[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38354-38362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18335]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Refugee Resettlement


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

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

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

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

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of funds and award 
procedures for FY 1995 targeted assistance grants for services to 
refugees under the Refugee Resettlement Program (RRP). These grants are 
for service provision in localities with large refugee populations, 
high refugee concentrations, and high use of public assistance, and 
where specific needs exist for supplementation of currently available 
resources. The formula has been updated to take into account FY 1994 
arrivals.
    A notice of proposed allocation of targeted assistance funds was 
published for public comment in the Federal Register on April 17, 1995 
(60 FR 19270).

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

APPLICATION DEADLINE: The deadline for applications from States for 
grants under this notice is on August 25, 1995.
    Applications from States for grants under this notice must be 
received on time. An application will be considered to be received on 
time under either of the following two circumstances: The application 
is postmarked indicating it was sent via the U.S. Postal Service or by 
private commercial carrier not later than the closing date specified in 
the final notice or the application is hand-delivered on or before the 
closing date to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, 370 L'Enfant 
Promenade, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20447. Hand-delivered 
applications will be accepted during the normal working hours of 8:00 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (excluding Federal legal 
holidays) up to 4:30 p.m. of the closing date.
    To be considered complete, an application package must include a 

[[Page 38355]]
    signed original and two copies of Standard Form 424, 424A, and 424B, 
dated April 1988. (We will provide copies of these materials to all 
targeted assistance States.) The application package should be 
addressed to the Division of Refugee Self-Sufficiency, Office of 
Refugee Resettlement, ACF, 6th Floor, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 
Washington, DC 20447.
CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (CFDA) NUMBER: 93.584.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON APPLICATION PROCEDURES, STATES SHOULD 
CONTACT: RON MUNIA AT (202) 401-4559 IN ORR.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Scope

    This notice announces the availability of funds for grants for 
targeted assistance for services to refugees in counties where, because 
of factors such as unusually large refugee populations, high refugee 
concentrations, and high use of public assistance, there exists and can 
be demonstrated a specific need for supplementation of resources for 
services to this population.
    The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $49,397,000 
in FY 1995 funds for the targeted assistance program (TAP) as part of 
the FY 1995 appropriation for the Department of Health and Human 
Services (Pub. L. 103-333).
    The House Appropriations Committee Report reads as follows with 
respect to targeted assistance funds (H.R. Rept. No. 103-553, p. 93):

    This program provides grants to States for counties which are 
impacted by high concentrations of refugees and high dependency 
rates. The Committee intends that $19,000,000 of the total 
recommended for targeted assistance be provided to continue the 
current program of support to communities affected as a result of 
the massive influx of Cuban and Haitian entrants. The Committee also 
intends that 10 percent of the total appropriated for targeted 
assistance be used for grants to localities most heavily impacted by 
the influx of refugees such as Laotian Hmong, Cambodians, and Soviet 
Pentecostals, including secondary migrants who entered the United 
States after October 1, 1979. The Committee expects these grants to 
be awarded to communities not presently receiving targeted 
assistance because of previous concentration requirements and other 
factors in the grant formulas, as well as those who do currently 
receive targeted assistance grants.

    The Senate Appropriations Committee Report (S. Rept. No. 103-318, 
p. 154) is consistent with the above-quoted House Report.
    The Conference Report on Appropriations (H. Rept. No. 103-733, p. 
24) clarifies Congress' intent on the use of the $19 million for 
communities affected by Cuban and Haitian entrants as follows:

    The conferees are agreed that $19,000,000 of the $49,397,000 
appropriated for targeted assistance is to serve communities 
affected by the Cuban and Haitian entrants and refugees whose 
arrivals in recent years have increased.

    The Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) will use 
the $49,397,000 appropriated for FY 1995 targeted assistance as 
follows:
     $25,457,300 will be allocated under the updated formula, 
as set forth in this notice.
     $19,000,000 will be awarded to serve communities most 
heavily affected by recent Cuban and Haitian entrant and refugee 
arrivals.
     $4,939,700 (10% of the total) will be awarded as second-
year continuation grants in a two-year project period under a 
discretionary grant announcement that was issued in FY 1994.
    In addition, the Office of Refugee Resettlement has available an 
additional $6,000,000 in FY 1995 funds to augment the targeted 
assistance 10% program through the Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 103-306). 
These funds will be awarded under a separate discretionary grant 
announcement which will be issued setting forth application 
requirements and evaluation criteria.
    The purpose of targeted assistance grants is to provide, through a 
process of local planning and implementation, direct services intended 
to result in the economic self-sufficiency and reduced welfare 
dependency of refugees through job placements.
    The targeted assistance program reflects the requirements of 
section 412(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 
which provides that targeted assistance grants shall be made available 
``(i) primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment and 
achievement of self-sufficiency, (ii) in a manner that does not 
supplant other refugee program funds and that assures that not less 
than 95 percent of the amount of the grant award is made available to 
the county or other local entity.''

II. Authorization

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

III. Client and Service Priorities

    Targeted assistance funding should be used to assist refugee 
families to achieve economic independence. To this end, ORR expects 
States and counties to ensure that a coherent plan of services is 
developed for each eligible family that addresses the family's needs 
from time of arrival until attainment of economic independence. Each 
service plan should address a family's needs for both employment-
related services and other needed social services. In local 
jurisdictions that have both targeted assistance and refugee social 
services programs, one plan of services may be developed for a family 
that incorporates both targeted assistance and refugee social services.
    Services funded under the targeted assistance allocations are 
required to focus primarily on those refugees who, either because of 
their protracted use of public assistance or difficulty in securing 
employment, continue to need services beyond the initial years of 
resettlement. The targeted assistance program, however, is not intended 
to be limited to cash assistance recipients. TAP-funded services may 
also be provided to other refugees in need of services, regardless of 
whether the refugees are receiving cash assistance.
    However, effective October 1, 1995, under new provisions in 
Sec. 400.314 in the final rule published in the Federal Register on 
June 28, 1995, (60 FR 33584), States will be required to provide 
targeted assistance services to refugees in the following order of 
priority, except in certain individual extreme circumstances: (a) 
Refugees who are cash assistance recipients, particularly long-term 
recipients; (b) 

[[Page 38356]]
unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash assistance; and (c) 
employed refugees in need of services to retain employment or to attain 
economic independence. Effective October 1, 1995, States will also be 
required, in accordance with Sec. 400.315, to limit the provision of 
targeted assistance services, with the exception of referral and 
interpreter services, to refugees who have been in the U.S. for 60 
months or less.
    In addition to the statutory requirement that TAP funds be used 
``primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment'' 
(section 412(c)(2)(B)(i)), funds awarded under this program are 
intended to help fulfill the Congressional intent that ``employable 
refugees should be placed on jobs as soon as possible after their 
arrival in the United States'' (section 412(a)(1)(B)(i) of the INA). 
Therefore targeted assistance funds must be used primarily for services 
which directly enhance refugee employment potential, have specific 
employment objectives, and are designed to enable refugees to obtain 
jobs with less than one year's participation in the targeted assistance 
program. Examples of these activities are: Job development; job 
placement; job-related and vocational English; short-term job training 
specifically related to opportunities in the local economy; on-the-job 
training; business and employer incentives (such as on-site employee 
orientation, vocational English training, or bilingual supervisor 
assistance); and business technical assistance. General or remedial 
educational activities--such as adult basic education (ABE) or 
preparation for a high school equivalency or general education diploma 
(GED)--may be provided within the context of an individual 
employability plan for a refugee which is intended to result in job 
placement in less than one year. ORR encourages the continued provision 
of services after a refugee has entered a job to help the refugee 
retain employment or move to a better job. Targeted assistance funds 
cannot be used for long-term training programs such as vocational 
training that last for more than a year or educational programs that 
are not intended to lead to employment within a year. If TAP funds are 
used for the provision of English language training, such training 
should be provided concurrently, rather than sequentially, with 
employment or with other employment-related services, to the maximum 
extent possible.
    A portion of a local area's allocation may be used for services 
which are not directed toward the achievement of a specific employment 
objective in less than one year but which are essential to the 
adjustment of refugees in the community, provided such needs are 
clearly demonstrated and such use is approved by the State.
    Reflecting section 412(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA, the Director of ORR 
expects States to ``insure that women have the same opportunities as 
men to participate in training and instruction.'' In addition, States 
are expected to make sure that services are provided in a manner that 
encourages the use of bilingual women on service agency staffs to 
ensure adequate service access by refugee women. In order to facilitate 
refugee self-support, the Director also expects States to implement 
strategies which address simultaneously the employment potential of 
both male and female wage earners in a family unit. States and counties 
are expected to make every effort to assure availability of day care 
services in order to allow women with children the opportunity to 
participate in employment services or to accept or retain employment. 
To accomplish this, day care may be treated as a priority employment-
related service under the targeted assistance program. Refugees who are 
participating in TAP-funded or social services-funded employment 
services or have accepted employment are eligible for day care 
services. For an employed refugee, TAP-funded day care must be limited 
to one year after the refugee becomes employed. States and counties, 
however, are expected to use day care funding from other publicly 
funded mainstream programs as a prior resource and are encouraged to 
work with service providers to assure maximum access to other publicly 
funded resources for day care.
    Targeted assistance services should be provided in a manner that is 
culturally and linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and 
cultural background. In light of the increasingly diverse population of 
refugees who are resettling in this country, refugee service agencies 
will need to develop practical ways of providing culturally and 
linguistically appropriate services to a changing ethnic population. To 
the maximum extent possible, particularly during a refugee's initial 
years of resettlement, targeted assistance services should be provided 
through a refugee-specific service system rather than through a system 
in which refugees are only one of many client groups being served.
    ORR strongly encourages States and counties when contracting for 
targeted assistance services, including employment services, to give 
consideration to the special strengths of MAAs, whenever contract 
bidders are otherwise equally qualified, provided that the MAA has the 
capability to deliver services in a manner that is culturally and 
linguistically compatible with the background of the target population 
to be served. States may use a portion of their targeted assistance 
funds, either through contracts or through the use of State/county 
staff, to provide technical assistance and organizational training to 
strengthen the capability of MAAs to provide employment services, 
particularly in States where MAA capability is weak or undeveloped. If 
a State chooses to use State employees to provide technical assistance 
to MAAs, this would be an administrative cost which must be included 
within the State administrative cost limit of 5% for the targeted 
assistance program.
    ORR defines MAAs as organizations with the following 
qualifications:
    a. The organization is legally incorporated as a nonprofit 
organization; and
    b. Not less than 51% of the composition of the Board of Directors 
or governing board of the mutual assistance association is comprised of 
refugees or former refugees, including both refugee men and women.
    Finally, in order to provide culturally and linguistically 
compatible services in as cost-efficient a manner as possible in a time 
of limited resources, ORR strongly encourages States and counties to 
promote and give special consideration to the provision of services 
through coalitions of refugee service organizations, such as coalitions 
of MAAs, voluntary resettlement agencies, or a variety of service 
providers. ORR believes it is essential for refugee-serving 
organizations to form close partnerships in the provision of services 
to refugees in order to be able to respond adequately to a changing 
refugee picture. Coalition-building and consolidation of providers is 
particularly important in communities with multiple service providers 
in order to ensure better coordination of services and maximum use of 
funding for services by minimizing the funds used for multiple 
administrative overhead costs.
    The award of funds to States under this notice will be contingent 
upon the completeness of a State's application as described in section 
IX, below.

IV. Discussion of Comment Received

    Nine letters of comment were received in response to the notice of 
proposed availability of FY 1995 funds for targeted assistance. The 
comments are summarized below and are followed 

[[Page 38357]]
in each case by the Department's response.
    Comment: Five commenters opposed allowing States with more than one 
eligible county to determine county allocations differently from those 
specified in the targeted assistance notice. Four of those commenters 
complained that their State's reallocation plan shifted resources from 
counties with new arrivals to counties with long-term assistance users.
    Response: We believe that States with more than one eligible county 
should be given the flexibility to determine county allocations 
differently from those specified in the notice, based on more complete 
and accurate data that a State may have on county population numbers 
and welfare dependency rates than what is available at the Federal 
level.
    Effective October 1, 1995, under the new rule, States with more 
than one eligible targeted assistance county will be allowed to 
allocate funds differently from the formula in the targeted assistance 
notice only on the basis of its population of refugees who arrived in 
the U.S. during the most recent 5-year period. States will be allowed 
to use welfare data as a factor in its allocation formula, but only in 
combination with arrival data, not as the only factor.
    Comment: Two commenters questioned the 3 percent threshold for the 
Cuban/Haitian special allocation. One commenter objected to the 
exclusion of secondary migrants in the entrant population count. The 
other commenter recommended that the threshold be lowered to 1 percent 
to provide awards to more counties.
    Response: As we have noted in previous years, we are not able to 
include secondary migrants in the population count for targeted 
assistance because secondary migration data are not available at the 
county level.
    In order to be consistent with the Conference Report on 
Appropriations, we have established a 3 percent threshold for 
allocations under the Cuban/Haitian special allocation in order to 
target the communities most heavily affected by recent Cuban and 
Haitian entrant and refugee arrivals. A lowering of the threshold would 
disperse the available funds across more communities, which would 
significantly reduce the grants to the communities which have the 
greatest need.
    Comment: One commenter objected to ORR's intention not to consider 
data for the purpose of determining the eligibility of new counties for 
participation in TAP in FY 1995.
    Response: In FY 1996 we intend to re-examine the targeted 
assistance program to determine what policies need to be updated or 
revised. At that time, the eligibility of all counties will be reviewed 
against the new qualifying criteria. We do not believe that it makes 
sense to admit new counties to the program in FY 1995 when these 
counties may become ineligible in FY 1996. We believe that funds are 
best used for already established counties rather than for the start up 
costs for new counties that may only receive funding for one year.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the 10% discretionary 
program be eliminated because the program allows non-impacted counties 
to receive grants which, in turn, reduces the grants to the impacted 
counties.
    Response: The communities which receive grants under the TAP 10% 
discretionary program are impacted communities, even though they may 
not receive grants under the targeted assistance formula program. The 
TAP 10% program reflects Congressional intent as expressed in the House 
Appropriations Committee Report which states: ``The Committee expects 
these [TAP 10%] grants to be awarded to communities not presently 
receiving targeted assistance because of previous concentration 
requirements * * * as well as those who do currently receive targeted 
assistance grants.''
    Comment: One commenter recommended that TAP funds be allocated to 
counties within 5 months after being appropriated by Congress. The 
commenter felt that releasing the funds later keeps counties from 
accessing funds when they are needed and gives Congress and OMB the 
impression that the counties do not really need the resources.
    Response: We hope to issue targeted assistance awards earlier in 
the fiscal year than has been the case to date.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that the allowances for State 
and county administrative costs, 5 and 10 percent respectively, be re-
examined. The commenters felt that the counties' allowance should be 
increased. One commenter recommended that counties be allowed as much 
as 15 to 20 percent in administrative costs since the counties are 
responsible for directly administering the targeted assistance grants. 
The other commenter recommended a sliding-scale for State allowances, 
with a higher percentage for smaller States and a lower percentage for 
larger States.
    Response: Regarding State administrative allowances, section 
412(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the INA allows up to 5% of the TAP allocation to be 
retained by the State.
    As we indicated earlier, in FY 1996 we intend to re-examine the 
targeted assistance program to determine what policies need to be 
updated or revised. This will provide an appropriate time to re-examine 
the issue of allowable administrative cost levels.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the application procedures 
for the Cuban/Haitian special allocation be made available as soon as 
possible if the procedures will be different from previous years.
    Response: The application procedures for the Cuban/Haitian special 
allocation will be provided to participating States shortly.
    Comment: One commenter requested that counties receiving awards for 
the first time under the Cuban/Haitian special allocation be awarded 
grants from October 1995 through September 1996 to give the State 
sufficient planning time.
    Response: Awards will be made before the end of FY 1995. Counties 
may obligate targeted assistance funds for up to one year after the end 
of the Federal fiscal year in which the Department awarded the grant. 
Therefore, grants awarded this year may be obligated through September 
30, 1996. Funds must be liquidated within two years after the end of 
the Federal fiscal year in which the Department awarded the grant.

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

[[Page 38358]]
county allocations differently from those set forth in this notice, the 
FY 1995 allocations proposed by the State must be included in the 
State's application.
    Applications submitted in response to this notice are not subject 
to review by State and areawide clearinghouses under Executive Order 
12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.''

VI. Qualification and Allocation Formulas

A. Qualifying New Counties

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

B. Allocation Formula

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

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

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

VII. Allocations

    Table 1 lists the participating counties, the number of placements 
in each county during CY 1983-September 30, 1994, the amount of each 
county's allocation which is based on the old formula, the amount of 
each county's allocation which is based on the new formula, and the 
county's total allocation.
    Although Table 1 shows an amount for each county, the Director has 
decided, in the case of a State which contains more than one qualified 
county, to continue to permit the State to determine (in accordance 
with the requirements set forth in this notice) the appropriate 
allocation of the State's targeted assistance award among the qualified 
counties in the State. If a State chooses to make allocations which are 
different from the notice, the State, as in the FY 1994 TAP, would be 
responsible for determining an appropriate and equitable basis for 
allocating the funds among the qualified counties in the State and for 
including in its application a description of this allocation basis, 
the data to be used, and the allocation proposed for each county.
    Table 2 lists the participating counties, the number of Cuban and 
Haitian refugee and entrant arrivals in each county during FY 1992-FY 
1994, each county's percentage of the aggregate total Cuban/Haitian 
arrivals in the 42 targeted assistance counties, and the allocation 
amount for each county that has an arrival threshold of 3 percent or 
above.
    Table 3 provides State totals for targeted assistance allocations.
    Table 4 indicates the areas that each participating county 
represents.
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P

                          Table 1.--Targeted Assistance Allocations by County: FY 1995                          
                                                                                                                
                                                                   Portion of FY   Portion of FY                
                                                   Arrivals Jan.       1995            1995                     
              County                    State       1983-Sept.      allocation      allocation     Total FY 1995
                                                       1994          under old       under new     allocation\1\
                                                                      formula         formula                   
                                      ..........             (A)             (B)             (C)             (D)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda...........................  CA                    15,342        $196,075        $350,380        $546,455
Contra Costa......................  CA                     4,291          56,063          97,998         154,061
Fresno............................  CA                    14,168         108,273         323,569         431,842
Los Angeles.......................  CA                    96,344         990,155       2,200,303       3,190,458
Merced............................  CA                     4,419         132,156         100,921         233,077
Orange............................  CA                    45,039         440,587       1,028,600       1,469,187
Sacramento........................  CA                    17,687         167,821         403,935         571,756
San Diego.........................  CA                    25,368         328,383         579,354         907,737
San Francisco.....................  CA                    25,198         254,838         575,471         830,309
San Joaquin.......................  CA                     9,352         169,342         213,581         382,923
Santa Clara.......................  CA                    34,488         327,990         787,636       1,115,626
Stanislaus........................  CA                     3,433          30,639          78,403         109,042
Tulare............................  CA                     5,345               0         122,069        122,069 

[[Page 38359]]
                                                                                                                
Denver............................  CO                     9,865          66,147         225,297         291,444
Broward...........................  FL                     3,568         109,568          81,486         191,054
Dade..............................  FL                    55,816       1,911,490       1,274,725       3,186,215
Hillsboro.........................  FL                     3,496          34,433          79,842         114,275
Palm Beach........................  FL                     3,595          45,517          82,103         127,620
Honolulu..........................  HI                     3,417          72,838          78,037         150,875
Cook/Kane.........................  IL                    36,430         342,151         831,988       1,174,139
Sedgwick..........................  KS                     4,038          81,534          92,220         173,754
Orleans...........................  LA                     3,899          55,699          89,045         144,744
Montgomery/Prince Georges.........  MD                     8,851          67,761         202,139         269,900
Middlesex.........................  MA                     6,355          53,529         145,135         198,664
Suffolk...........................  MA                    16,114         122,853         368,011         490,864
Hennepin..........................  MN                    10,446          86,311         238,566         324,877
Ramsey............................  MN                    10,263         121,357         234,386         355,743
Jackson...........................  MO                     4,319          31,685          98,637         130,322
Essex.............................  NJ                     5,925          18,336         135,315         153,651
Hudson............................  NJ                     2,941         122,698          67,167         189,865
Union.............................  NJ                     1,812          24,631          41,382          66,013
New York..........................  NY                   135,631         273,761       3,097,538       3,371,299
Multnomah.........................  OR                    17,076         185,998         389,981         575,979
Philadelphia......................  PA                    18,643         127,317         425,769         553,086
Providence........................  RI                     4,850          90,936         110,764         201,700
Dallas/Tarrant....................  TX                    26,002               0         593,833         593,833
Harris............................  TX                    21,917         149,237         500,540         649,777
Salt Lake.........................  UT                     7,210          45,368         164,662         210,030
Arlington.........................  VA                     3,183          78,619          72,693         151,312
Fairfax...........................  VA                     9,006          94,800         205,679         300,479
King/Snohomish....................  WA                    29,276         226,469         668,605         895,074
Pierce............................  WA                     4,719          48,398         107,772         156,170
      Total.......................  ............         769,137       7,891,763      17,565,537     25,457,300 
\1\ Based on arrivals through September 30, 1994.                                                               



Table 2.--Targeted Assistance Allocations for Communities Affected by Recent Cuban and Haitian Arrivals: FY 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Amount to be 
                                                                  FY 92-94 total                    allocated:  
                                                                      Cuban &                       $19,000,000 
                                                                      Haitian       % of total   ---------------
                      County                            State        refugee &       arrivals          Final    
                                                                      entrant                     Allocation: 3%
                                                                     arrivals                         arrival   
                                                                                                     threshold  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda...........................................  CA..........               6            0.02  ..............
Contra Costa......................................  CA..........               1            0.00  ..............
Fresno............................................  CA..........               3            0.01  ..............
Los Angeles.......................................  CA..........             660            1.80  ..............
Merced............................................  CA..........               0            0.00  ..............
Orange............................................  CA..........              24            0.07  ..............
Sacramento........................................  CA..........              13            0.04  ..............
San Diego.........................................  CA..........             199            0.54  ..............
San Francisco.....................................  CA..........             274            0.75  ..............
San Joaquin.......................................  CA..........               2            0.01  ..............
Santa Clara.......................................  CA..........               4            0.01  ..............
Stanislaus........................................  CA..........               0            0.00  ..............
Tulare............................................  CA..........               0            0.00  ..............
Denver............................................  CO..........              58            0.16  ..............
Broward...........................................  FL..........           2,000            5.46      $1,237,866
Dade..............................................  FL..........          24,932           68.10      15,431,234
Hillsboro.........................................  FL..........             832            2.27  ..............
Palm Beach........................................  FL..........           2,621            7.16       1,622,223
Honolulu..........................................  HI..........               0            0.00  ..............
Cook/Kane.........................................  IL..........             250            0.68  ..............
Sedgwick..........................................  KS..........               6            0.02  ..............
Orleans...........................................  LA..........              94            0.26  ..............
Montgom./Pr. G....................................  MD..........              59            0.16  ..............
Middlesex.........................................  MA..........              82            0.22  ..............

[[Page 38360]]
                                                                                                                
Suffolk...........................................  MA..........             392            1.07  ..............
Hennepin..........................................  MN..........              51            0.14  ..............
Ramsey............................................  MN..........               0            0.00  ..............
Jackson...........................................  MO..........             310            0.85  ..............
Essex.............................................  NJ..........             371            1.01  ..............
Hudson............................................  NJ..........           1,079            2.95  ..............
Union.............................................  NJ..........             121            0.33  ..............
New York..........................................  NY..........           1,145            3.13         708,678
Multnomah.........................................  OR..........             139            0.38  ..............
Philadelphia......................................  PA..........             154            0.42  ..............
Providence........................................  RI..........              11            0.03  ..............
Dallas/Tarrant....................................  TX..........             349            0.95  ..............
Harris............................................  TX..........             137            0.37  ..............
Salt Lake.........................................  UT..........               0            0.00  ..............
Arlington.........................................  VA..........              12            0.03  ..............
Fairfax...........................................  VA..........               3            0.01  ..............
King/Snohomish....................................  WA..........             219            0.60  ..............
Pierce............................................  WA..........               0            0.00  ..............
                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.......................................  ............          36,613          100.00      19,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



       Table 3.--Targeted Assistance Allocations by State: FY 1995      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       FY 1995allocation
                        State                                 \1\       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California...........................................        $10,064,542
Colorado.............................................            291,444
Florida..............................................     \2\ 21,910,486
Hawaii...............................................            150,875
Illinois.............................................          1,174,139
Kansas...............................................            173,754
Louisiana............................................            144,744
Maryland.............................................            269,900
Massachusetts........................................            689,528
Minnesota............................................            680,620
Missouri.............................................            130,322
New Jersey...........................................            409,529
New York.............................................      \2\ 4,079,977
Oregon...............................................            575,979
Pennsylvania.........................................            553,086
Rhode Island.........................................            201,700
Texas................................................          1,243,610
Utah.................................................            210,030
Virginia.............................................            451,791
Washington...........................................          1,051,244
                                                      ------------------
      Total..........................................         44,457,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on arrivals through September 30, 1994.                       
\2\ The allocations for Federal and New York include $18,291,322 and    
  $708,678 respectively for communities affected by Cuban and Haitian   
  entrants and refugees. This is referred to in the Conference Report on
  the appropriations: ``to serve communities affected by the Cuban and  
  Haitian entrants and refugees whose arrivals in recent years have     
  increased.''                                                          


                                                                        

[[Page 38361]]
                   Table 4.--Targeted Assistance Areas                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Targeted assistance                                  
      State              area \1\                   Definition          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA                ALAMEDA                                               
CA                CONTRA COSTA                                          
CA                FRESNO                                                
CA                LOS ANGELES                                           
CA                MERCED                                                
CA                ORANGE                                                
CA                SACRAMENTO             SAN DIEGO                      
CA                                                                      
CA                SAN FRANCISCO........  MARIN, SAN FRANCISCO, & SAN    
                                          MATEO COUNTIES.               
CA                SAN JOAQUIN                                           
CA                SANTA CLARA                                           
CA                STANISLAUS                                            
CA                TULARE                                                
CO                DENVER...............  ADAMS, ARAPHOE, BOULDER, DENVER
                                          & JEFFERSON COUNTIES.         
FL                BROWARD                                               
FL                DADE                                                  
FL                HILLSBOROUGH                                          
FL                PALM BEACH                                            
HI                HONOLULU                                              
IL                COOK/KANE                                             
KS                SEDGWICK                                              
LA                ORLEANS..............  JEFFERSON & ORLEANS PARISHES.  
MD                MONTGOMERY/PRINCE                                     
                   GEORGES                                              
MA                MIDDLESEX                                             
MA                SUFFOLK                                               
MN                HENNEPIN                                              
MN                RAMSEY                                                
MO                JACKSON..............  JACKSON COUNTY, MO. & WYANDOTTE
                                          COUNTY KS.                    
NJ                ESSEX                                                 
NJ                HUDSON                                                
NJ                UNION                                                 
NY                NEW YORK.............  BRONX, KINGS, NEW YORK, QUEENS,
                                          & RICHMOND COUNTIES.          
OR                MULTNOMAH............  CLACKAMAS, MULTNOMAH, &        
                                          WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OR. &    
                                          CLARK COUNTY, WA.             
PA                PHILADELPHIA                                          
RI                PROVIDENCE                                            
TX                DALLAS/TARRANT                                        
TX                HARRIS                                                
UT                SALT LAKE............  DAVID, SALT LAKE & UTAH        
                                          COUNTIES.                     
VA                ARLINGTON                                             
VA                FAIRFAX..............  FAIRFAX COUNTY & THE           
                                          INDEPENDENT CITIES OF         
                                          ALEXANDRIA, FAIRFAX AND FALLS 
                                          CHURCH.                       
WA                KINGS/SNOHOMISH                                       
WA                PIERCE                                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consists of a named county/counties unless otherwise defined.       


BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
VIII. Application and Implementation Process

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

[[Page 38362]]


IX. Application Requirements

    The State application requirements for grants for the FY 1995 
targeted assistance formula allocation are as follows:
    States that are currently operating under approved management plans 
for their FY 1994 targeted assistance program and wish to continue to 
do so for their FY 1995 grants may provide the following in lieu of 
resubmitting the full currently approved plan:
    The State's application for FY 1995 funding shall provide:
    A. Assurance that the State's current management plan for the 
administration of the targeted assistance program, as approved by ORR, 
will continue to be in full force and effect for the FY 1995 targeted 
assistance program, subject to any additional assurances or revisions 
required by this notice which are not reflected in the current plan. 
Any proposed modifications to the approved plan will be identified in 
the application and are subject to ORR review and approval. Any 
proposed changes must address and reference all appropriate portions of 
the FY 1994 application content requirements to ensure complete 
incorporation in the State's management plan.
    B. Assurance that effective October 1, 1995, targeted assistance 
funds will be used in accordance with the new ORR regulations published 
in the Federal Register on June 28, 1995.
    C. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used primarily 
for the provision of services which directly enhance refugee employment 
potential, have specific employment objectives, and are designed to 
enable refugees to obtain jobs with less than one year's participation 
in the targeted assistance program. States must indicate what 
percentage of FY 1995 targeted assistance formula allocation funds that 
are used for services will be allocated for employment services.
    D. A line item budget and justification for State administrative 
costs limited to a maximum of 5% of the total award to the State. Each 
total budget period funding amount requested must be necessary, 
reasonable, and allocable to the project.
    States administering the program locally: States that have 
administered the program locally or provide direct service to the 
refugee population (with the concurrence of the county) must submit a 
program summary to ORR for prior review and approval. The summary must 
include a description of the proposed services; a justification for the 
projected allocation for each component including relationship of funds 
allocated to numbers of clients served, characteristics of clients, 
duration of training and services, projected outcomes, and cost per 
placement. In addition, the program component summary must describe any 
ancillary services or subcomponents such as day care, transportation, 
or language training.
    States with two or more counties receiving targeted assistance 
funds: As in FY 1994, a State with two or more local areas which 
qualify for the program may choose to determine respective county 
allocations. If the State chooses to determine county allocations 
differently from those set forth in Table 1 of this notice, the State 
must provide a description of the State's proposed allocation plan and 
the basis for the proposed allocations. The application must contain a 
description of the allocation approach, data used in its determination, 
the calculated allocation amount for each county, and the rationale for 
the proposed allocations. States are encouraged to revise allocation 
formulas to assure appropriate funding among eligible counties for the 
duration of the grant such that targeted assistance activities within 
the State conclude simultaneously. Where the State chooses not to 
determine county allocation amounts, the State must provide the 
allocations which are specified in this notice.

X. Reporting Requirements

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

    Dated: July 19, 1995.
Lavinia Limon,
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[FR Doc. 95-18335 Filed 7-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P