social service 
allocations to States was published in the Federal Register on March 8, 
1995 (60 FR 12775). The population estimates that were used in the 
proposed notice have been adjusted as a result of additional population 
information submitted by 10 States.

I. Amounts For Allocation

    The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $80,802,000 
in FY 1995 refugee social service funds as part of the FY 1995 
appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services (Pub. L. 
103-333).
    Of the total of $80,802,000, the Director of ORR is making 
available to States $68,681,700 (85%) under the allocation formula set 
out in this notice. These funds are available for the purpose of 
providing social services to refugees. In addition, the Director of ORR 
is making available $2,000,000 from discretionary social service funds 
to be allocated under the formula in this notice for additional 
services to former political prisoners from Vietnam. Although we had 
indicated in the FY 1994 social service allocations notice that FY 1994 
would be the last year in which a special set-aside would be allocated 
for additional services for former political prisoners from Vietnam, we 
are continuing this special set-aside in FY 1995 due to continued 
arrivals of this population in FY 1995.

A. Discretionary Social Service Funds for Vietnamese Political 
Prisoners

    In recognition of the special vulnerability of refugees who are 
former political prisoners from Vietnam, the Director of ORR is setting 
aside $2,000,000 from discretionary social service funds to be 
allocated under the formula set forth in this announcement, based on 
the number of actual political prisoner arrivals in FY 1994. This 
formula allocation is shown separately in Table 1 (cols. 7 and 8). 
States are required to use this allocation to provide additional 
services, as described below, to recent arrivals from Vietnam who are 
former political prisoners (FPPs) and members of their families.
    Allowable services for the above-cited funds for political 
prisoners include the following direct services: (1) Specialized 
orientation and adjustment services, including peer support activities 
and (2) specialized employment-related services, as needed. Funds may 
also be used for the costs of leadership development training, 
including the costs of travel to attend FPP conferences, for the 
purpose of facilitating the ability of former political prisoners to 
continue the FPP services that were begun under this program after the 
set-aside program ends. Adjustment services include any service listed 
under 45 CFR 400.155(c) of the ORR regulations. Under no circumstances 
may these funds be used for direct cash payments or stipends (other 
than for travel costs to conferences), for the purchase of advertising 
space or air time, or for services covered under the Department of 
State Reception and Placement Cooperative Agreements.
    Allowable services under this allocation for Vietnamese political 
prisoners are intended to supplement, not to supplant, those services 
provided to refugees in general under the social service formula 
allocation, discussed below.
    ORR intends to provide technical assistance to States and 
organizations that request it to assure effective program development 
and implementation.
    Because these funds are to provide specifically for services for 
former political prisoners from Vietnam, States which allocate social 
service funds to other local administrative jurisdictions, such as 
counties, shall do so for these funds, using a formula which reflects 
arrivals of this target population during FY 1994.
    ORR strongly encourages States and other contracting jurisdictions, 
in selecting service providers for the above, to award these funds, to 
the extent possible, to qualified refugee mutual assistance 
associations (MAAs) with experience serving the target population. All 
contractors receiving these funds should have Vietnamese language 
capacity and Vietnamese cultural understanding.
    States are required to provide to ORR program performance 
information on the Vietnamese political prisoner program that meets the 
reporting requirements contained in 45 CFR 92.40, under the terms and 
conditions of the social services grant awards to States. The 
information to be contained in the narrative portion of State quarterly 
performance reports must include: (1) Names of service contractors; (2) 
categories of activities provided; (3) numbers of persons served; and 
(4) outcomes, to the extent possible.

B. Refugee Social Service Funds

    The population figures for the social service allocation include 
refugees, Cuban/Haitian entrants, and Amerasians from Vietnam since 
these populations may be served through funds addressed in this notice. 
(A State must, however, have an approved State plan for the Cuban/
Haitian Entrant Program or indicate in its refugee program State plan 
that Cuban/Haitian entrants will be served in order to use funds on 
behalf of entrants as well as refugees.)
    The Director is allocating $68,681,700 to States on the basis of 
each State's proportion of the national population of refugees who had 
been in the U.S. 3 years or less as of October 1, 1994 (including a 
floor amount for States which have small refugee populations).
    The use of the 3-year population base in the allocation formula is 
required by section 412(c)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(INA) which states that the ``funds available for a fiscal year for 
grants and contracts [for social services] * * * shall be allocated 
among the States based on the total number of refugees (including 
children and adults) who arrived in the United States not more than 36 
months before the beginning of such fiscal year and who are actually 
residing in each State (taking into account secondary migration) as of 
the beginning of the fiscal year.''
    As established in the FY 1991 social services notice published in 
the Federal Register of August 29, 1991, section I, ``Allocation 
Amounts'' (56 FR 42745), a variable floor amount for States which have 
small refugee populations is calculated as follows: If the application 
of the regular allocation formula yields less than $100,000, then--
    (1) A base amount of $75,000 is provided for a State with a 
population of 50 or fewer refugees who have been in the U.S. 3 years or 
less; and
    (2) For a State with more than 50 refugees who have been in the 
U.S. 3 years or less: (a) A floor has been calculated consisting of 
$50,000 plus the regular per capita allocation for refugees above 50 up 
to a total of $100,000 (in other words, the maximum under the floor 
formula is $100,000); (b) if this calculation has yielded less than 
$75,000, a base amount of $75,000 is provided for the State.
    ORR has consistently supported floors for small States in order to 
provide sufficient funds to carry out a minimum service program. Given 
the range in 

[[Page 36294]]
numbers of refugees in the small States, we have concluded that a 
variable floor, as established in the FY 1991 notice, will be more 
reflective of needs than previous across-the-board floors.
    The $12,120,300 in remaining social service funds (15% of the total 
funds available) is expected to be used by ORR on a discretionary basis 
to provide funds for individual projects intended to contribute to the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the refugee resettlement program. Grant 
announcements on discretionary initiatives will be issued separately.
Population to be Served
    Although the allocation formula is based on the 3-year refugee 
population, in accordance with the current requirements of 45 CFR part 
400 subpart I--Refugee Social Services, States are not required to 
limit social service programs to refugees who have been in the U.S. 
only 3 years. In keeping with 45 CFR 400.147(a), a State must allocate 
an appropriate portion of its social service funds, based on population 
and service needs, as determined by the State, for services to newly 
arriving refugees who have been in the U.S. less than one year.
    While 45 CFR 400.147(b) requires that in providing employability 
services, a State must give priority to a refugee who is receiving cash 
assistance, social service programs should not be limited exclusively 
to refugees who are cash assistance recipients. If a State intends to 
provide services to refugees who have been in the U.S. more than 3 
years, 45 CFR 400.147(c) requires the State to specify and justify as 
part of its Annual Services Plan those funds that it proposes to use to 
provide services to those refugees.
    However, effective October 1, 1995, the current requirements under 
Sec. 400.147 will no longer be in effect and will be replaced by new 
provisions in accordance with the final rule published in the Federal 
Register on June 28, 1995, (60 FR 33584). Under the new provisions, 
States will be required to provide services 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.
    ORR expects States to ensure that refugee social services are made 
available to special populations such as Amerasians and former 
political prisoners from Vietnam, in addition to special funding that 
ORR may designate to address the special needs of these populations.
    ORR funds may not be used to provide services to United States 
citizens, since they are not covered under the authorizing legislation, 
with the following exceptions: (1) Under current regulations at 45 CFR 
400.208, services may be provided to a U.S.-born minor child in a 
family in which both parents are refugees or, if only one parent is 
present, in which that parent is a refugee; and (2) under the FY 1989 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act (Pub. L. No. 100-461), services may be provided to 
an Amerasian from Vietnam who is a U.S. citizen and who enters the U.S. 
after October 1, 1988.
Service Priorities
    Refugee social service funding should be used to assist refugee 
families to achieve economic independence. To this end, ORR expects 
States to ensure that a coherent plan of services is developed for each 
eligible family that addresses the family's needs from time of arrival 
until attainment of economic independence. Each service plan should 
address a family's needs for both employment-related services and other 
needed social services.
    Reflecting section 412(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA, the Director 
expects States to ``insure that women have the same opportunities as 
men to participate in training and instruction.'' In addition, States 
are expected to make sure that services are provided in a manner that 
encourages the use of bilingual women on service agency staffs to 
ensure adequate service access by refugee women. In order to facilitate 
refugee self-support, the Director also expects States to implement 
strategies which address simultaneously the employment potential of 
both male and female wage earners in a family unit, particularly in the 
case of large families. States are expected to make every effort to 
assure the availability of day care services in order to allow women 
with children the opportunity to participate in employment services or 
to accept or retain employment. To accomplish this, day care may be 
treated as a priority employment-related service under the refugee 
social services program. Refugees who are participating in employment 
services or have accepted employment are eligible for day care 
services. For an employed refugee, day care funded by refugee social 
service dollars must be limited to one year after the refugee becomes 
employed. States are expected to use day care funding from other 
publicly funded mainstream programs as a prior resource and are 
expected to work with service providers to assure maximum access to 
other publicly funded resources for day care.
    In accordance with 45 CFR 400.146, if a State's cash assistance 
dependency rate for refugees (as defined in section 400.146(b)) is 55% 
or more, funds awarded under this notice (with the exception of the 
political prisoner set-aside) are subject to a requirement that at 
least 85% of the State's award be used for employability services as 
set forth in section 400.154. (Beginning October 1, 1995, States will 
no longer have to adhere to this requirement since the final rule 
eliminates this requirement.) ORR expects these funds to be used for 
services which directly enhance refugee employment potential, have 
specific employment objectives, and are designed to enable refugees to 
obtain jobs in less than one year as part of a plan to achieve self-
sufficiency. This reflects the Congressional objective that 
``employable refugees should be placed on jobs as soon as possible 
after their arrival in the United States'' and that social service 
funds be focused on ``employment-related services, English-as-a-second-
language training (in non-work hours where possible), and case-
management services'' (INA, section 412(a)(1)(B)). If refugee social 
service funds are used for the provision of English language training, 
such training should be provided concurrently, rather than 
sequentially, with employment or with other employment-related 
services, to the maximum extent possible. ORR also encourages the 
continued provision of services after a refugee has entered a job to 
help the refugee retain employment or move to a better job.
    Since current welfare dependency data are not available, those 
States that historically have had dependency rates at 55% and above are 
invited to submit a request for a waiver of the 85% requirement if they 
can provide reliable documentation that demonstrates a lower dependency 
rate.
    ORR will consider granting a waiver of the 85% provision if a State 
meets one of the following conditions:
    1. The State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of 
ORR that the dependency rate of refugees who have been in the U.S. 24 
months or less is below 55% in the State.
    2. The State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that 
(a) less than 85% of the State's social service allocation is 
sufficient to meet all employment-related needs of the State's refugees 
and (b) there are non-employment-related service needs 

[[Page 36295]]
which are so extreme as to justify an allowance above the basic 15%. Or
    3. In accordance with section 412(c)(1)(C) of the INA, the State 
submits to the Director a plan (established by or in consultation with 
local governments) which the Director determines provides for the 
maximum appropriate provision of employment-related services for, and 
the maximum placement of, employable refugees consistent with 
performance standards established under section 106 of the Job Training 
Partnership Act.
    Refugee social services should be provided in a manner that is 
culturally and linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and 
cultural background. In light of the increasingly diverse population of 
refugees who are resettling in this country, refugee service agencies 
will need to develop practical ways of providing culturally and 
linguistically appropriate services to a changing ethnic population. 
Refugee-specific social services should be provided which are 
specifically designed to meet refugee needs and are in keeping with the 
rules and objectives of the refugee program, particularly during a 
refugee's initial years of resettlement. When planning State refugee 
services, States are strongly encouraged to take into account the 
reception and placement (R & P) services provided by local resettlement 
agencies in order to utilize these resources in the overall program 
design and to ensure the provision of seamless services to refugees.
    In order to provide culturally and linguistically compatible 
services in as cost-efficient a manner as possible in a time of limited 
resources, ORR encourages States and counties to promote and give 
special consideration to the provision of refugee social services 
through coalitions of refugee service organizations, such as coalitions 
of MAAs, voluntary resettlement agencies, or a variety of service 
providers. ORR believes it is essential for refugee-serving 
organizations to form close partnerships in the provision of services 
to refugees in order to be able to respond adequately to a changing 
refugee picture. Coalition-building and consolidation of providers is 
particularly important in communities with multiple service providers 
in order to ensure better coordination of services and maximum use of 
funding for services by minimizing the funds used for multiple 
administrative overhead costs.
    States should also expect to use funds available under this notice 
to pay for social services which are provided to refugees who 
participate in alternative projects. Section 412(e)(7)(A) of the INA 
provides that:

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

    This provision is generally known as the Wilson/Fish Amendment. The 
Department has already issued a separate notice in the Federal Register 
with respect to applications for such projects (50 FR 24583, June 11, 
1985). The notice on alternative projects does not contain provisions 
for the allocation of additional social service funds beyond the 
amounts established in this notice. Therefore a State which may wish to 
consider carrying out such a project should take note of this in 
planning its use of social service funds being allocated under the 
present notice.
Funding to MAAs
    ORR no longer provides set-aside funds to refugee mutual assistance 
associations as a separate component under the social service notice; 
instead we have folded these funds into the social service formula 
allocation to States. Elimination of the MAA set-aside, however, does 
not represent any reduction in ORR's commitment to MAAs as important 
participants in refugee resettlement. ORR believes that the continued 
and/or increased utilization of qualified refugee mutual assistance 
associations in the delivery of social services helps to ensure the 
provision of culturally and linguistically appropriate services as well 
as increasing the effectiveness of the overall service system. 
Therefore, ORR expects States to use MAAs as service providers to the 
maximum extent possible. ORR strongly encourages States when 
contracting for services, including employment services, to give 
consideration to the special strengths of MAAs, whenever contract 
bidders are otherwise equally qualified, provided that the MAA has the 
capability to deliver services in a manner that is culturally and 
linguistically compatible with the background of the target population 
to be served. ORR also expects States to continue to assist MAAs in 
seeking other public and/or private funds for the provision of services 
to refugee clients.
    ORR defines MAAs as organizations with the following 
qualifications:
    a. The organization is legally incorporated as a nonprofit 
organization; and
    b. Not less than 51% of the composition of the Board of Directors 
or governing board of the mutual assistance association is comprised of 
refugees or former refugees, including both refugee men and women.
State Administration
    States are reminded that under current regulations at 45 CFR 
400.206 and 400.207, States have the flexibility to charge the 
following types of administrative costs against their refugee program 
social service grants, if they so choose: direct and indirect 
administrative costs incurred for the overall management and operation 
of the State refugee program, including its coordination, planning, 
policy and program development, oversight and monitoring, data 
collection and reporting, and travel. See also State Transmittal No. 
88-40.

II. Discussion of Comments Received

    We received 8 letters of comment in response to the notice of 
proposed FY 1995 allocations to States for refugee social services. The 
comments are summarized below and are followed in each case by the 
Department's response.
    Comment: Six commenters made comments regarding requirements for 
the set-aside of discretionary funds for services to former political 
prisoners (FPP) from Vietnam. Four commenters suggested that funds from 
the set-aside be made available to provide leadership development 
training opportunities for former political prisoners (FPPs). One of 
these commenters recommended that training be provided to former 
political prisoners who arrived in the early 1990's to provide services 
to newly arrived FPPs in order to expand current programs and to 
prepare for the closing of funded services. Another commenter suggested 
training be provided to volunteers such as detainees, lawyers, doctors, 
and community leaders to form a detainee support group to help FPPs 
move from dependency to self-sufficiency. Two commenters suggested that 
funds be made available for the costs of travel to attend FPP 
conferences and meetings.
    A fifth commenter recommended that the notice include an 
expectation by ORR that agencies receiving FPP awards should 
participate in a planning process that ensures that other service 
providers, such as voluntary agencies, have input in the design of 
proposed services and in a coordinated referral system once an award is 
made. 

[[Page 36296]]

    A sixth commenter recommended that counties which administer FPP 
programs be allowed 15 percent for administrative costs and that States 
be allowed no more than 5 percent for administrative costs.
    Response: In consideration of the comments, we have included 
leadership development training as an allowable activity under the FPP 
set-aside, including the costs of travel and attendance of FPP 
leadership at FPP conferences and meetings. Leadership training should 
focus on enabling participants to continue the activities that were 
begun under this program after ORR funding ends.
    Although we encourage coordination and collaboration between 
service providers with regard to both planning the design of services 
and coordinating referrals, we do not believe that the last year of the 
FPP set-aside is an appropriate time to introduce a new requirement.
    Regarding the distribution of administrative costs between county 
and State, we have no specific guidance regarding this issue and 
believe this is an issue that needs to be resolved between the county 
and the State.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the notice be clarified to 
state that social service funds may be used to provide services to 
unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash assistance as long as 
refugees who are receiving cash assistance are given priority for 
services. The commenter suggested that States should be required to 
provide services to refugees not receiving cash assistance as a way to 
keep these refugees from needing to access welfare.
    Response: We believe that the notice is clear that social service 
funds may be used to provide services to unemployed refugees who are 
not receiving cash assistance. The notice, under the section 
``Population to be Served,'' states that ``[w]hile 45 CFR 400.147(b) 
requires that in providing employability services, a State must give 
priority to a refugee who is receiving cash assistance, social service 
programs should not be limited exclusively to refugees who are cash 
assistance recipients.''
    As the wording indicates, States may, and are encouraged to, 
provide services to unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash 
assistance. However, States are not required to provide services to 
such refugees. States are required only to give priority in providing 
services to refugees who are receiving cash assistance.
    Effective October 1, 1995, however, in keeping with provisions in 
the final rule, States will be required to provide services to refugees 
according to a specific order of priority. Under the new rule, 
unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash assistance will be the 
third priority group after new arrivals and cash assistance recipients.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the notice include, in 
addition to the provision for developing a service plan for refugees 
accessing ORR-funded services, a requirement that States ensure a case 
management system in which the service plan's objectives are closely 
monitored and coordinated within the service delivery community.
    Response: We agree that case management services are important to 
coordinate and monitor the objectives of a client service plan. 
Therefore, we strongly encourage States to provide such services. 
However, we do not believe case management services should be imposed 
on States as a mandatory requirement; we believe instead that States 
should have the flexibility to make their own service choices, based on 
local circumstances.
    Comment: One commenter observed that the notice included the 
requirement that States must have an approved State plan for the Cuban/
Haitian Entrant program in order to use ORR funds to provide services 
to entrants. The commenter suggested that the distinction and the 
additional plan are no longer appropriate. With larger numbers of 
Cubans being admitted, the commenter indicated an expectation that 
Cubans will be placed in more States than was previously the case; some 
of these States will have little or no tradition of receiving this 
population. The commenter suggested that access to services for Cubans 
and Haitians should be facilitated regardless of whether the State in 
which they are placed does or does not have an approved plan.
    Response: In order to provide services to Cuban and Haitian 
entrants, a State must either have a separate Cuban/Haitian entrant 
program State plan or indicate in its refugee program State plan that 
Cuban and Haitian entrants will be served. According to our records, 34 
States now have approved State plans to provide services to Cuban and 
Haitian entrants. An additional three States, which are not 
participating in the refugee program, have privately administered 
refugee program projects which can serve Cuban and Haitian entrants.
    The requirement for a plan helps to ensure both that States are 
prepared to provide appropriate services to entrants and that they are 
prepared for increased numbers of entrants. We believe, therefore, that 
the fact that larger numbers of Cubans are being admitted makes it more 
important and appropriate, not less appropriate, that States have plans 
for serving this population. Finally, because 34 States have already 
met the requirement for having approved State plans, we do not believe 
the requirement for a State plan impedes this population's access to 
services. For these reasons, we do not intend to abolish the 
requirement for an approved State plan for this population.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the formula for allocating 
social service funds should be more flexible in order to accommodate 
unanticipated arrivals that represent an impact on the current year's 
funding allocation. The commenter suggested that there should be an 
automatic, formulated adjustment made to States' allocations when 
arrivals in the current year greatly exceed the pattern of the previous 
three years.
    Response: As the notice states, the allocation formula used for 
social service funds is required by the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(INA). Section 412(c)(1)(B) of the INA states that social service funds 
``* * * shall be allocated among the States based on the total number 
of refugees (including children and adults) who arrived in the United 
States not more than 36 months before the beginning of such fiscal year 
and who are actually residing in each State (taking into account 
secondary migration) as of the beginning of the fiscal year.'' No 
change, therefore, can be made to the formula for allocating social 
service funds without a statutory change.
    It should also be noted that, when arrivals in a State greatly 
exceed the pattern of the previous three years, the higher number of 
arrivals is incorporated in the next year's formula. A State with high 
numbers of unanticipated arrivals receives an allocation in the next 
year that is proportionately higher than it would otherwise have been. 
The formula does, therefore, accommodate, as quickly as possible within 
statutory limitations, the impact of unanticipated arrivals.
    Furthermore, ORR makes available discretionary grants to States to 
fund social services for large numbers of unanticipated arrivals for 
whom the existing social service system cannot respond adequately 
because available ORR funding is already committed. This program is 
intended to provide a bridge between the increased need for services 
that results from increases in arrivals and the time when a State will 
have incorporated services for these new arrivals into their existing 
social service funded network. This program, by 

[[Page 36297]]
providing funding for the types of activities generally funded by 
States under their social services formula allocation, mitigates 
against any adverse effect on States that the statutorily mandated 
social service allocation formula might otherwise have when States 
experience unanticipated arrivals or increases in arrivals to 
communities where adequate services may not exist.
    Comment: Two commenters addressed the issue of ORR's use of 15 
percent of social service funds for discretionary grants. One commenter 
expressed opposition to the use of 15% discretionary funds to non-
impacted counties and States and recommended that these funds be 
distributed by formula to impacted areas. One commenter recommended 
that States should have a role in the development and selection of 
projects to be funded using discretionary funds. The commenter also 
suggested that there should be greater lead time allowed for the 
development of proposals, that the criteria by which proposals are 
evaluated should be meaningful, and that the criteria should 
incorporate input from the States involved.
    Response: We continue to believe that it is necessary to maintain a 
portion of social service funds for discretionary use in order to carry 
out national initiatives and special projects that respond to changing 
needs and circumstances in the refugee program. Regarding more State 
involvement in discretionary funding, since States are frequently 
competitors for ORR discretionary funds, along with other applicants, 
it is not possible to involve States in funding decisions without 
creating a conflict of interest, a violation of Federal grant rules. We 
fully agree that sufficient lead time is necessary to allow refugee 
community groups adequate time to develop proposals. We are committed 
to improving the process each year to allow as much lead time as 
possible for potential applicants. We also agree that the use of 
meaningful evaluation criteria is essential for the review of grant 
applications. While we believe such evaluation criteria are already 
included in our grant announcements, we would welcome specific 
suggestions for evaluation criteria that States and other interested 
parties may have for use in the future.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that ORR reiterate in the notice 
its expectation that States consider the views of local providers, 
including voluntary agencies, in formulating State social service 
plans.
    Response: We concur with the commenter that States should consider 
the views of local providers, including voluntary agencies, in 
formulating State social service plans. The final rule that was 
published on June 28, 1995, contains a provision that would require 
States to develop annual service plans on the basis of a local 
consultative process, effective October 1, 1995.
    Comment: Two commenters made comments regarding State 
administrative costs. One commenter objected to unlimited State 
administrative costs for social services. The commenter recommended 
capping administrative costs at 5 percent for any State receiving more 
than $12 million in social service funds and allowing counties a 
maximum of 15 percent for administrative costs. Another commenter 
recommended that ORR consider ways to eliminate unnecessary 
administrative costs and suggested that one approach might be to limit 
the amount a State can charge for the administration of the refugee 
program.
    Response: Since the statute does not specify a limitation on the 
amount of social service funds that can be used for administrative 
costs, we have not imposed a limit on States, choosing instead to allow 
States to make that determination. In regard to the percentage of funds 
that counties may use for administrative costs, this is an issue that 
needs to be resolved between county and State, not ORR. All costs must 
meet Federal grant requirements. Regarding the suggestion that ORR 
consider limiting the amount a State may charge for the administration 
of the refugee program in general, States are reimbursed 100%, under 
current regulations, for reasonable and necessary identifiable 
administrative costs of providing assistance and services in the 
refugee program. Under the final rule published on June 28, 1995, ORR 
will review the issue of what constitutes reasonable and allowable 
administrative costs in the refugee program and, if needed, develop 
guidelines defining reasonable and allowable costs in consultation with 
States. We do not intend, however, to impose a cap on what a State may 
charge in administrative costs.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the allotment of a floor amount 
of social service funds to States with small refugee populations. In 
particular, the commenter suggested that States with less than 1,000 
refugees should not be included in the allocation.
    Response: We do not concur with the commenter's suggestion that 
States with less than 1,000 refugees should not receive a funding 
allocation. If we implemented this suggestion, 15 States would not 
receive social service funding. Such a policy would run counter to the 
Federal commitment to provide a program of assistance and services to 
refugees throughout the country.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the population floor for 
States receiving allocations from the discretionary funds set-aside for 
services to former political prisoners be lowered from 320 FPP arrivals 
to 300 FPP arrivals.
    Response: In response to this comment, we have decided to lower the 
population floor to 300 former political prisoners. In the notice of 
proposed allocations we stated that we did not intend to make FPP 
allocations to States with fewer than 320 FPPs because we believed the 
resulting level of funding would be insignificant. In reducing the 
floor in response to this comment, however, we have taken into 
consideration that the only State requesting a change in the floor 
received an allocation for an FPP program in previous years. We also 
took into consideration that, in a small State receiving a relatively 
small social service allocation, 300 or more FPPs might have a more 
significant impact on services than would be the case in a larger State 
with a larger social services allocation.

III. Allocation Formula
    Of the funds available for FY 1995 for social services, $68,681,700 
is allocated to States in accordance with the formula specified below. 
A State's allowable allocation is calculated as follows:
    1. The total amount of funds determined by the Director to be 
available for this purpose; divided by--
    2. The total number of refugees and Cuban/Haitian entrants who 
arrived in the United States not more than 3 years prior to the 
beginning of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated and 
the number of Amerasians from Vietnam eligible for refugee social 
services, as shown by the ORR Refugee Data System. The resulting per 
capita amount will be multiplied by--
    3. The number of persons in item 2, above, in the State as of 
October 1, 1994, adjusted for estimated secondary migration.
    The calculation above yields the formula allocation for each State. 
Minimum allocations for small States are taken into account.
    Allocations for political prisoners are based on FY 1994 arrival 
numbers for this group in each State from the Refugee Data Center and 
are limited to States with 300 or more political prisoner arrivals. We 
have limited the population base to FY 1994 political prisoner arrival 
numbers because these 

[[Page 36298]]
funds are intended to serve recent arrivals. We have not included 
States with fewer than 300 former political prisoners in the political 
prisoner allocations formula in order to ensure that the resulting 
level of funding for each State receiving funds is sufficient to 
provide effective employment-oriented programs to assist FPPs. In 
States with fewer than 300 FPPs, we believe the small number of 
political prisoners could be adequately served under the State's 
refugee social services program.

IV. Basis of Population Estimates

    The population estimates for the allocation of funds in FY 1995 are 
based on data on refugee arrivals from the ORR Refugee Data System, 
adjusted as of October 1, 1994, for estimated secondary migration. The 
data base includes refugees of all nationalities, Amerasians from 
Vietnam, and Cuban and Haitian entrants.
    For fiscal year 1995, ORR's formula allocations for the States for 
social services are based on the numbers of refugees and Amerasians who 
arrived, and on the numbers of entrants who arrived or were resettled, 
during the preceding three fiscal years: 1992, 1993, and 1994, based on 
final arrival data by State. Therefore, estimates have been developed 
of the numbers of refugees and entrants with arrival or resettlement 
dates between October 1, 1991, and September 30, 1994, who are thought 
to be living in each State as of October 1, 1994. Refugees admitted 
under the Federal Government's private-sector initiative are not 
included, since their assistance and services are to be provided by the 
private sponsoring organizations under an agreement with the Department 
of State.
    The estimates of secondary migration were based on data submitted 
by all participating States on Form ORR-11 on secondary migrants who 
have resided in the U.S. for 36 months or less, as of September 30, 
1994. The total migration reported by each State was summed, yielding 
in- and out-migration figures and a net migration figure for each 
State. The net migration figure was applied to the State's total 
arrival figure, resulting in a revised population estimate.
    Estimates were developed separately for refugees and entrants and 
then combined into a total estimated 3-year refugee/entrant population 
for each State. Eligible Amerasians are included in the refugee 
figures.
    Table 1, below, shows the estimated 3-year populations, as of 
October 1, 1994, of refugees (col. 1), entrants (col. 2), and total 
refugees and entrants (col. 3); the formula amounts which the 
population estimates yield (col. 4); and the allocation amounts after 
allowing for the minimum amounts (col. 5). Table 1 also shows the 
number of former political prisoner arrivals in FY 1994 (col. 6); and 
the allocation amounts for services to this population (col. 7).

V. Allocation Amounts

    Funding subsequent to the publication of this notice will be 
contingent upon the submittal and approval of a State annual services 
plan, as required by 45 CFR 400.11(b)(2). The following amounts are 
allocated for refugee social services in FY 1995:

Table 1.--Estimated 3-Year Refugee/Entrant Populations of States Participating in the Refugee Program and Social Service Formula Amounts and Allocations
                                    for FY 1995; and Former Political Prisoner Arrivals and Allocations for FY 1995.                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                 Former                 
                                                                                                                                political      Former   
                                                                                        Total        Formula                    prisoner      political 
                         State                            Refugees      Entrants     population      amount      Allocation     arrivals      prisoner  
                                                                                                                              from Vietnam   allocation 
                                                                                                                               in FY 1994               
                                                                 (1)           (2)           (3)           (4)           (5)           (6)           (7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...............................................           746            22           768      $133,380      $133,380            18            $0
Alaska a..............................................           143             1           144        25,009        75,000            23             0
Arizona...............................................         3,692           158         3,850       668,638       668,638           292             0
Arkansas..............................................           303             1           304        52,796        94,113            84             0
California b..........................................        89,172           692        89,864    15,606,873    15,606,873        11,760       871,014
Colorado..............................................         3,874             3         3,877       673,327       673,327           360        26,664
Connecticut...........................................         3,348           131         3,479       604,205       604,205           158             0
Delaware..............................................           132            12           144        25,009        75,000             5             0
Dist. of Columbia.....................................         1,874             3         1,877       325,983       325,983           274             0
Florida...............................................        12,686        26,102        38,788     6,736,395     6,736,395           651        48,217
Georgia...............................................         9,366            85         9,451     1,641,375     1,641,375         1,768       130,948
Hawaii................................................           956             0           956       166,031       166,031           175             0
Idaho.................................................           998             4         1,002       174,019       174,019            87             0
Illinois..............................................        13,534           141        13,675     2,374,967     2,374,967           522        38,662
Indiana...............................................         1,137            12         1,149       199,549       199,549            55             0
Iowa..................................................         3,120             2         3,122       542,204       542,204           315        23,331
Kansas................................................         2,240             4         2,244       389,720       389,720           355        26,293
Kentucky c............................................         1,890            28         1,918       333,103       333,103           202             0
Louisiana.............................................         2,276           110         2,386       414,382       414,382           451        33,404
Maine.................................................           574             0           574        99,688       100,000             0             0
Maryland..............................................         7,988            81         8,069     1,401,361     1,401,361           347        25,701
Massachusetts.........................................        11,413           357        11,770     2,044,121     2,044,121           780        57,771
Michigan..............................................         7,766            39         7,805     1,355,511     1,355,511           332        24,590
Minnesota.............................................         9,490             2         9,492     1,648,496     1,648,496           464        34,367
Mississippi...........................................           128             8           136        23,619        75,000            38             0
Missouri..............................................         5,278            18         5,296       919,768       919,768           371        27,478
Montana...............................................           154             0           154        26,746        75,000             3             0
Nebraska..............................................         1,880             0         1,880       326,504       326,504           354        26,219
Nevada c..............................................           703           470         1,173       203,717       203,717             9             0
New Hampshire.........................................           579             0           579       100,556       100,556           197             0
New Jersey............................................         7,357           761         8,118     1,409,870     1,409,870           266            0 

[[Page 36299]]
                                                                                                                                                        
New Mexico............................................         1,143           604         1,747       303,405       303,405            95             0
New York..............................................        70,088         1,010        71,098    12,347,742    12,347,742           534        39,551
North Carolina........................................         3,051            23         3,074       533,868       533,868           314        23,257
North Dakota..........................................         1,150             0         1,150       199,723       199,723            26             0
Ohio..................................................         6,035            46         6,081     1,056,100     1,056,100           179             0
Oklahoma..............................................         1,379             3         1,382       240,015       240,015           348        25,775
Oregon................................................         5,831            91         5,922     1,028,486     1,028,486           783        57,994
Pennsylvania..........................................        11,016           100        11,116     1,930,540     1,930,540           360        26,664
Rhode Island..........................................           934            11           945       164,120       164,120            12             0
South Carolina........................................           488             2           490        85,099       100,000           113             0
South Dakota..........................................           765             0           765       132,859       132,859             8             0
Tennessee.............................................         3,395            32         3,427       595,174       595,174           262             0
Texas.................................................        17,519           523        18,042     3,133,393     3,133,393         3,248       240,566
Utah..................................................         1,609             0         1,609       279,438       279,438           220             0
Vermont...............................................           733             0           733       127,302       127,302            73             0
Virginia..............................................         6,056            32         6,088     1,057,316     1,057,316           676        50,068
Washington............................................        19,424             1        19,425     3,373,581     3,373,581         1,910       141,466
West Virginia.........................................            63             0            63        10,941        75,000             0             0
Wisconsin.............................................         5,986             5         5,991     1,040,470     1,040,470            20             0
Wyoming...............................................             6             0             6         1,042        75,000             0             0
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...........................................       361,468        31,730       393,198   $68,287,536   $68,681,700        29,897   $2,000,000 
a The Alaska allocation has been awarded for a Wilson/Fish demonstration project.                                                                       
b A portion of the California allocation is expected to be awarded to continue a Wilson/Fish project in San Diego.                                      
c The allocation for Kentucky and Nevada is expected to be awarded to continue a Wilson/Fish project.                                                   


VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

[Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 93.566 Refugee 
Assistance--State Administered Programs]

    Dated: July 5, 1995.
Lavinia Limon,
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[FR Doc. 95-17338 Filed 7-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P