[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31437-31445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14899]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families


Refugee Resettlement Program; Final Notice of Availability of 
Formula Allocation Funding for FY 1997 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 1997 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 1997 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 final notice also announces the inclusion of 8 additional 
qualified counties for targeted assistance formula allocation funding, 
bringing the total of qualified targeted assistance counties from 39 
counties to 47 counties for FY 1997.
    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 April 1, 1997 
(62 FR 15520).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toyo Biddle, Director, Division of 
Refugee Self-Sufficiency, (202) 401-9250.

APPLICATION DEADLINE: The closing date for submission of applications 
is July 24, 1997. 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 $49,857,000 
in FY 1997 funds for the targeted assistance program (TAP) as part of 
the FY 1997 appropriation for the Department of Health and Human 
Services (Pub. L. No. 104-208).
    The Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) will use 
the $49,857,000 appropriated for FY 1997 targeted assistance as 
follows:
     $35,371,300 will be allocated under the 5-year population 
formula to 47 qualified counties, as set forth in this notice.
     $9,500,000 will be awarded under a discretionary grant 
announcement to States to provide supportive services to elderly 
refugees, particularly those who will soon lose SSI eligibility due to 
the alien eligibility restrictions in the welfare reform law. A grant

[[Page 31438]]

announcement will be issued separately which sets forth application 
requirements and evaluation criteria.
     $4,985,700 (10% of the total) will be used to fund 
continuation grants under a discretionary grant announcement that was 
issued in FY 1996.
    In addition, the Office of Refugee Resettlement will have available 
an additional $5,000,000 in FY 1997 funds for the targeted assistance 
discretionary program through the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (Pub. L. No. 104-208). 
These funds will augment the 10-percent of the targeted assistance 
program which is set-aside for grants to localities most heavily 
impacted by the influx of refugees such as Laotian Hmong, Cambodians 
and Soviet Pentecostals, including secondary migrants who entered the 
United States after October 1, 1979.
    The Director originally designated $19 million in targeted 
assistance funds for supportive services to elderly refugees out of 
concern for the refugee elderly who are about to lose their SSI 
eligibility due to the recent welfare reform law. In light of the 
immigrant eligibility provisions regarding SSI and Medicaid proposed in 
the recent FY 1998 budget agreement between the Administration and 
Congress, the Director has decided to decrease the amount of 
discretionary funding for services to elderly refugees at risk of 
losing SSI from the $19,000,000 proposed for this purpose in the April 
1 notice to $9,500,000. We believe the proposed changes in the budget 
agreement will prevent the termination of SSI benefits to the majority 
of refugee SSI recipients. The bipartisan budget agreement allows 
immigrants who entered the U.S. prior to August 23, 1996, and who are 
or become disabled to be eligible for SSI and Medicaid. While this 
provision will not protect all refugees currently on SSI, it is 
estimated that approximately 70%-80% of current refugee elderly SSI 
recipients will be determined disabled and, as a consequence, will not 
lose their SSI benefits. In addition, the Administration and Congress 
have agreed to extend the SSI and Medicaid eligibility period for 
refugees and asylees from 5 years after entry, (the limit in the 
welfare reform law), to 7 years after entry. This budget resolution is 
currently being considered by the House and Senate budget committees 
and we expect legislation to follow shortly. The Director has decided 
to allocate $9.5 million to a discretionary program to assist the 
approximately 20%-30% of elderly SSI recipients who are not likely to 
be determined disabled and thus lose their SSI benefits beginning in 
August 1997 as a result.
    The Director has decided to allocate the remaining $9.5 million to 
the regular formula allocation program to enable additional impacted 
counties to benefit from targeted assistance funding.
    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. No. 
99-605), 8 U.S.C. 1522(c); section 501(a) of the Refugee Education 
Assistance Act of 1980 (Pub. L. No. 96-422), 8 U.S.C. 1522 note, 
insofar as it incorporates by reference with respect to Cuban and 
Haitian entrants the authorities pertaining to assistance for refugees 
established by section 412(c)(2) of the INA, as cited above; section 
584(c) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 1988, as included in the FY 1988 
Continuing Resolution (Pub. L. No. 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. No. 100-461), 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-
167), and 1991 (Pub. L. No. 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 45 
CFR 400.79 and 400.156(g).) 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. 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).
    In accordance with 45 CFR 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 45 CFR 400.313, targeted assistance funds 
must be used primarily for employability services designed to enable 
refugees to obtain jobs with less than one year's

[[Page 31439]]

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 resource 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, 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 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

    Thirteen letters of comment were received in response to the notice 
of proposed availability of FY 1997 funds for targeted assistance. The 
comments are summarized below and are followed in each case by the 
Department's response.
    Comment: Ten commenters expressed support for the proposed use of 
$19 million for services to the elderly, particularly those elderly who 
are about to lose their SSI eligibility. One commenter was opposed to 
the proposed $19 million discretionary program for elderly services and 
questioned ORR's legal authority to use these funds in a discretionary 
manner as opposed to including these funds in the formula allocation 
program. The commenter recommended that ORR allocate all available TAP 
funds by formula. One commenter, while supporting the use of the $19 
million for the elderly, objected to the awarding of these funds 
through a discretionary grant program and recommended a block grant 
instead. Another commenter urged ORR to make the discretionary 
application process as simple as possible and base awards on the number 
of SSI refugees in the U.S. over 5 years. Six commenters recommended 
that the funding be allocated only to States and counties with high 
concentrations of refugees, not all States. Six commenters felt that 
ORR should not allocate these funds on the basis of elderly refugee 
arrivals and should base funding on current place of residence, not 
initial place of resettlement. Eight commenters strongly recommended 
that funding be based on the number of elderly refugees

[[Page 31440]]

in each area who received SSA notices in February and March 1997, 
indicating they are likely to be ineligible for SSI. Five commenters 
felt that local areas should be given the discretion to decide what 
kinds of services to provide to elderly refugees. One commenter 
recommended the inclusion of disabled as well as elderly refugees as 
eligible recipients.
    Response: To clarify the question of ORR's legal authority to award 
$19 million in targeted assistance funds through a discretionary 
program, there is no prohibition in the statute that precludes the use 
of TAP funds for discretionary activities. Furthermore, nothing in ORR 
regulations for the TAP formula program administratively establishes 
any particular percentage of funds to be spent on the formula program. 
The commenter will note, however, that the Director has added $9.5 
million to the formula allocation amount.
    Regarding inclusion of the disabled, in light of the budget 
agreement between the Congress and the Administration to allow full 
eligibility for SSI and Medicaid for disabled immigrants, including 
refugees, who were residing in the U.S. prior to enactment of the 
welfare reform law, ORR's elderly discretionary grant program will 
focus only on the elderly. Under the elderly discretionary program, ORR 
intends to fund only those States with counties that have large 
concentrations of refugees age 65 and over, which is the population 
most at-risk of losing SSI. Regarding the suggestion to base funding on 
the number of refugee SSI recipients who received SSA notices in 
February and March, 1997, to our knowledge, SSI recipient data that 
separately identifies refugee recipients are not available from the 
Social Security Administration. ORR intends to use a formula that 
focuses on counties heavily impacted by older refugees. ORR utilized 
data covering FY 1983 through FY 1996 for older refugees age 65 or 
older or who will reach age 65 or older by October 1, 1999. From these 
data, ORR developed a list of counties that had a minimum threshold of 
500 or more refugees aged 65 or over. Additionally, other States and 
counties may apply for these funds if they can demonstrate an older 
refugee population that meets the minimum county threshold of 500 or 
more older refugees.
    Regarding the recommendation that services to the elderly should be 
developed locally, the announcement to assist elderly refugees makes 
clear that services should be developed and administered at local 
levels. In addition, ORR encourages local service providers to work 
closely with community-based Area Agencies on Aging to collaborate and 
coordinate services to older refugees.
    Finally, regarding the request to keep the application process as 
simple as possible, ORR shares the commenter's interest and will make 
every effort to keep the process simple.
    Comment: Eight commenters from one State felt that States and 
counties should have the flexibility to serve refugees in the U.S. over 
5 years with targeted assistance formula funds. Several of these 
commenters stated that there are large numbers of post-5-year refugees 
in the State who are in need of services, have difficulty accessing 
mainstream services, and will soon lose their eligibility for 
assistance. One commenter recommended that ORR allow States to use TAP 
funds to serve post-5-year refugees provided that existing priority 
groups are fully served and sufficient TAP funds are available for this 
purpose.
    Response: We continue to believe that targeted assistance formula 
funds should be used for refugees during their first 5 years in the 
U.S. in order to concentrate adequate resources on helping refugees to 
become self-sufficient as soon as possible without becoming long-term 
welfare recipients. Of particular concern are the large numbers of 
refugees in the U.S. less than 5 years, who reside in high welfare 
States and have been on welfare since their arrival. These are the 
refugees who require top priority from the refugee program. Also of top 
priority is to make sure that future refugee arrivals never get to the 
point of being on welfare for most of their first 5 years in the U.S. 
For these reasons we do not agree with the commenters that the 5-year 
limitation on targeted assistance formula funds should be changed; the 
focus on services during the first 5 years is the right focus.
    Regarding the comment that many of the post-5-year refugees will 
soon lose their eligibility for public assistance, it is important to 
note that most States have decided to allow refugees who were residing 
in the U.S. prior to August 22, 1996, to continue to be eligible for 
TANF assistance on the same basis as U.S. citizens.
    Finally, we wish to remind States that ORR discretionary funds may 
be used to serve post-5-year refugees. This year, a substantial amount, 
approximately $42,685,000, will be available in discretionary funds to 
serve refugees, including refugees who have been in the U.S. over 5 
years.
    Comment: Three commenters expressed concern regarding ORR's 
requirement for family self-sufficiency plans. One commenter questioned 
whether services should be provided to take refugees to self-
sufficiency thereby using resources that would otherwise be available 
to help some refugees find employment. The commenter felt that the 
requirement implied that services should be provided to a full-time 
employed refugee until the family is off aid. Two commenters stated 
that the family self-sufficiency plan is redundant with individual 
employability plans. One commenter asked if one plan could be developed 
in lieu of both plans. Another commenter recommended that ORR eliminate 
the family self-sufficiency plan requirement and issue waivers to 
States in the interim.
    Response: As stated in several previous notices, the family self-
sufficiency plan is a tool that assists both the refugee family and the 
employment counselor to focus more clearly on what steps need to be 
taken to achieve self-sufficiency. In many cases, it requires more than 
one wage-earner to go to work in order for a family to become self-
sufficient. The development of a family self-sufficiency plan puts the 
proper focus on the family as the client unit. The employment plan, in 
contrast, focuses on one person's employment without addressing what is 
needed of other adults in the family to get the family unit self-
sufficient. We do not view self-sufficiency plans and individual 
employment plans to be redundant; individual employment plans are part 
of a family self-sufficiency plan, not a separate entity.
    ORR does not insist that employment service providers work with all 
refugee families until they are self-sufficient at the expense of other 
clients, but we encourage States and providers to design programs that 
efficiently use resources to help refugee families become self-
sufficient to the maximum extent feasible. By developing a family self-
sufficiency plan, at least a refugee family will be able to understand 
what it takes to not only get a job, but to get off welfare. Experience 
in a number of States shows that the use of family self-sufficiency 
plans results ultimately in earlier family self-sufficiency through the 
attainment of jobs for one or more wage earners at self-supporting 
wages. We would be happy to connect any State and county that does not 
understand how to use family self-sufficiency plans to good effect with 
States and providers experienced in using family self-sufficiency plans 
effectively.
    Comment: One commenter questioned the meaningfulness of requiring 
targeted

[[Page 31441]]

assistance grantees to propose TAP outcome goals aimed at continuous 
improvement from one year to the next in light of factors such as 
reduced TAP allocations, inability to serve refugees who have been in 
the U.S. more than 60 months, and economic factors including recession 
and high unemployment rates. Another commenter felt that since ORR 
requires outcomes, less emphasis should be placed on how outcomes are 
achieved and more local flexibility should be allowed in providing 
services.
    Response: We understand that funding levels and other variables 
must be taken into account when setting and meeting outcome goals. For 
this reason, we ask States and counties to set goals in terms of 
percentages and real numbers. For example, 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. States and counties also have the opportunity to attach a 
narrative with the goal plan which explains local factors that affect 
performance outcomes.
    Regarding more local flexibility, we believe States and counties 
already have a great deal of flexibility in designing services and 
service delivery.
    Comment: Two commenters raised concerns regarding the methodology 
by which ORR allocates targeted assistance funds and qualifies counties 
for targeted assistance funds. One commenter recommended that the 
allocation formula be based on all refugee arrivals to the county with 
no limitation regarding when the refugees first arrived in the county. 
The same commenter also recommended that qualification for targeted 
assistance funds should be based solely on refugee arrivals and not on 
refugee concentration. One county requested that the TAP funding level 
for the county remain equal to the county's FY 1996 allocation because 
of the continued demand for TAP services in the county.
    Response: In regard to the suggestion that the TAP allocation 
formula be based on all refugee arrivals to the county regardless of 
when the refugees arrived, the targeted assistance allocation formula 
must be consistent with Sec. 400.315(b) of ORR's regulations which 
limits the provision of targeted assistance formula services to 
refugees who have been in the U.S. 5 years or less. In regard to using 
population as the only qualifying criterion, ORR is required to use all 
the factors that are outlined in the statute for which data are 
available. Section 412(c)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
identifies large refugee populations, high refugee concentrations, and 
high use of public assistance by refugees as three factors to take into 
account for targeted assistance eligibility. While we do not have 
available welfare dependency data, data are available on refugee 
population and refugee concentration. Therefore ORR is required to use 
both factors in determining county qualification.
    In regard to a county's request for the same amount of funds as it 
received in FY 1996, the amount of funds a qualified county receives 
each year is based on the county's most recent five-year population. By 
definition, allocations in a formula program must be determined on the 
basis of a formula that is applied consistently across all grantees in 
order to ensure equity. Special exceptions and deviations, therefore, 
cannot be made in a formula allocation program.

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 1997 targeted assistance 
awards.
    The use of targeted assistance funds for services to Cuban and 
Haitian entrants is limited to States which have an approved State plan 
under the Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program (CHEP).
    The State agency will submit a single application on behalf of all 
county governments of the qualified counties in that State. Subsequent 
to the approval of the State's application by ORR, local targeted 
assistance plans will be developed by the county government or other 
designated entity and submitted to the State.
    A State with more than one qualified county is permitted, but not 
required, to determine the allocation amount for each qualified county 
within the State. However, if a State chooses to determine county 
allocations differently from those set forth in this notice, in 
accordance with Sec. 400.319, the FY 1997 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 1997 targeted assistance funds in a manner different from the 
formula set forth in this notice, the FY 1997 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 the final notice are not 
subject to review by State and areawide clearinghouses under Executive 
Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.''

VI. Qualification and Allocation

A. Qualified Counties

    In the FY 1996 targeted assistance final notice (61 FR 36739 (July 
12, 1996), the ORR Director indicated her intention to determine the 
qualification of counties for targeted assistance funds once every 
three years, beginning in FY 1996. Therefore, it is ORR's intent that 
the 39 counties listed as qualified for TAP funding in FY 1996 will 
remain qualified for TAP funding for FY 1997. We have decided, however, 
to make 8 additional qualified counties eligible for FY 1997 targeted 
assistance formula funding and have increased the total amount 
available for formula allocation funding from $25,871,300 to 
$35,371,300 to enable an increase in eligible counties. The increase in 
the total amount available for formula allocations has also resulted in 
higher allocations for the original 39 counties than appeared in the 
April 1 notice.
    The 8 additional counties deemed to be eligible for targeted 
assistance funding were the next 8 counties, beyond the original 39 
counties listed as qualified in FY 1996, that had the highest ranking 
based on the sum of a county's rank on refugee arrivals during the 5-
year period from FY 1992--FY 1996 and its rank on concentration. Using 
the same methodology as in FY 1996, each county was ranked on the basis 
of its most recent 5-year arrival population and its concentration of 
refugees, with a relative weighting of 2 to 1 respectively. Each county 
was then ranked in terms of the sum of a county's rank on refugee 
arrivals and its rank on concentration. The following 8 counties had 
the highest rank and are listed in order of ranking:

Jefferson County, KY
Hudson County, NJ
Ingham County, MI
Cuyahoga County, OH
Cass County, ND
Broward County, FL
Pierce County, WA
Maricopa County, AZ

    The addition of these 8 counties increases the list of qualified 
targeted assistance counties from the 39 listed in the April 1 notice 
to 47 counties and increases the number of States to receive targeted 
assistance funding in FY 1997

[[Page 31442]]

from 21 States to 26 States. It is our intent that the 47 counties 
listed in this notice as qualified to apply for FY 1997 TAP funding 
will remain qualified for TAP funding through FY 1998. This, of course, 
is subject to the availability of appropriations.
    Since the Commonwealth of Kentucky no longer participates in the 
refugee program, the Wilson/Fish grantee which has been operating the 
refugee program since the State dropped out will be the eligible 
grantee for the Jefferson County allocation.

B. Allocation Formula

    Of the funds available for FY 1997 for targeted assistance, 
$35,371,300 is allocated by formula to States for qualified counties 
based on the initial placements of refugees, Amerasians, and entrants 
in these counties during the 5-year period from FY 1992 through FY 1996 
(October 1, 1991--September 30, 1996).
    With regard to Havana parolees, we are crediting 6,910 Havana 
parolees who arrived in FY 1996 to qualified counties in Florida based 
on data the State submitted during the public comment period. We have 
credited FY 1996 Havana parolees to the remaining qualified targeted 
assistance counties based on the counties' proportion of the 5-year (FY 
1992--FY 1996) entrant arrival population. For FY 1995, Florida's 
Havana parolees for each qualified county are based on data submitted 
by the State last year, while Havana parolees credited to counties in 
other States were prorated based on the counties' proportion of the 5-
year (FY 1991--FY 1995) entrant population in the U.S. The allocations 
in this notice reflect these additional parolee numbers.

VII. Allocations

    Table 1 lists the qualified counties, the number of refugee/entrant 
arrivals in those counties during the 5-year period from October 1, 
1991--September 30, 1996, 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 three columns, and 
the amount of each county's allocation based on its 5-year total 
population.
    Table 2 provides State totals for targeted assistance allocations.

                                              Table 1.--Targeted Assistance Allocations By County: FY 1997                                              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             $35,371,300
                                                                                                                      Havana       Total       total FY 
                 County                                       State                        Refugees     Entrants     parolees   arrivals FY      1997   
                                                                                                                       \1\       1992-1996    allocation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maricopa County.........................  Arizona......................................        5,262          600          169        6,031     $465,107
Alameda County..........................  California...................................        4,944           21            6        4,971      383,361
Fresno County...........................  California...................................        5,841            2            0        5,843      450,609
Los Angeles County......................  California...................................       25,794          689          216       26,699    2,059,012
Merced County...........................  California...................................        1,541            0            0        1,541      118,841
Orange County...........................  California...................................       22,500           38           12       22,550    1,739,044
Sacramento County.......................  California...................................       12,288            5            2       12,295      948,184
San Diego County........................  California...................................       12,457          516          147       13,120    1,011,807
SAN FRANCISCO AREA......................  California...................................       11.076          195           64       11,335      874,149
San Joaquin County......................  California...................................        2,434            7            2        2,443      188,403
Santa Clara County......................  California...................................       16,297           50            9       16,356    1,261,366
Denver County...........................  Colorado.....................................        3,478            3            1        3,482      268,530
District of Columbia....................  District of Col..............................        4,001           17            5        4,023      310,252
Broward County..........................  Florida......................................        1,219        2,541          401        4,161      320,894
Dade County.............................  Florida......................................       10,618       40,023       14,038       64,679    4,988,009
Duval County............................  Florida......................................        3,059           44           20        3,123      240,844
Palm Beach County.......................  Florida......................................          768        2,991          306        4,065      313,491
DeKalb County...........................  Georgia......................................        5,815           23            7        5,845      450,763
Fulton County...........................  Georiga......................................        6,298          238           66        6,602      509,143
CHICAGO AREA............................  Illinois.....................................       18,056          502          136       18,694    1,441,671
Polk County.............................  Iowa.........................................        2,939            1            0        2,940      226,731
Jefferson County \2\....................  Kentucky.....................................        2,975          455           97        3,527      272,000
Baltimore County........................  Maryland.....................................        3,384            3            0        3,387      261,204
Suffolk County..........................  Massachusetts................................        5,790          289           95        6,174      476,135
Ingham County...........................  Michigan.....................................        1,788          266           66        2,120      163,493
Oakland County..........................  Michigan.....................................        3,995            8            3        4,006      308,941
Hennepin County.........................  Minnesota....................................        5,794            3            0        5,797      447,061
Ramsey County...........................  Minnesota....................................        4,538           10            3        4,551      350,971
St. Louis County........................  Missouri.....................................        5,891            2            0        5,893      454,465
Lancaster County........................  Nebraska.....................................        2,431           34            6        2,471      190,562
Hudson County...........................  New Jersey...................................        2,032          892          271        3,195      246,397
Bernalillo County.......................  New Mexico...................................        1,574        1,300          379        3,253      250,870
Broome County...........................  New York.....................................        1,718           28            9        1,755      135,345
Monroe County...........................  New York.....................................        3,025          516          152        3,693      284,802
NEW YORK CITY AREA......................  New York.....................................       84,374        1,218          373       85,965    6,629,573
Oneida County...........................  New York.....................................        2,633            1            0        2,634      203,133
Cass County.............................  North Dakota.................................        1,597            3            1        1,601      123,468
Cuyahoga County.........................  Ohio.........................................        4,625            6            1        4,632      357,217
PORTLAND OREGON AREA....................  Oregon.......................................       11,034          581          148       11,763      907,156
Philadelphia County.....................  Pennsylvania.................................        8,100           78           24        8,202      632,534
Davidson County.........................  Tennessee....................................        3,188           54            8        3,250      250,638
DALLAS AREA.............................  Texas........................................       12,114          612          175       12,901      994,918
Harris County...........................  Texas........................................       10,559          176           45       10,780      831,348
FAIRFAX AREA............................  Virginia.....................................        4,657            8            2        4,667      359,916
Richmond City...........................  Virginia.....................................        1,913          109           31        2,053      158,326
Pierce County...........................  Washington...................................        2,867           10            2        2,879      222,027

[[Page 31443]]

                                                                                                                                                        
Seattle Area............................  Washington...................................       16,562           48            9       16,709    1,288,589
                                                                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.............................  .............................................      385,933       55,216       17,507      458,656  35,317,300 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Havana Parolees (HP's) for FY 1995 and FY 1996. For FY 1995, HP arrivals to the qualifying Florida counties (7855) were based on actual    
  data while HP's in the non-Florida qualifying counties (1327) were prorated based on the counties' proportion of the five year (FY 1991-1995) entrant 
  population in the U.S. For FY 1996, HP arrivals to the qualifying Florida counties (6910) were based on actual data while HP's in the non-Florida     
  qualifying counties (1415) were prorated based on the counties' proportion of the five year (FY 1992-1996) entrant population in the U.S.             
\2\ The allocation for Jefferson, KY will be awarded to the Kentucky Fish-Wilson project.                                                               


       Table 2.--Targeted Assistance Allocations By State: FY 1997      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            $35,371,300 
                          State                            total FY 1997
                                                            allocation  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona.................................................        $465,107
California..............................................       9,034,776
Colorado................................................         268,530
District of Columbia....................................         310,252
Florida.................................................       5,863,238
Georgia.................................................         959,906
Illinois................................................       1,441,671
Iowa....................................................         226,731
Kentucky................................................         272,000
Maryland................................................         261,204
Massachusetts...........................................         476,135
Michigan................................................         472,434
Minnesota...............................................         798,032
Missouri................................................         454,465
Nebraska................................................         190,562
New Jersey..............................................         246,397
New Mexico..............................................         250,870
New York................................................       7,252,853
North Dakota............................................         123,468
Ohio....................................................         357,217
Oregon..................................................         907,156
Pennsylvania............................................         632,534
Tennessee...............................................         250,638
Texas...................................................       1,826,266
Virginia................................................         518,242
Washington..............................................       1,510,616
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................      35,371,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Application and Implementation Process

    Under the FY 1997 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 1997 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.
    The requirements regarding the discretionary portions of the 
targeted assistance program will be addressed separately in the grant 
announcements for those funds. Applications for these funds are 
therefore not subject to provisions contained in this notice but to 
other requirements which will be conveyed separately.
    Application for targeted assistance formula funds by the Wilson/
Fish grantee in Kentucky for services to refugees in Jefferson County 
are not subject to the application requirements contained in this 
notice but to Wilson/Fish requirements that will be conveyed 
separately.

IX. Application Requirements

A. For States in Their Second Year of Targeted Assistance Funding

    The State application requirements for grants for the FY 1997 
targeted assistance formula allocation are as follows:
    States that are currently operating under approved management plans 
for their FY 1996 targeted assistance program and wish to continue to 
do so for their FY 1997 grants may provide the following in lieu of 
resubmitting the full currently approved plan:
    The State's application for FY 1997 funding shall provide:
    1. Assurance that the State's current management plan for the 
administration of the targeted assistance program, as approved by ORR, 
will continue to be in full force and effect for the FY 1997 targeted 
assistance program, subject to any additional assurances or revisions 
required by this notice which are not reflected in the current plan. 
Any proposed modifications to the approved plan will be identified in 
the application and are subject to ORR review and approval. Any 
proposed changes must address and reference all appropriate portions of 
the FY 1996 application content requirements to ensure complete 
incorporation in the State's management plan.
    2. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used in 
accordance with the requirements in 45 CFR Part 400.
    3. 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 1997 
targeted assistance formula allocation funds that are used for services 
will be allocated for employment services.
    4. 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 administration of other programs, e.g. 
social services, cash and medical assistance, etc.
    5. 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,

[[Page 31444]]

the data to be used, and the proposed allocation for each county.
    6. Assurance that local administrative budgets 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. States and counties are 
strongly encouraged to limit administrative costs to the extent 
possible to maximize available funding for services to clients.
    7. All applicants must establish targeted assistance proposed 
performance goals for each of the 6 ORR performance outcome measures 
for each targeted assistance 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 the past year's 
performance. 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.
    8. 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.
    States administering the program locally: States that have 
administered the program locally or provide direct service to the 
refugee population (with the concurrence of the county) must submit a 
program summary to ORR for prior review and approval. The summary must 
include a description of the proposed services; a justification for the 
projected allocation for each component including relationship of funds 
allocated to numbers of clients served, characteristics of clients, 
duration of training and services, and cost per placement. In addition, 
the program component summary must describe any ancillary services or 
subcomponents such as day care, transportation, or language training.

B. For New States and States With New Counties

    In applying for targeted assistance funds, a State agency is 
required to provide the following:
    1. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used in 
accordance with the requirements in 45 CFR Part 400.
    2. 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 1997 
targeted assistance formula allocation funds that are used for services 
will be allocated for employment services.
    3. 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 administration of other programs, e.g. 
social services, cash and medical assistance, etc.
    4. Identification of the local administering agency.
    5. 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.
    6. 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:
    a. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used in 
accordance with the requirements in 45 CFR Part 400.
    b. 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.
    c. 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)
    d. 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.
    e. The relationship of targeted assistance services to other 
services available to refugees/entrants in the county including State-
allocated ORR social services.
    f. Analysis of available employment opportunities in the local 
community. Examples of acceptable analyses of employment opportunities 
might include surveys of employers or

[[Page 31445]]

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.
    g. Description of the monitoring and oversight responsibilities to 
be carried out by the county or qualifying local jurisdiction.
    h. 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. States and counties are 
strongly encouraged to limit administrative costs to the extent 
possible to maximize available funding for services to clients.
    i. 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.
    7. 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 are 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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 6i above.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.

    Dated: June 2, 1997.
Lavinia Limon,
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[FR Doc. 97-14899 Filed 6-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P