[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 135 (Friday, July 12, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36739-36752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17808]


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

Food and Drug Administration
Office of Refugee Resettlement


Refugee Resettlement Program; Availability of Formula Allocation 
Funding for FY 1996 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 1996 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 1996 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. This notice reflects the final rule published in the Federal 
Register on June 28, 1995 (60 FR 33584) which was effective October 1, 
1995. This rule established a new subpart L, providing regulations for 
the Targeted Assistance Program (TAP) for the first time.
    This notice announces that the qualification of counties is based 
on refugee and entrant arrivals during the 5-year period from FY 1991 
through FY 1995, in keeping with ORR's new regulation, and on the 
concentration of refugees and entrants as a percentage of the general 
population. Under this notice, 15 new counties will qualify for 
targeted assistance and 18 counties which previously received targeted 
assistance grants will no longer qualify for targeted assistance 
funding. This notice also establishes a new allocation formula to 
reflect the limitation on the

[[Page 36740]]

use of targeted assistance funding for services to refugees who have 
resided in the United States 5 years or less.
    In addition, this notice replaces the schedule of allowable 
administrative cost amounts for local administrative budgets that 
appeared in previous notices with an allowable administrative cost 
amount of up to 15% for all TAP counties for the purpose of increasing 
local flexibility and oversight.
    The final notice reflects an adjustment in final allocations to 
States as a result of additional arrival data.
    A notice of proposed allocation of targeted assistance funds was 
published for public comment in the Federal Register on May 6, 1996 (61 
FR 20260).

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

APPLICATION DEADLINE: The closing date for submission of applications 
is August 12, 1996. Applications postmarked after the closing date will 
be classified as late.
    Mailed applications shall be considered as meeting an announced 
deadline if they are either received on or before the deadline date or 
sent on or before the deadline date to: U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of 
Refugee Resettlement, Division of Refugee Self-Sufficiency, 370 
L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attention: Application 
for Targeted Assistance Formula Program.
    Applicants are cautioned to request a legibly dated U.S. Postal 
Service postmark or to obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial 
carrier or the U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks shall not 
be acceptable as proof of timely mailing.
    Applications handcarried by applicants, applicant couriers, or by 
overnight/express mail couriers shall be considered as meeting an 
announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, 
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., at the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, 
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Division of Refugee Self-Sufficiency, 
ACF Mailroom, 2nd Floor Loading Dock, Aerospace Center, 901 D Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20024, between Monday and Friday (excluding Federal 
holidays). (Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail 
services do not always deliver as agreed.)
    ACF cannot accommodate transmission of applications by fax or 
through other electronic media. Therefore, applications transmitted to 
ACF electronically will not be accepted regardless of date or time of 
submission and time of receipt.
    To be considered complete, an application package must include a 
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.)

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON APPLICATION PROCEDURES: States should 
contact their State Analyst 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 $55,397,000 
in FY 1996 funds for the targeted assistance program (TAP) as part of 
the FY 1996 appropriation for the Department of Health and Human 
Services (Pub. L. 104-134).
    The FY 1996 House Appropriations Committee Report (H.R. Rept. No. 
104-209) reads as follows with respect to targeted assistance funds:
    This program provides grants to States for counties which are 
impacted by high concentrations of refugees and high dependency rates. 
The Committee agrees that $19,000,000 is available for targeted 
assistance to serve communities affected by the Cuban and Haitian 
entrants and refugees whose arrivals in recent years have increased. 
The Committee has set-aside 20 percent of these funds for increased 
support to communities with large concentrations of refugees whose 
cultural differences make assimilation especially difficult justifying 
a more intense and longer duration level of Federal assistance.
    The Conference Report on Appropriations (H. Rept. No. 104-537) 
agrees with the allocation of targeted assistance contained in the 
House Report.
    The Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) will use 
the $55,397,000 appropriated for FY 1996 targeted assistance as 
follows:
     $25,317,600 will be allocated under the 5-year population 
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 arrivals.
     $11,079,400 (20% of the total) will be awarded under a 
discretionary grant announcement that has been issued separately 
setting forth application requirements and evaluation criteria. These 
funds will be used to provide increased support to communities with 
large concentrations of refugees whose cultural differences make 
assimilation especially difficult, in accordance with the intent of 
Congress as reflected in the House Appropriations Committee Report.
    In addition, the Office of Refugee Resettlement will have available 
an additional $5,000,000 in FY 1996 funds for the targeted assistance 
discretionary program through the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1996 (Pub. L. 104-107). These 
funds are to be used for grants to localities most heavily impacted by 
the influx of refugees such as Laotian Hmong, Cambodians and Soviet 
Pentecostals, and will be awarded under a discretionary grant 
announcement which has been 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

[[Page 36741]]

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 must be used to assist refugee families 
to achieve economic independence. To this end, States and counties are 
required to ensure that a coherent family self-sufficiency plan is 
developed for each eligible family that addresses the family's needs 
from time of arrival until attainment of economic independence. (See 
Secs. 400.79 and 400.156(g) of the final rule.) Each family self-
sufficiency plan should address a family's needs for both employment-
related services and other needed social services. The family self-
sufficiency plan must include: (1) A determination of the income level 
a family would have to earn to exceed its cash grant and move into 
self-support without suffering a monetary penalty; (2) a strategy and 
timetable for obtaining that level of family income through the 
placement in employment of sufficient numbers of employable family 
members at sufficient wage levels; and (3) employability plans for 
every employable member of the family. In local jurisdictions that have 
both targeted assistance and refugee social services programs, one 
family self-sufficiency plan may be developed for a family that 
incorporates both targeted assistance and refugee social services.
    Services funded through the targeted assistance program 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. Effective October 1, 1995, under new regulations at 
Sec. 400.315(b) published in the Federal Register on June 28, 1995, (60 
FR 33584), States may not provide services funded under this notice, 
except for referral and interpreter services, to refugees who have been 
in the United States for more than 60 months (5 years). States may, 
however, continue to provide employability services through September 
30, 1996, or until the services are completed, whichever occurs first, 
to refugees who have been in the U.S. for more than 60 months, who were 
receiving employability services, as defined in Sec. 400.316, as of 
September 30, 1995, as part of an employability plan.
    In accordance with Sec. 400.314, States are 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) unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash 
assistance; and (c) employed refugees in need of services to retain 
employment or to attain economic independence.
    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, in accordance 
with Sec. 400.313 of the final rule, targeted assistance funds must be 
used primarily for employability services designed to enable refugees 
to obtain jobs with less than one year's participation in the targeted 
assistance program in order to achieve economic self-sufficiency as 
soon as possible. Targeted assistance services may continue to be 
provided after a refugee has entered a job to help the refugee retain 
employment or move to a better job. Targeted assistance funds may not 
be used for long-term training programs such as vocational training 
that last for more than a year or educational programs that are not 
intended to lead to employment within a year.
    In accordance with Sec. 400.317, if targeted assistance funds are 
used for the provision of English language training, such training must 
be provided in a concurrent, rather than sequential, time period with 
employment or with other employment-related activities.
    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. Allowable 
services include those listed under Sec. 400.316.
    Reflecting section 412(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA, States must insure 
that women have the same opportunities as men to participate in 
training and instruction. In addition, in accordance with Sec. 400.317, 
services must be provided to the maximum extent feasible in a manner 
that includes the use of bilingual/bicultural women on service agency 
staffs to ensure adequate service access by refugee women. The Director 
also strongly encourages the inclusion of refugee women in management 
and board positions in agencies that serve refugees. 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 for children 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 children. For an employed refugee, 
TAP-funded day care should 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 
resources and are encouraged to work with service providers to assure 
maximum access to other publicly funded resources for day care.
    In accordance with Sec. 400.317 in the new regulations, targeted 
assistance services must be provided in a manner that is culturally and 
linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and cultural 
background, to the maximum extent feasible. 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. Services funded under this notice must be 
refugee-specific services which are designed specifically to meet 
refugee needs and are in keeping with the rules and objectives of the 
refugee program. Vocational or job-skills training, on-the-job 
training, or English language training, however, need not be refugee-
specific.
    When planning targeted assistance services, States must take into 
account

[[Page 36742]]

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, 
coordinated services to refugees that are not duplicative. See 
Sec. 400.156(b).
    ORR strongly encourages States and counties when contracting for 
targeted assistance services, including employment services, to give 
consideration to the special strengths of mutual assistance 
associations (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 strongly 
encourages MAAs to ensure that their management and board composition 
reflect the major target populations to be served.
    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 Comments Received

    Twenty-three letters of comment were received in response to the 
notice of proposed availability of FY 1996 funds for targeted 
assistance. The comments are summarized below and are followed in each 
case by the Department's response.
    Comment: Six commenters expressed concern about the Cuban entrant 
figures being used to determine eligibility. Two commenters were 
concerned about the accuracy of the data being used. Three commenters 
were concerned about the fact that States were only given 30 days to 
submit documentation to support the adjustment of county arrival 
numbers to reflect parolees who originated in Havana. Two of these 
commenters requested a 60-day delay to review the data. One commenter 
objected to the fact that ORR was placing the onus on the States to 
submit supporting documentation and recommended that the revised 
allocation be circulated for comment before the notice is made final. 
One commenter noted that the Cuban arrivals for October, November, and 
December 1995 were significant but are not included in the TAP formula 
for this year.
    Response: The 5-year arrival data used to determine county 
eligibility and targeted assistance allocations to counties are derived 
from the ORR Refugee Data System. ORR refugee arrival data are based on 
monthly refugee/Amerasian arrival data received from the Refugee Data 
Center (RDC) in New York. These data are then matched with monthly 
port-of-entry data received from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 
to identify and correct discrepancies. Cuban/Haitian entrant data 
received from the Community Relations Service (CRS) in the Department 
of Justice, the agency responsible for the initial resettlement of 
Cuban and Haitian entrants in the U.S., are merged with the refugee/
Amerasian data file, providing a complete refugee/entrant/Amerasian 
arrival file. There is no other refugee/entrant arrival data system 
that is as accurate and comprehensive as the ORR Data System.
    However, as we acknowledged in the May 6 notice of proposed 
allocations, ORR arrival data do not include Cuban parolees who came to 
the United States directly from Havana in FY 1995. Because these 
parolees were not resettled through any sponsoring agencies, there is 
no reliable source of destination data for these parolees at this time. 
We indicated in the Allocation Formula section of the May 6 notice that 
States could receive credit for their Havana parolee population with 
the submission of documented evidence. One State, Florida, where the 
great majority of Cuban entrants and parolees resettle, submitted 
documentation of Havana parolee arrivals to its counties. Florida's 
arrival population has been appropriately credited.
    In the case of qualified targeted assistance counties that were not 
able to submit evidence of Havana parolee arrivals, we have devised a 
method of crediting each county with a share of Havana parolees that we 
believe is a reasonable proxy in the absence of hard data. ORR has 
credited each qualified TAP county that received entrant arrivals 
during the 5-year period from FY 1991 through FY 1995 with a prorated 
share of the estimated 10,279 parolees who came directly from Havana 
during FY 1995. The proration is based on the percentage of the total 
5-year entrant arrival population that each qualified county received. 
Thus, for example, San Diego County, which received 378 entrants during 
the period from FY 1991-FY 1995, received 0.69 percent of the entrants 
who resettled in the United States during the 5-year period. San Diego, 
therefore, would be credited with the same percentage of the estimated 
10,279 Havana parolees, or 71 parolees, increasing San Diego's 5-year 
population from 13,579 to 13,650. These adjustments in county 5-year 
refugee/entrant arrivals are reflected in the third column of table 3 
in this notice.
    Regarding the comment about Cuban parolees who arrived after FY 
1995, the commenter is correct, Cuban arrivals for October, November, 
and December 1995 are not included in the TAP formula this year because 
FY 1996 allocations are based on arrivals during the 5-year period from 
FY 1991 through FY 1995. Targeted assistance counties will be given 
credit for Cuban parolees who arrived during FY 1996 in the targeted 
assistance allocations for FY 1997
    Comment: One commenter requested that ORR review the procedure for 
awarding the $19 million Cuban/Haitian set-aside to only those counties 
which qualify for targeted assistance to determine if deserving 
counties are excluded from consideration for set-aside funds.
    Response: After considering the commenter's request, we have 
decided to include any county that received 900 or more entrant 
arrivals from FY 1991 through FY 1995 for eligibility for Cuban/Haitian 
set-aside funds, instead of limiting qualification for these funds only 
to counties eligible for regular targeted assistance formula funds. In 
reviewing congressional report language regarding the use of the 
special set-aside funds (H.R. Rept. No. 104-209), we believe 
congressional intent would be better served if eligibility for Cuban/
Haitian set-aside funds is open to all counties affected by recent 
Cuban and

[[Page 36743]]

Haitian arrivals, regardless of their eligibility for regular targeted 
assistance funds. We re-examined the eligibility of all counties that 
received entrant arrivals over the past 5 years to identify all 
counties with 900 or more entrant arrivals, based on documented arrival 
data. Two additional counties, Broward County and Hillsborough County, 
FL, were found to have 900 or more entrant arrivals and are, therefore, 
eligible to receive set-aside funds.
    Comment: Five commenters questioned the limiting of eligible 
counties to the top 38 counties. One commenter wondered what the 
rationale was for arriving at the cut-off of 38. Four commenters 
questioned why the Denver metropolitan area, which ranked 39th with an 
arrival population of more than 5,000 refugees, was not included among 
the list of eligible counties and recommended including Denver in the 
final notice. Two of these commenters recommended that we allow all 
counties with 5,000 or more refugee arrivals to qualify. One commenter 
who felt that refugee population is a much more significant factor than 
concentration recommended that ORR assign 3 times as much weight to 
population as to concentration. One commenter asked how many counties 
were considered for qualification.
    Response: ORR proposed to limit the number of qualified counties to 
the top 38 counties in order to cover as many counties as possible 
while still targeting a sufficient level of funding to the most 
impacted counties. The decision to place the cut-off after the 38th 
county was based on the fact that a sufficient point difference existed 
in the sum of ranks between the 38th county and the 39th county, the 
Denver metropolitan area, to constitute a natural break. In contrast, 
the summed scores between the 39th county through the next several 
counties were clustered within a very narrow point range.
    In regard to the qualification of the Denver metropolitan area, 
this metropolitan area, which is made up of 5 counties, does not 
qualify for targeted assistance. While the Denver area had over 5,000 
refugee arrivals, the percentage of refugees to the general population 
was low. However, Denver County, which has over 62 percent of the 
refugee arrivals in the 5-county area and a much higher refugee-to-
general population ratio than the 5-county area, when considered alone, 
ranks as the 26th county. We have, therefore, decided to include Denver 
County, as the 26th county, on the qualified county list. The addition 
of Denver changes the rank of the subsequent counties on the qualified 
list, shifting Oakland County, MI from 38 to 39, thereby increasing the 
list of qualified counties to the top 39 counties.
    We do not agree with the suggestion that ORR should allow all 
counties with 5,000 or more refugees to qualify for targeted 
assistance. Our statutory language requires ORR to take into account 
refugee concentrations as well as refugee population numbers as factors 
in qualifying counties for targeted assistance. A county with 5,000 or 
more refugees may have a very low concentration rank that results in a 
summed score that is not high enough to legitimately qualify the county 
for targeted assistance. We also do not agree with the suggestion that 
population should be given 3 times as much weight as concentration. 
This weighting would reduce the factor of concentration to 
insignificance, contrary to our understanding of congressional intent.
    Regarding the number of counties that were considered for 
qualification, 1,000 counties were considered.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on the methodology 
used to qualify counties. The commenter wondered whether assigning a 
weight of 2 to the 5-year arrival population means that the number of 
arrivals in each county were multiplied by two and then all counties 
were ranked based on this number. The commenter also wondered whether 
refugee concentration was calculated by computing a ratio of the number 
of refugees to the total population and whether old refugees only or 
old refugees plus new arrivals were divided by the total population. 
The commenter wondered whether the final ranking was the sum of the 
population ranking and the concentration ranking.
    Response: In regard to the weight given to the factor of 
population, a county's rank on arrivals from FY 1991 through FY 1995 
was multiplied by 2. Thus, if county X had a rank of 4 for arrivals, 
this rank was multiplied by 2, giving a total of 8. Refugee 
concentration was calculated by dividing the number of refugee/entrant 
arrivals to a county during the 5-year period by the county's general 
population number, thus yielding the percentage that the 5-year 
arrivals represent of the county's general population. The counties 
were ranked on the basis of their refugee concentration, with the 
county having the highest refugee concentration assigned a rank of 1. A 
county's population rank (multiplied by 2) was then added to its 
concentration rank for a summed rank score. Counties were then ranked 
in order of their summed scores, with the county with the lowest summed 
score given the rank of 1. If county X, mentioned earlier, ranked 1 on 
concentration, its summed score would be 9 (8+1). If the score of 9 
happens to be the lowest summed score, then county X would be ranked as 
the top county, with a rank of 1.
    Comment: Thirteen commenters expressed concerns about the factors 
used in the formula to determine county qualification. Ten commenters 
objected to the exclusion of secondary migrants in the population 
count. Four commenters recommended that a State's secondary migration 
numbers could be allocated to each county based on the proportion of 
new arrivals going to those counties. Two commenters objected to the 
fact that ORR is not taking welfare dependency into account when 
determining eligibility. One commenter recommended that we use 
population as the sole eligibility criterion, since we allocate TAP 
formula funds according to population. Another commenter recommended 
that we determine eligibility at the municipality level, instead of at 
the county level.
    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. States report annually on in-migration at the State level 
using the ORR-11. This reporting is based on the first three digits of 
a refugee's Social Security Number (SSN). These digits identify the 
State in which the SSN was issued which, with a few exceptions, is the 
State of initial resettlement. This information enables ORR both to 
credit the State of in-migration and to debit the State of out-
migration in developing State population estimates. Most States and 
counties are not able to provide county secondary migration data, which 
would involve tracking intrastate movement. Such data would be very 
difficult to construct since it would be necessary to determine both 
in-migration and out-migration for all targeted assistance counties in 
order to arrive at adjusted population estimates.
    The suggestion to allocate a State's secondary migration numbers to 
each county based on the proportion of new arrivals in the State going 
to those counties, is an idea that warrants some consideration. We can 
see problems with using a proportion of State secondary migration data 
as a proxy for actual data on county secondary migration because the 
use of secondary migration data involves both credits and debits for 
in- and out-migration. However, we are willing to look further

[[Page 36744]]

into the feasibility of using this method or some form of it in FY 
1997.
    Regarding the use of welfare dependency data, ORR no longer uses 
welfare dependency as a qualifying factor because data that would 
accurately reflect refugee dependency rates with any reasonable scope 
do not exist. While some States collect refugee recipient data in the 
AFDC program, many States and counties no longer collect such data. 
Using these data for some counties and not for others would be 
inequitable. As discussed in Section V, if a State with more than one 
eligible targeted assistance county collects welfare dependency data, 
such data may be used by the State to determine county allocations 
differently from the allocations set forth in this notice.
    Regarding the suggestion that we use population as the only 
qualifying criterion, ORR must take into account all eligibility 
factors which are outlined in the statute for which data are available. 
In section 412(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the three 
factors for targeted assistance are high population, high refugee 
concentration, and high use of public assistance. While we do not have 
available welfare dependency data, data are available on refugee 
population and refugee concentration. Therefore, we are required to use 
both factors in determining county qualification.
    Regarding the suggestion that ORR determine eligibility at the 
municipality level, ORR is required by statute to make grants to States 
for assistance to counties and similar areas. Therefore, we do not 
consider smaller municipalities, such as townships, for targeted 
assistance eligibility.
    Comment: Six commenters recommended that ORR determine country 
eligibility on an annual basis instead of the proposed three-year 
eligibility period. The commenters felt that the three-year eligibility 
period does not account for fluctuations in arrivals.
    Response: As the notice indicates, we proposed maintaining county 
eligibility for three years in order to allow counties an adequate 
period of time to address the refugee impact in their counties. An 
annual redetermination of county qualification would not provide the 
funding stability needed to sufficiently address refugee impact. If a 
community experiences a new population impact, discretionary funds are 
available through the unanticipated arrivals standing announcement to 
address this issue.
    Comment: Three commenters recommended that the 20 percent 
discretionary funding be included in the targeted assistance formula 
allocation to impacted areas. One commenter felt that this would result 
in a more equitable distribution of funds and would avoid the 
administrative costs involved in preparing a grant proposal.
    Response: It is the intent of Congress that TAP 20 percent funds be 
made available to all communities with large concentrations of refugees 
whose cultural differences make assimilation especially difficult, not 
just targeted assistance counties.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the $19 million set-aside for 
Cuban/Haitian Entrants, stating that this set-aside allows certain 
counties to receive a disproportionate share of the funding.
    Response: The allocation of Cuban/Haitian set-aside funds is in 
accordance with Congressional intent as expressed in the Appropriation 
Committee Reports.
    Comment: Three commenters recommended that ORR consider the impact 
that discontinuing funding will have on areas of high unemployment. Two 
commenters expressed concern about the effect that the loss of TAP 
funds will have on counties' abilities to serve refugees. In addition, 
two commenters expressed concern that the loss of TAP funds will 
decrease the county's ability to leverage other funds that have been 
used to provide services to refugees.
    Response: ORR understands that discontinuing funding in the 
counties that no longer qualify for TAP will undoubtedly have an effect 
on the services in those counties. It is time, however, to direct 
targeted assistance funds to those counties that are the most impacted 
by recent refugee arrivals. Over the past 13 years, the same counties 
have been receiving targeted assistance, based on arrivals dating back 
to FY 1980. New ORR regulations require that we now limit our focus on 
the most recent 5-year arrival populations, which, not surprisingly, 
shifts the funds to areas with more recent impacts. Such changes to the 
targeted assistance formula have been discussed with States at a number 
of meetings over the past two years to ensure that States would 
understand the effect that the new formula would have and would prepare 
for the possible loss of funds.
    Counties losing targeted assistance formula funds may wish to apply 
for ORR targeted assistance discretionary funds through their States.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns about the application 
requirements. One commenter felt that offering the TAP funds to the 
counties would lead the counties to merge TAP with other funds to 
provide consolidated workforce programs; the commenter felt that such a 
scenario would detract from the concept of refugee-specific services as 
supported by ORR. Another commenter asked at what point States can stop 
applying for TAP funds and have them allocated in the same manner as 
social service funds. One commenter recommended that ORR allow for a 
90-day application period; another commenter recommended that there be 
a 60-day application period or that there be fewer application 
requirements,
    Response: Section 412(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act requires that 95 percent of targeted assistance funds 
by made available to the county or similar local jurisdiction. States, 
therefore, must pass the funding down to the qualified county unless 
the county chooses to rely on the States to administer the targeted 
assistance program.
    Regarding the question about eliminating the need to apply for TAP 
funds, we have no plans to eliminate this requirement. States that wish 
to receive targeted assistance funding will continue to have to submit 
an application for funding in accordance with the application content 
requirements contained in this notice. Similarly, the receipt of social 
services formula funds is contingent upon the submission of an approved 
Annual Services Plan.
    A full application is required this year because a number of new 
counties are eligible for targeted assistance and because counties that 
have received TAP funds in the past and will continue to qualify for 
TAP have not been required to submit a full application since FY 1986. 
Application requirements in the second and third year of a 3-year TAP 
period will be less extensive. Regarding the time allowed to prepare 
applications, we plan to allow a longer period of time beginning in FY 
1997 for submission of applications.
    Comment: One commenter was opposed to requiring the submission of 
outcome goals in the TAP application since goals which reflect TAP 
funding will be submitted to ORR every November as part of a State's 
Annual Outcome Goal Plan. The commenter also felt that goals should 
reflect changes in funding and other local factors such as the refugee 
population. The commenter stated that outcomes will decrease if funding 
decreases.
    Response: It is necessary for targeted assistance counties to 
establish outcome goals as part of their TAP application for two 
reasons: Not all States that received TAP funds in FY 1995 included 
TAP-

[[Page 36745]]

funded goals in their FY 1996 aggregated Annual Outcome Goal Plans; and 
HHS grants policy requires grantees to set goals specific to each 
funding source.
    ORR understands that funding levels and other variables must be 
taken into account when setting and meeting goals. For this reason, we 
ask States and counties to set goals in terms of percentages of 
caseload and real numbers. A decrease in funding will likely result in 
a smaller caseload to be served, but need not necessarily result in a 
smaller percentage of the caseload entering employment.
    Comment: One commenter was opposed to the fact that the notice 
specifies what must be included in family self-sufficiency plans. The 
commenter stated that there is no evidence that gathering this 
information leads to jobs any sooner.
    Response: Sections 400.156 and 400.317 of ORR's final rule 
stipulate that a family self-sufficiency plan must be developed for 
anyone receiving employment services funded by social services and TAP 
dollars. We received comments to the proposed rule requesting a 
definition of a family self-sufficiency plan. Therefore, in response to 
this request, we defined what we mean by a family self-sufficiency plan 
in the preamble to the final rule, published on June 28, 1995. The same 
definition is used in this notice. Contrary to the commenter's view, 
while there may not be hard evidence that a family self-sufficiency 
plan, as defined in this notice, leads to earlier employment, there is 
abundant experiential evidence in the refugee program that the 
development of such plans assists both the refugee family and the 
employment counselor to focus more clearly on what steps need to be 
taken to achieve self-sufficiency. Such plans result ultimately in 
earlier family self-sufficiency through the attainment of jobs for one 
or more wage-earners at self-supporting wages.
    Comment: One commenter objected to ORR's encouraging States with 
more than one funded county to place all counties on the same 
contracting cycle. The commenter stated that until ORR allocates on a 
Federal fiscal year funding cycle, ORR should not expect States to 
require counties to operate on the same cycle. Another commenter stated 
that while having the same start date for all counties would be nice, 
it would not be able to be accomplished without additional funds in 
order to avoid a reduction in services.
    Response: We are encouraging uniformity of contracting cycles 
within a State because we believe this makes good management sense and 
makes reporting less complicated.
    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 are looking into the feasibility of issuing targeted 
assistance formula allocations on a quarterly basis, similar to the 
quarterly allocation of social service formula funds, beginning in FY 
1997. Next year, when county eligibility for targeted assistance will 
not have to be re-determined, we should be able to issue the awards 
earlier.
    Comment: One commenter objected to increasing the county 
administrative allowance to 15 percent. This commenter felt that 
counties that have no experience working with refugees will contract 
out the services to providers that already have contracts with the 
State, resulting in the same services with added administrative costs. 
Another commenter expressed support for the increase.
    Response: County administrative costs vary in the targeted 
assistance program. Some counties are able to operate an efficient 
targeted assistance program with a minimum of administrative costs, 
while other counties require a higher administrative level of funding 
to properly manage their targeted assistance program. The increase to 
15 percent simply allows for more flexibility in meeting differing 
administrative cost needs. The increase, however, is not meant to 
encourage counties to automatically increase their administrative 
costs, regardless of need.

V. Eligible Grantees

    Eligible grantees are those agencies of State governments that are 
responsible for the refugee program under 45 CFR 400.5 in States 
containing counties which qualify for FY 1996 targeted assistance 
awards.
    The Director of ORR has determined the eligibility for counties for 
inclusion in the FY 1996 targeted assistance program on the basis of 
the method described in section VI of this notice.
    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 among for each qualified county 
within the State. However, if a State chooses to determine county 
allocations differently from those set forth in this notice, in 
accordance with Sec. 400.319, the FY 1996 allocations proposed by the 
State must be based on the State's population of refugees who arrived 
in the U.S. during the most recent 5-year period. A State may use 
welfare data as an additional factor in the allocation of its targeted 
assistance funds if it so chooses; however, a State may not assign a 
greater weight to welfare data than it has assigned to population data 
in its allocation formula. In addition, if a State chooses to allocate 
its FY 1996 targeted assistance funds in a manner different from the 
formula set forth in this notice, the FY 1996 allocations and 
methodology proposed by the State must be included in the State's 
application for ORR review and approval.
    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

    Beginning with FY 1996, ORR has eliminated the formulas used to 
date for qualification for, and allocation of, targeted assistance 
funds and replaced them with new formulas in keeping with Sec. 400.315 
in ORR's final rule which limits the use of targeted assistance funds 
to serving refugees who have been in the U.S. 5 years or less.

A. Qualifying New Counties

    In order to qualify for application for FY 1996 targeted assistance 
funds, a county (or group of adjacent counties with the same Standard 
Metropolitan Statistical area, or SMSA) or independent city is required 
to rank above a selected cut-off point of jurisdictions for which data 
were reviewed, based on two criteria: (1) The number of refugee/entrant 
arrivals placed in the county during the most recent 5-year period (FY 
1991--FY 1995); and (2) the 5-year refugee/entrant population as a 
percent of the county overall population. County arrival numbers have 
been adjusted based on

[[Page 36746]]

updated refugee and entrant arrival data.
    Welfare dependency will no longer be used as a qualifying criterion 
since welfare dependency data for refugee AFDC recipients have not been 
available at the national level since FY 1989.
    Each county was ranked on the basis of its 5-year arrival 
population and its concentration of refugees, with a relative weighting 
of 2 to 1 respectively, because we believe that large numbers of 
refugee/entrant arrivals into a county create a significant impact, 
regardless of the ratio of refugees to the county general population. 
The rank of some counties changed slightly due to updated arrival 
numbers. No county changed its rank sufficiently to change its status 
from ineligible to eligible.
    Each county was then ranked in terms of the sum of a county's rank 
on refugee arrivals and its rank on concentration. To qualify for 
targeted assistance, a county had to rank within the top 39 counties. 
ORR has decided to limit the number of qualified counties to the top 39 
counties in order to target a sufficient level of funding to the most 
impacted counties. Denver County, which had been considered as part of 
the Denver metropolitan area, in combination with 4 other counties, in 
the May 6 notice, was ranked as a separate county in the final notice 
and found to qualify in its own right as the 26th county. The addition 
of Denver has increased the list of qualified counties from the 38 
counties listed in the May 6 notice to 39.
    ORR has screened data on all counties that have received awards for 
targeted assistance since FY 1983 and on all other counties that could 
potentially qualify for TAP funds based on the criteria in this notice. 
Analysis of these data indicates that: (1) 24 counties which have 
previously received targeted assistance continue to qualify; (2) 18 
counties which have previously received targeted assistance no longer 
qualify; and (3) 15 new counties qualify.
    Table 1 provides a list of the counties that remain qualified and 
the new counties that qualify, the number of refugee/entrant arrivals 
in those counties within the past 5 years, the percent that the 5-year 
arrival population represents of the overall county population, and 
each county's rank, based on the qualification formula described above.
    Table 2 lists the counties that have previously received targeted 
assistance which no longer qualify, the number of refugee/entrant 
arrivals in those counties within the past 5 years, the percent that 
the 5-year arrival population represents of the overall county 
population, and each county's rank, based on the qualification formula.
    The ORR Director plans to determine qualification of counties for 
targeted assistance funds once every three years. Thus the counties 
listed in this notice as qualified to apply for FY 1996 TAP funding 
will remain qualified for TAP funding through FY 1998. ORR does not 
plan to consider the eligibility of additional counties for TAP funding 
until FY 1999, when ORR will again review data on all counties that 
could potentially qualify for TAP funds based on the criteria in this 
notice. We believe that a more frequent redetermination of county 
qualification for targeted assistance would not provide qualifying 
counties a sufficient period of time within a stable funding climate to 
adequately address the refugee impact in their counties, while a less 
frequent redetermination of county qualification would pose the risk of 
not considering new population impacts in a timely manner.

B. Allocation Formula

    Of the funds available for FY 1996 for targeted assistance, 
$25,317,600 is allocated by formula to States for qualifying counties 
based on the initial placements of refugees, Amerasians, and entrants 
in these counties during the 5-year period from FY 1991 through FY 1995 
(October 1, 1990--September 30, 1995).
    At this time, ORR entrant arrival data do not include Cuban 
parolees who came to the U.S. directly from Havana in FY 1995 under the 
U.S. Bilateral Agreement with Cuba. Reliable data on these parolees are 
difficult to obtain since these parolees are not resettled through 
sponsoring agencies. Only one State was able to provide appropriate 
documentation to ORR regarding the number of Havana parolee arrivals to 
that State. We have adjusted the 5-year population to include Havana 
parolees to that State based on the data it submitted. For those States 
that were not able to submit documentation on Havana parolee arrivals, 
we have decided, in the absence of actual data, to credit each 
qualified TAP county that received entrant arrivals during the 5-year 
period from FY 1991-FY 1995 with a prorated share of the estimated 
10,279 parolees who came to the U.S. directly from Havana in FY 1995. 
We believe it is a reasonable proxy to base the proration on the 
percentage of the total 5-year entrant population that each county 
received. The allocations in this notice reflect these additional 
parolee numbers.

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

    Allocations for recent Cuban and Haitian entrant arrivals are based 
on entrant arrival numbers during the 5-year period beginning October 
1, 1990 through September 30, 1995. Allocations are limited to counties 
that received 900 or more Cuban and Haitian arrivals during the 5-year 
period. We have limited allocations to counties with at least 900 
entrants to target these resources on the most impacted counties. 
Counties with 900 or more entrants are eligible for these special funds 
regardless of whether they qualify for the regular targeted assistance 
formula program.

VII. Allocations

    Table 3 lists the qualifying counties, the number of refugee/
entrant arrivals in those counties during the 5-year period from 
October 1, 1990-September 30, 1995, the prorated number of Havana 
parolees credited to each county based on the county's proportion of 
the 5-year entrant population in the U.S., the sum of the first two 
columns, and the amount of each county's allocation based on its 5-year 
total population.
    Table 4 lists the number of Cuban and Haitian entrant arrivals in 
each county during FY 1991-FY 1995, the prorated number of Havana 
parolees credited to each county, the total number of entrants and 
parolees, and the allocation amount for each county that received 900 
or more entrants during the 5-year period.
    Table 5 provides State totals for targeted assistance allocations.
    Table 6 indicates the areas that each qualified county represents.

[[Page 36747]]



      Table 1.--Top 39 Counties Eligible for Targeted Assistance, Targeted Assistance Counties Eligible for     
                                                  Continuation                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  5-year arrival   Concentration                
                        County and state                               pop.           percent          Rank     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda, CA.....................................................           5,915          0.4624              23
Fresno, CA......................................................           6,856          1.0271               8
Merced, CA......................................................           1,885          1.0566              38
Orange, CA......................................................          26,218          1.0876               4
Sacramento, CA..................................................          12,967          1.2454               5
San Diego, CA...................................................          13,579          0.5436              14
San Francisco, CA...............................................          11,798          0.7357              12
San Joaquin, CA.................................................           3,019          0.6281              28
Santa Clara, CA.................................................          18,395          1.2283               3
Los Angeles, CA.................................................          30,395          0.3429              21
Denver, CO......................................................           3,420          0.7314              26
Dade, FL........................................................          54,386          2.8076               1
Palm Beach, FL..................................................           3,715          0.4302              35
Cook/Kane, IL...................................................          18,979          0.3500              22
Suffolk, MA.....................................................           6,305          0.9497              13
Hennepin, MN....................................................           5,324          0.5157              20
Ramsey, MN......................................................           4,814          0.9910              15
New York, NY....................................................          87,570          1.1959               2
Multnomah, OR...................................................          11,463          0.8116               9
Philadelphia, PA................................................           8,643          0.5451              16
Dallas/Tarrant, TX..............................................          13,371          0.4423              17
Harris, TX......................................................          11,337          0.4023              24
Fairfax, VA.....................................................           4,848          0.5055              25
King, WA........................................................          17,618          0.8930               6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           NEW COUNTIES THAT QUALIFY                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia............................................           4,460          0.7349              19
Duval, FL.......................................................           3,282          0.4877              34
De Kalb, GA.....................................................           5,762          1.0556              11
Fulton, GA......................................................           6,581          1.0141              10
Polk, IA........................................................           2,784          0.8510              29
City of Baltimore, MD...........................................           3,568          0.4848              32
Oakland, MI.....................................................           4,100          0.3784              39
City of St. Louis, MO...........................................           5,442          1.3719               7
Lancaster, NE...................................................           2,894          1.3546              18
Bernalillo, NM..................................................           2,828          0.5885              37
Broome, NY......................................................           2,155          1.0157              36
Monroe, NY......................................................           3,495          0.4895              30
Oneida, NY......................................................           2,300          0.9169              33
Davidson, TN....................................................           3,308          0.6476              27
Richmond, VA....................................................           2,165          1.0662              31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          Table 2.--Targeted Assistance Counties That No Longer Qualify                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  5-year arrival   Concentration                
                        County and state                               pop.           percent          Rank     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contra Costa, CA................................................           1,748          0.2175              85
Tulare, CA......................................................           1,110          0.3559              87
Stanislaus, CA..................................................           1,258          0.3395              82
Broward, FL.....................................................           3,703          0.2949              51
Hillsborough, FL................................................           2,863          0.3433              52
Honolulu, HI....................................................           1,363          0.1630             111
Sedgwick, KS....................................................           1,572          0.3894              68
Orleans, LA.....................................................           1,259          0.1332             117
Montgomery/Prince Georges, MD...................................           4,530          0.3048              47
Middlesex, MA...................................................           3,114          0.2227              61
Jackson, MO.....................................................           3,234          0.4067              41
Essex, NJ.......................................................           2,100          0.2699              67
Hudson, NJ......................................................           2,761          0.4992              44
Union, NJ.......................................................           1,221          0.2473             101
Providence, RI..................................................           1,389          0.2329              95
Salt Lake, UT...................................................           2,957          0.2511              59
Arlington, VA...................................................           1,468          0.8588              54
Pierce, WA......................................................           2,825          0.4819              46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 36748]]



                          Table 3.--Targeted Assistance Allocations by County: FY 1996                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Arrivals:       Prorated \2\                     $25,317,600 
                County, state                   Refugee+entrant       Havana      Total arrivals   Total FY 1996
                                               \1\ FY 1991-1995      Parolees                       allocation  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAMEDA, CA.................................             5,915                 3           5,918        $341,304
FRESNO, CA..................................             6,856                 0           6,856         395,400
LOS ANGELES, CA.............................            30,395               114          30,509       1,759,519
MERCED, CA..................................             1,885                 0           1,885         108.712
ORANGE, CA..................................            26,218                 6          26,224       1,512,394
SACRAMENTO, CA..............................            12,967                 1          12,968         747,892
SAN DIEGO, CA...............................            13,579                71          13,650         787,224
SAN FRANCISCO, CA...........................            11,798                35          11,833         682,434
SAN JOAQUIN, CA.............................             3,019                 1           3,020         174,170
SANTA CLARA, CA.............................            18,395                 2          18,397       1,060,994
DENVER, CO..................................             3,420                 1           3,421         197,296
DIST OF COLUMBIA, DC........................             4,460                 2           4,462         257,333
DADE, FL....................................            54,386                 0          54,386       3,136,556
DUVAL FL....................................             3,282                 0           3,282         189,280
PALM BEACH, FL..............................             3,715                 0           3,715         214,252
DE KALB, GA.................................             5,762                 4           5,766         332,537
FULTON, GA..................................             6,581                31           6,612         381,328
COOK/KANE, IL...............................            18,979                62          19,041       1,098,135
POLK, IA....................................             2,784                 0           2,784         160,559
BALTIMORE, MD \3\...........................             3,568                 0           3,568         205,774
SUFFOLK, MA.................................             6,305                52           6,357         366,622
OAKLAND, MI.................................             4,100                 2           4,102         236,571
HENNEPIN, MN................................             5,324                 0           5,324         307,046
RAMSEY, MN..................................             4,814                 2           4,816         277,749
ST LOUIS, MO \3\............................             5,442                 0           5,442         313,852
LANCASTER, NE...............................             2,894                 1           2,895         166,961
BERNALILLO, NM..............................             2,828               188           3,016         173,939
BROOME, NY..................................             2,155                 5           2,160         124,572
MONROE, NY..................................             3,495                76           3,571         205,947
NEW YORK, NY................................            87,570               193          87,763       5,061,479
ONEIDA, NY..................................             2,300                 0           2,300         132,646
MULTNOMAH, OR...............................            11,463                62          11,525         664,671
PHILADELPHIA, PA............................             8,643                12           8,655         499,152
DAVIDSON, TN................................             3,308                 0           3,308         190,779
DALLAS/TARRANT, TX..........................            13,371                85          13,456         776,036
HARRIS, TX..................................            11,337                19          11,356         654,925
FAIRFAX, VA.................................             4,848                 1           4,849         279,652
RICHMOND, VA................................             2,165                15           2,180         125,725
KING/SNOHOMISH, WA..........................            17,618                 2          17,620       1,016,183
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL.................................           437,944             1,048         438,992      25,317,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Havana parolees for counties in Florida.                                                           
\2\ Havana Parollees credited to non-Florida TAP counties based on counties' proportion of the 5 year entrant   
  population in the U.S.                                                                                        
\3\ The qualifying local jurisdiction is the independent City of Baltimore and the independent city of St.      
  Louis.                                                                                                        


                     Table 4.--Targeted Assistance Alocations for Communities Affected by Recent Cuban and Haitian Arrivals: FY 1996                    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           Entrants \1\+                
                                                                  Entrants \1\    Prorated \2\    Entrants \1\+Prorated    Prorated \2\     $19,000,000 
                         County, state                            FY 1991-1995       Havana        \2\ Havana parolees      Havana Par.    total FY 1996
                                                                                    parolees                               more than 900  C/H allocation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAMEDA, CA....................................................              16               3                   19      ..............  ..............
FRESNO, CA.....................................................               0               0                    0      ..............  ..............
LOS ANGELES, CA................................................             608             114                  722      ..............  ..............
MERCED, CA.....................................................               0               0                    0      ..............  ..............
ORANGE, CA.....................................................              30               6                   36      ..............  ..............
SACRAMENTO, CA.................................................               3               1                    4      ..............  ..............
SAN DIEGO, CA..................................................             378              71                  449      ..............  ..............
SAN FRANCISCO, CA..............................................             187              35                  222      ..............  ..............
SAN JOAQUIN, CA................................................               5               1                    6      ..............  ..............
SANTA CLARA, CA................................................              12               2                   14      ..............  ..............
DENVER, CO.....................................................               3               1                    4      ..............  ..............
DIST OF COLUMBIA, DC...........................................              13               2                   15      ..............  ..............
DADE, FL.......................................................          42,679               0               42,679              42,679     $15,737,705
DUVAL, FL......................................................              35               0                   35      ..............  ..............
PALM BEACH, FL.................................................           2,955               0                2,955               2,955      $1,089,644
DE KALB, GA....................................................              19               4                   23      ..............  ..............
FULTON, GA.....................................................             165              31                  196      ..............  ..............

[[Page 36749]]

                                                                                                                                                        
COOK/KANE, IL..................................................             331              62                  393                   0               0
POLK, IA.......................................................               0               0                    0      ..............  ..............
BALTIMORE. MD \2\..............................................               1               0                    1      ..............  ..............
SUFFOLK, MA....................................................             277              52                  329      ..............  ..............
OAKLAND, MI....................................................               8               2                   10      ..............  ..............
HENNEPIN, MN...................................................               0               0                    0      ..............  ..............
RAMSEY, MN.....................................................               8               2                   10      ..............  ..............
ST LOUIS, MO \2\...............................................               1               0                    1      ..............  ..............
LANCASTER, NE..................................................               5               1                    6      ..............  ..............
BERNALILLO, NM.................................................           1,002             188                1,190               1,190        $438,808
BROOME, NY.....................................................              29               5                   34      ..............  ..............
MONROE, NY.....................................................             403              76                  479      ..............  ..............
NEW YORK, NY...................................................           1,029             193                1,222               1,222         450,607
ONEIDA, NY.....................................................               1               0                    1      ..............  ..............
MULTNOMAH, OR..................................................             329              62                  391      ..............  ..............
PHILADELPHIA, PA...............................................              66              12                   78      ..............  ..............
DAVIDSON, TN...................................................               1               0                    1      ..............  ..............
DALLAS/TARRANT, TX.............................................             452              85                  537      ..............  ..............
HARRIS, TX.....................................................              99              19                  118      ..............  ..............
FAIRFAX, VA....................................................               4               1                    5      ..............  ..............
RICHMOND, VA...................................................              82              15                   97      ..............  ..............
KING/SNOHOMISH, WA.............................................              12               2                   14      ..............  ..............
BROWARD, FL \3\................................................           2,523               0                2,523               2,523        $930,346
HILLSBOROUGH, FL \3\...........................................             957               0                  957                 957        $352,890
                                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL....................................................          54,728           1,048               55,776              51,526     $19,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Havana parolees for counties Florida.                                                                                                      
\2\ Havana Parolees credited to non-Florida TAP counties based on counties' proportion of the 5 year entrant population in the U.S.                     
\3\ Broward and Hillsborough counties only qualify for the C/H Allocation.                                                                              



                           Table 5.--Targeted Assistance Allocations by State: FY 1996                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    $25,317,600     $19,000,000     $44,317,600 
                              State                                Total FY 1996   Total FY 1996   Total FY 1996
                                                                    allocation    C/H allocation    allocation  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California......................................................      $7,570,043  ..............      $7,570,043
Colorado........................................................         197,296  ..............         197,296
District of Col.................................................         257,333  ..............         257,333
Florida.........................................................       3,540,088      18,110,585      21,650,673
Georgia.........................................................         713,865  ..............         713,865
Illinois........................................................       1,098,135  ..............       1,098,135
Iowa............................................................         160,559  ..............         160,559
Maryland........................................................         205,774  ..............         205,774
Massachusetts...................................................         366,622  ..............         366,622
Michigan........................................................         236,571  ..............         236,571
Minnesota.......................................................         584,795  ..............         584,795
Missouri........................................................         313,852  ..............         313,852
Nebraska........................................................         166,961  ..............         166,961
New Mexico......................................................         173,939         438,808         612,747
New York........................................................       5,524,644         450,607       5,975,251
Oregon..........................................................         664,671  ..............         664,671
Pennsylvania....................................................         499,152  ..............         499,152
Tennessee.......................................................         190,779  ..............         190,779
Texas...........................................................       1,430,961  ..............       1,430,961
Virginia........................................................         405,377  ..............         405,377
Washington......................................................       1,016,183  ..............       1,016,183
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................      25,317,600      19,000,000      44,317,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                       Table 6.--Targeted Assistance Areas                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   State                          Targeted assistance area 1                 Definition         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA.........................................  ALAMEDA                                                            
CA.........................................  FRESNO                                                             

[[Page 36750]]

                                                                                                                
CA.........................................  LOS ANGELES                                                        
CA.........................................  MERCED                                                             
CA.........................................  ORANGE                                                             
CA.........................................  SACREMENTO                                                         
CA.........................................  SAN DIEGO                                                          
CA.........................................  SAN FRANCISCO.......................  MARIN, SAN FRANCISCO, & SAN  
                                                                                    MATEO COUNTIES              
CA.........................................  SAN JOAQUIN                                                        
CA.........................................  SANTA CLARA                                                        
CO.........................................  DENVER                                                             
DC.........................................  DISTRICT OF COL.                                                   
FL.........................................  DADE                                                               
FL.........................................  DUVAL                                                              
FL.........................................  PALM BEACH                                                         
GA.........................................  DEKALB                                                             
GA.........................................  FULTON                                                             
IL.........................................  COOK/KANE                                                          
IA.........................................  POLK                                                               
MD.........................................  CITY OF BALTIMORE                                                  
MA.........................................  SUFFOLK                                                            
MI.........................................  OAKLAND                                                            
MN.........................................  HENNEPIN                                                           
MN.........................................  RAMSEY                                                             
MO.........................................  CITY OF ST. LOUIS                                                  
NE.........................................  LANCASTER                                                          
NM.........................................  BERNALILLO                                                         
NY.........................................  BROOME                                                             
NY.........................................  MONROE                                                             
NY.........................................  NEW YORK............................  BRONX, KINGS, NEW YORK,      
                                                                                    QUEENS, & RICHMOND COUNTIES.
NY.........................................  ONEIDA                                                             
OR.........................................  MULTNOMAH...........................  CLACKAMAS, MULTNOMAH, &      
                                                                                    WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OR. &  
                                                                                    CLARK COUNTY, WA.           
PA.........................................  PHILADELPHIA                                                       
TN.........................................  DAVIDSON                                                           
TX.........................................  DALLAS/TARRANT                                                     
TX.........................................  HARRIS                                                             
VA.........................................  FAIRFAX.............................  FAIRFAX COUNTY & THE         
                                                                                    INDEPENDENT CITIES OF       
                                                                                    ALEXANDRIA, FAIRFAX AND     
                                                                                    FALLS CHURCH.               
VA.........................................  RICHMOND                                                           
WA.........................................  KING/SNOHOMISH                                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consists of named county/counties eligible for the regular Targeted Assistance Formula Grant unless         
  otherwise defined.                                                                                            



VIII. Application and Implementation Process

    Under the FY 1996 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.
    Pursuant to Sec. 400.210(b), FY 1996 targeted assistance 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. 
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 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 discretionary portion of the targeted 
assistance appropriation have been addressed separately in the grant 
announcement for those funds.

IX. Application Requirements

    In applying for targeted assistance funds, a State agency is 
required to provide the following:
    A. 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.
    B. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used primarily 
for the provision of services which 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 1996 
targeted assistance formula allocation funds that are used for services 
will be allocated for employment services.
    C. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will not be used to 
offset funding otherwise available to counties or local jurisdictions 
from the State agency in its

[[Page 36751]]

administration of other programs, e.g. social services, cash and 
medical assistance, etc.
    D. Identification of the local administering agency.
    E. The amount of funds to be awarded to the targeted county or 
counties. If a State with more than one qualifying targeted assistance 
county chooses to allocate its targeted assistance funds differently 
from the formula allocation for counties presented in the ORR targeted 
assistance notice in a fiscal year, its allocations must be based on 
the State's population of refugees who arrived in the U.S. during the 
most recent 5-year period. A State may use welfare data as an 
additional factor in the allocation of targeted assistance funds if it 
so chooses; however, a State may not assign a greater weight to welfare 
data than it has assigned to population data in its allocation formula. 
The application must provide a description of, and supporting data for, 
the State's proposed allocation plan, the data to be used, and the 
proposed allocation for each county.
    In instances where a State receives targeted assistance funding for 
impacted counties contained in a standard metropolitan statistical area 
(SMSA) which includes a county or counties located in a neighboring 
State, the State receiving those funds must provide a description of 
coordination and planning activities undertaken with the State Refugee 
Coordinator of the neighboring State in which the impacted county or 
counties are located. These planning and coordination activities should 
result in a proposed allocation plan for the equitable distribution of 
targeted assistance funds by county based on the distribution of the 
eligible population by county within the SMSA. The proposed allocation 
plan must be included in the State's application to ORR.
    F. A description of the State's guidelines for the required content 
of county targeted assistance plans and a description of the State's 
review/approval process for such county plans. Acceptable county plans 
must minimally include the following:
    1. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used in 
accordance with the new ORR regulations published in the Federal 
Register on June 28, 1995. In particular, a description of a county's 
plan to carry out the requirements of 45 CFR 400.156.
    2. Procedures for carrying out a local planning process for 
determining targeted assistance priorities and service strategies. All 
local targeted assistance plans will be developed through a planning 
process that involves, in addition to the State Refugee Coordinator, 
representatives of the private sector (for example, private employers, 
private industry council, Chamber of Commerce, etc.), leaders of 
refugee/entrant community-based organizations, voluntary resettlement 
agencies, refugees from the impacted communities, and other public 
officials associated with social services and employment agencies that 
serve refugees. Counties are encouraged to foster coalition-building 
among these participating organizations.
    3. Identification of refugee/entrant populations to be served by 
targeted assistance projects, including approximate numbers of clients 
to be served, and a description of characteristics and needs of 
targeted populations. (As per Sec. 400.314)
    4. Description of specific strategies and services to meet the 
needs of targeted populations. These should be justified where possible 
through analysis of strategies and outcomes from projects previously 
implemented under the targeted assistance programs, the regular social 
service programs, and any other services available to the refugee 
population.
    5. The relationship of targeted assistance services to other 
services available to refugees/entrants in the county including State-
allocated ORR social services.
    6. Analysis of available employment opportunities in the local 
community. Examples of acceptable analyses of employment opportunities 
might include surveys of employers or potential employers of refugee 
clients, surveys of presently effective employment service providers, 
review of studies on employment opportunities/forecasts which would be 
appropriate to the refugee populations.
    7. Description of the monitoring and oversight responsibilities to 
be carried out by the county or qualifying local jurisdiction.
    8. Assurance that the local administrative budget will not exceed 
15% of the local allocation. Targeted assistance grants are cost-based 
awards. Neither a State nor a county is entitled to a certain amount 
for administrative costs. Rather, administrative cost requests should 
be based on projections of actual needs. Beginning with FY 1996 funds, 
all TAP counties will be allowed to spend up to 15% of their allocation 
on TAP administrative costs, as need requires. However, States and 
counties are strongly encouraged to limit administrative costs to the 
extent possible to maximize available funding for services to clients.
    9. For any State that administers the program directly or otherwise 
provides direct service to the refugee/entrant population (with the 
concurrence of the county), the State must provide ORR with the same 
information required above for review and prior approval.
    G. All applicants must establish targeted assistance proposed 
performance goals for each of the 6 ORR performance outcome measures 
for each impacted county's proposed service contract(s) or sub-grants 
for the next contracting cycle. Proposed performance goals must be 
included in the application for each performance measure. The 6 ORR 
performance measures are: entered employments, cash assistance 
reductions due to employment, cash assistance terminations due to 
employment, 90-day employment retentions, average wage at placement, 
and job placements with available health benefits. Targeted assistance 
program activity and progress achieved toward meeting performance 
outcome goals are to be reported quarterly on the ORR-6, the Quarterly 
Performance Report.
    States which are currently grantees for targeted assistance funds 
should base projected annual outcome goals on past performance. Current 
grantees should have adequate baseline data for at least 3 of the 6 ORR 
performance outcome measures (entered employments, 90 day retentions, 
and average wage at placement) based on a long history (in some cases, 
as much as 12 years) of targeted assistance program experience. Where 
baseline data do not exist for a specific performance outcome measure, 
current grantees should use available performance data from the current 
targeted assistance funding cycle to establish reasonable outcome goals 
for contractors and sub-grantees on all 6 measures.
    States identified as new eligible targeted assistance grantees are 
also required to set proposed outcome goals for each of the 6 ORR 
performance outcome measures. New grantees may use baseline data, as 
available, and current data as reported on the ORR-6 for social 
services program activity to assist them in the goal-setting process.
    Proposed targeted assistance outcome goals should reflect 
improvement over past performance and strive for continuous improvement 
during the project period from one year to another.
    H. An identification of the contracting cycle dates for targeted 
assistance service contracts in each county. States with more than one 
qualified county are encouraged to ensure that all counties 
participating in TAP in the State use the same contracting cycle dates.

[[Page 36752]]

    I. A description of the State's plan for conducting fiscal and 
programmatic monitoring and evaluations of the targeted assistance 
program, including frequency of on-site monitoring.
    J. Assurance that the State will make available to the county or 
designated local entity not less than 95% of the amount of its formula 
allocation for purposes of implementing the activities proposed in its 
plan, except in the case of a State that administers the program 
locally as described in item F9 above.
    K. 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 that administer the 
program locally in lieu of the county, through a mutual agreement with 
the qualifying county, may add up to, but not exceed, 10% of the 
county's TAP allocation to the State's administrative budget.
    L. Assurance that the State will follow or mandate that its sub-
recipients will follow appropriate State procurement and contract 
requirements in the acquisition, administration, and management of 
targeted assistance service contracts.

X. Reporting Requirements

    States are required to submit quarterly reports on the outcomes of 
the targeted assistance program, using Schedule A and Schedule C of the 
new ORR-6 Quarterly Performance Report form which was sent to States in 
ORR State Letter 95-35 on November 6, 1995.

    Dated: July 8, 1996.
Lavinia Limon,
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[FR Doc. 96-17808 Filed 7-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P-M