[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 116 (Friday, June 17, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14758]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 17, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Refugee Resettlement
Refugee Resettlement Program: Allocations to States of FY 1994
Funds for Refugee Social Services and for Refugees Who Are Former
Political Prisoners From Vietnam
AGENCY: Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), ACF, HHS.
ACTION: Final notice of allocations to States of FY 1994 funds for
refugee\1\ social services and for refugees who are former political
prisoners from Vietnam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In addition to persons who meet all requirements of 45 CFR
400.43, ``Requirements for documentation of refugee status,''
eligibility for refugee social services also includes: (1) Cuban and
Haitian entrants, under section 501 of the Refugee Education
Assistance Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-422); (2) certain Amerasians from
Vietnam who are admitted to the U.S. as immigrants under section 584
of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 1988, as included in the FY 1988 Continuing
Resolution (Pub. L. 100-202); and (3) certain Amerasians from
Vietnam, including U.S. citizens, under title II of the Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations
Acts, 1989 (Pub. L. 100-461), 1990 (Pub. L. 101-167), and 1991 (Pub.
L. 101-513). For convenience, the term ``refugee'' is used in this
notice to encompass all such eligible persons unless the specific
context indicates otherwise.
Refugees admitted to the U.S. under admissions numbers set aside
for private-sector-initiative admissions are not eligible to be
served under the social service program (or under other programs
supported by Federal refugee funds) during their period of coverage
under their sponsoring agency's agreement with the Department of
State--usually two years from their date of arrival or until they
obtain permanent resident alien status, whichever comes first.
SUMMARY: This notice establishes the allocations to States of FY 1994
funds for social services under the Refugee Resettlement Program (RRP).
In order to help meet the special needs of former political prisoners
from Vietnam, the Director has added to the formula allocation
$2,000,000 in funds previously set aside for social services
discretionary projects. This notice eliminates the set-aside for mutual
assistance associations (MAAs) as a separate component of the social
service allocations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children
and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toyo Biddle (202) 401-9250.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of the proposed social service
allocations to States was published in the Federal Register on March
14, 1994 (59 FR 11794). The population estimates that were used in the
proposed notice have been adjusted as a result of additional population
information submitted by 7 States.
I. Allocation Amounts
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $80,802,000
in FY 1994 refugee social service funds as part of the FY 1994
appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services (Pub. L.
103-112).
Of the total of $80,802,000, the Director of ORR will make
available to States $68,681,700 (85%) under the allocation formula set
out in this notice. These funds would be made available for the purpose
of providing social services to refugees. In addition, the Director of
ORR is making available $2,000,000 from discretionary social service
funds to be allocated under the formula in this notice for additional
services to former political prisoners from Vietnam. ORR intends FY
1994 to be the last year in which a special set-aside will be allocated
for additional services for former political prisoners from Vietnam.
A. Discretionary Social Service Funds for Vietnamese Political
Prisoners
In recognition of the special vulnerability of refugees who are
former political prisoners from Vietnam, the Director of ORR has set
aside $2,000,000 from discretionary social service funds to be
allocated under the formula set forth in this announcement, based on
the number of actual political prisoner arrivals in FY 1993. This
formula allocation is shown separately in Table 1 (cols. 7 and 8).
States are required to use this allocation to provide additional
services, as described below, to recent arrivals from Vietnam who are
former political prisoners and members of their families.
Allowable services for the above-cited funds for political
prisoners include the following direct services: (1) Specialized
orientation and adjustment services, including peer support activities;
and (2) specialized employment-related services, as needed. Adjustment
services include any service listed under 45 CFR 400.155(c) of the ORR
regulations. Under no circumstances may these funds be used for direct
cash payments or stipends, or for the purchase of advertising space or
air time.
Allowable services under this allocation for Vietnamese political
prisoners are intended to supplement, not to supplant, those services
provided to refugees in general under the social service formula
allocation, discussed below.
ORR intends to provide technical assistance to States and
organizations that request it to assure effective program development
and implementation.
Because these funds are being provided specifically for services
for former political prisoners from Vietnam, States which allocate
social service funds to other local administrative jurisdictions, such
as counties, shall do so for these funds, using a formula which
reflects arrivals of this target population during FY 1993.
ORR strongly encourages States and other contracting jurisdictions,
in selecting service providers for the above, to award these funds, to
the extent possible, to qualified refugee mutual assistance
associations with experience serving the target population. All
contractors receiving these funds should have Vietnamese language
capacity and Vietnamese cultural understanding.
States are required to provide to ORR program performance
information on the Vietnamese political prisoner program that meets the
reporting requirements contained in 45 CFR 92.40, under the terms and
conditions of the social services grant awards to States. The
information to be contained in the narrative portion of State quarterly
performance reports must include: (1) Names of service contractors; (2)
categories of activities provided; (3) numbers of persons served; and
(4) outcomes, to the extent possible.
B. Refugee Social Service Funds
The population figures for the social service allocation include
refugees, Cuban/Haitian entrants, and Amerasians from Vietnam since
these populations may be served through funds addressed in this notice.
(A State must, however, have an approved State plan for the Cuban/
Haitian Entrant Program in order to use funds on behalf of entrants as
well as refugees.)
The Director will allocate $68,681,700 to States on the basis of
each State's proportion of the national population of refugees who had
been in the U.S. 3 years or less as of October 1, 1993 (including a
floor amount for States which have small refugee populations).
The use of the 3-year population base in the allocation formula is
required by section 412(c)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) which states that the ``funds available for a fiscal year for
grants and contracts [for social services] * * *. shall be allocated
among the States based on the total number of refugees (including
children and adults) who arrived in the United States not more than 36
months before the beginning of such fiscal year and who are actually
residing in each State (taking into account secondary migration) as of
the beginning of the fiscal year.''
As established in the FY 1991 social services notice published in
the Federal Register of August 29, 1991, section I, ``Allocation
Amounts'' (56 FR 42745), a variable floor amount for States which have
small refugee populations is calculated as follows: If the application
of the regular allocation formula yields less than $100,000, then--
(1) a base amount of $75,000 is provided for a State with a
population of 50 or fewer refugees who have been in the U.S. 3 years or
less; and
(2) For a State with more than 50 refugees who have been in the
U.S. 3 years or less: (a) A floor has been calculated consisting of
$50,000 plus the regular per capita allocation for refugees above 50 up
to a total of $100,000 (in other words, the maximum under the floor
formula is $100,000); (b) if this calculation has yielded less than
$75,000, a base amount of $75,000 is provided for the State.
ORR has consistently supported floors for small States in order to
provide sufficient funds to carry out a minimum service program. Given
the range in numbers of refugees in the small States, we have concluded
that a variable floor, as established in the FY 1991 notice, will be
more reflective of needs than previous across-the-board floors.
The $12,120,300 in remaining social service funds (15% of the total
funds available) will be used by ORR on a discretionary basis to
provide funds for individual projects intended to contribute to the
effectiveness and efficiency of the refugee resettlement program. Grant
announcements on discretionary initiatives will be issued separately.
Population To Be Served
Although the allocation formula is based on the 3-year refugee
population, in accordance with the requirements of 45 CFR Part 400
Subpart I--Refugee Social Services, States are not required to limit
social service programs to refugees who have been in the U.S. only 3
years. In keeping with 45 CFR 400.147(a), a State must allocate an
appropriate portion of its social service funds, based on population
and service needs, as determined by the State, for services to newly
arriving refugees who have been in the U.S. less than one year.
While 45 CFR 400.147(b) requires that in providing employability
services, a State must give priority to a refugee who is receiving cash
assistance, social service programs should not be limited exclusively
to refugees who are cash assistance recipients. If a State intends to
provide services to refugees who have been in the U.S. more than 3
years, 45 CFR 400.147(c) requires the State to specify and justify as
part of its Annual Services Plan those funds that it proposes to use to
provide services to those refugees.
ORR expects States to ensure that refugee social services are made
available to special populations such as Amerasians and former
political prisoners from Vietnam, in addition to special funding that
ORR may designate to address the special needs of these populations.
ORR funds may not be used to provide services to United States
citizens, since they are not covered under the authorizing legislation,
with the following exceptions: (1) Under current regulations at 45 CFR
400.208, services may be provided to a U.S.-born minor child in a
family in which both parents are refugees or, if only one parent is
present, in which that parent is a refugee; and (2) under the FY 1989
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 100-461), services may be provided to an
Amerasian from Vietnam who is a U.S. citizen and who enters the U.S.
after October 1, 1988.
Service Priorities
Refugee social service funding should be used to assist refugee
families to achieve economic independence. To this end, ORR expects
States to ensure that a coherent plan of services is developed for each
eligible family that addresses the family's needs from time of arrival
until attainment of economic independence. Each service plan should
address a family's needs for both employment-related services and other
needed social services.
Reflecting section 412(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA, the Director
expects States to ``insure that women have the same opportunities as
men to participate in training and instruction.'' In addition, States
are expected to make sure that services are provided in a manner that
encourages the use of bilingual women on service agency staffs to
ensure adequate service access by refugee women. In order to facilitate
refugee self-support, the Director also expects States to implement
strategies which address simultaneously the employment potential of
both male and female wage earners in a family unit, particularly in the
case of large families. States are expected to make every effort to
assure the availability of day care services in order to allow women
with children the opportunity to participate in employment services or
to accept or retain employment. To accomplish this, day care may be
treated as a priority employment-related service under the refugee
social services program. Refugees who are participating in employment
services or have accepted employment are eligible for day care
services. For an employed refugee, day care funded by refugee social
service dollars must be limited to one year after the refugee becomes
employed. States are expected to use day care funding from other
publicly funded mainstream programs as a prior resource and are
expected to work with service providers to assure maximum access to
other publicly funded resources for day care.
In accordance with 45 CFR 400.146, if a State's cash assistance
dependency rate for refugees (as defined in Sec. 400.146(b)) is 55% or
more, funds awarded under this notice (with the exception of the
political prisoner set-aside) are subject to a requirement that at
least 85% of the State's award be used for employability services as
set forth in Sec. 400.154. ORR expects these funds to be used for
services which directly enhance refugee employment potential, have
specific employment objectives, and are designed to enable refugees to
obtain jobs in less than one year as part of a plan to achieve self-
sufficiency. This reflects the Congressional objective that
``employable refugees should be placed on jobs as soon as possible
after their arrival in the United States'' and that social service
funds be focused on ``employment-related services, English-as-a-second-
language training (in non-work hours where possible), and case-
management services'' (INA, Sec. 412(a)(1)(B)). If refugee social
service funds are used for the provision of English language training,
such training should be provided concurrently, rather than
sequentially, with employment or with other employment-related
services, to the maximum extent possible. ORR also encourages the
continued provision of services after a refugee has entered a job to
help the refugee retain employment or move to a better job.
Since current welfare dependency data are not available, those
States that historically have had dependency rates at 55% and above are
invited to submit a request for a waiver of the 85% requirement if they
can provide reliable documentation that demonstrates a lower dependency
rate.
ORR will consider granting a waiver of the 85% provision if a State
meets one of the following conditions:
1. The State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of
ORR that the dependency rate of refugees who have been in the U.S. 24
months or less is below 55% in the State.
2. The State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that
(a) less than 85% of the State's social service allocation is
sufficient to meet all employment-related needs of the State's refugees
and (b) there are non-employment-related service needs which are so
extreme as to justify an allowance above the basic 15%. Or
3. In accordance with section 412(c)(1)(C) of the INA, the State
submits to the Director a plan (established by or in consultation with
local governments) which the Director determines provides for the
maximum appropriate provision of employment-related services for, and
the maximum placement of, employable refugees consistent with
performance standards established under section 106 of the Job Training
Partnership Act.
Refugee social services should be provided in a manner that is
culturally and linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and
cultural background. In light of the increasingly diverse population of
refugees who are resettling in this country, refugee service agencies
will need to develop practical ways of providing culturally and
linguistically appropriate services to a changing ethnic population. To
the maximum extent possible, particularly during a refugee's initial
years of resettlement, refugee social services should be provided
through a refugee-specific service system rather than through a system
in which refugees are only one of many client groups being served. When
planning State refugee services, States are strongly encouraged to take
into account the reception and placement (R & P) services provided by
local resettlement agencies in order to utilize these resources in the
overall program design and to ensure the provision of seamless services
to refugees.
In order to provide culturally and linguistically compatible
services in as cost-efficient a manner as possible in a time of limited
resources, ORR encourages States and counties to promote and give
special consideration to the provision of refugee social services
through coalitions of refugee service organizations, such as coalitions
of MAAs, voluntary resettlement agencies, or a variety of service
providers. ORR believes it is essential for refugee-serving
organizations to form close partnerships in the provision of services
to refugees in order to be able to respond adequately to a changing
refugee picture. Coalition-building and consolidation of providers is
particularly important in communities with multiple service providers
in order to ensure better coordination of services and maximum use of
funding for services by minimizing the funds used for multiple
administrative overhead costs.
States should also expect to use funds available under this notice
to pay for social services which are provided to refugees who
participate in alternative projects. Section 412(e)(7)(A) of the INA
provides that:
The Secretary [of HHS] shall develop and implement alternative
projects for refugees who have been in the United States less than
thirty-six months, under which refugees are provided interim
support, medical services, support [social] services, and case
management, as needed, in a manner that encourages self-sufficiency,
reduces welfare dependency, and fosters greater coordination among
the resettlement agencies and service providers.
This provision is generally known as the Wilson/Fish Amendment. The
Department has already issued a separate notice in the Federal Register
with respect to applications for such projects (50 FR 24583, June 11,
1985). The notice on alternative projects does not contain provisions
for the allocation of additional social service funds beyond the
amounts established in this notice. Therefore a State which may wish to
consider carrying out such a project should take note of this in
planning its use of social service funds being allocated under the
present notice.
Funding to MAAs
ORR has eliminated the set-aside for refugee mutual assistance
associations as a separate component under the social service notice
and instead has folded these funds into the social service formula
allocation to States. Elimination of the MAA set-aside, however, is not
intended to represent any reduction in ORR's commitment to MAAs as
important participants in refugee resettlement. ORR believes that the
continued and/or increased utilization of qualified refugee mutual
assistance associations in the delivery of social services helps to
ensure the provision of culturally and linguistically appropriate
services as well as increasing the effectiveness of the overall service
system. Therefore, at a minimum, ORR expects States to continue to use
MAAs as service providers at a level comparable to previous years. ORR
strongly encourages States when contracting for services, including
employment services, to give consideration to the special strengths of
MAAs, whenever contract bidders are otherwise equally qualified,
provided that the MAA has the capability to deliver services in a
manner that is culturally and linguistically compatible with the
background of the target population to be served. ORR also expects
States to continue to assist MAAs in seeking other public and/or
private funds for the provision of services to refugee clients.
ORR defines MAAs as organizations with the following
qualifications:
a. The organization is legally incorporated as a nonprofit
organization; and
b. Not less than 51% of the composition of the Board of Directors
or governing board of the mutual assistance association is comprised of
refugees or former refugees, including both refugee men and women.
State Administration
States are reminded that under current regulations at 45 CFR
400.206 and 400.207, States have the flexibility to charge the
following types of administrative costs against their refugee program
social service grants, if they so choose: Direct and indirect
administrative costs incurred for the overall management and operation
of the State refugee program, including its coordination, planning,
policy and program development, oversight and monitoring, data
collection and reporting, and travel. See also State Transmittal No.
88-40.
II. Discussion of Comments Received
We received 17 letters of comment in response to the notice of
proposed FY 1994 allocations to States for refugee social services. The
comments are summarized below and are followed in each case by the
Department's response.
Comment: Fourteen commenters expressed their views regarding the
proposed elimination of the MAA set-aside. Eleven commenters expressed
concern over the proposed elimination of the MAA set-aside, while two
commenters supported the elimination. One commenter was concerned that
without the Federal requirement for a set-aside, the State would not be
able to continue a State MAA set-aside in order to adhere to its
general procurement requirements for contracting for social services.
One commenter felt that the MAA set-aside represents the only structure
through which ORR can recognize the role of MAAs in refugee
resettlement. Another commenter felt that elimination of the set-aside
reflected a distancing of ORR from the MAAs and did not create a level
playing field for MAAs. Five commenters felt that elimination of the
set-aside would represent a hardship on MAAs and would preclude MAAs
from receiving any State social service funding. One commenter felt
that there would be public pressure on States to award the exact amount
of previous set-asides to MAAs and would create the need for a new
tracking system to document the level of funding to MAAs to compare MAA
funding with previous set-asides. One commenter asked for clarification
on whether ORR will continue to require States to assist MAAs to seek
other public and/or private funds as it has in the past.
Response: The elimination of the MAA set-aside is not intended to
convey a diminution of ORR's commitment to MAAs. We continue to believe
in the importance of the role of MAAs in service provision and firmly
believe that the involvement of MAAs is essential to effective refugee
resettlement.
ORR first instituted a set-aside for MAAs over 10 years ago as an
incentive to States to work with and fund MAAs. At that time, MAAs were
emerging as important organizations in the refugee resettlement field.
We felt that States needed to be encouraged to begin funding these
organizations as service providers. Today, the situation is quite
different; we believe that MAAs are now in a position to compete
effectively for refugee social services funds. Many MAAs have succeeded
in becoming highly qualified and experienced service agencies and, in
many States, have been able to obtain a much higher level of refugee
social service funding than is available under the MAA set-aside. For
this reason, we believe the MAA set-aside has served its purpose and
should be discontinued at the Federal level. This in no way suggests
that States should lower their commitment to using MAAs to provide
services to refugees; to the contrary, we expect and encourage States
to continue to use MAAs as service providers at levels comparable to
previous years. In addition, MAAs may compete for funding under ORR's
discretionary programs which are open to nonprofit organizations.
We inadvertently deleted the language that has appeared in previous
notices requiring States to assist MAAs in seeking other public and/or
private funds for the provision of services to refugee clients. We have
included similar language in this notice which strongly encourages, but
does not require, States to assist MAAs in seeking other public and/or
private funds for the provision of services.
Comment: Two commenters requested clarification regarding ORR's
expectation that States should ensure that refugee social services are
provided to special populations such as Amerasians and former political
prisoners from Vietnam. One commenter made the point that all refugees
are special populations. Another commenter felt that while a State can
ensure that services are made available to special populations, a State
cannot ensure that services are provided, since it cannot ensure that
refugees will access the services offered. The commenter suggested that
the language in the notice be revised to acknowledge this distinction.
Response: The phrase ``such as'' is not intended to suggest an
inclusive list of special populations, but simply to provide examples
of such special populations. We agree that States can only ensure that
services are made available to refugees. The language in the notice has
been changed to reflect ORR's expectation that States should ensure
that refugee social services are made available to special populations.
Comment: Two commenters requested clarification regarding ORR's
expectation that States should ensure that a coherent plan of services
is developed for each eligible family that addresses the family's needs
from time of arrival until attainment of economic independence. One
commenter pointed out that a plan of services can only be developed for
individuals and families that access services and recommended that the
language in the notice be revised to clarify this point. The commenter
also questioned how the definition of an ``eligible family'' would
apply to recent arrivals who are single. Another commenter questioned
what is meant by ``a coherent plan of services from time of arrival
until attainment of economic independence''.
Response: Our intent regarding a coherent plan of services is for
such a plan to be developed for every family that applies for services
or receives cash assistance. We believe that a State can ensure that
this is carried out by requiring its providers to develop such plans.
Refugees who are single individuals, without family, should be
considered an eligible one-person family unit. ``A coherent plan of
services from time of arrival until attainment of economic
independence'' means the development of a comprehensive service plan
that includes the provision of employment-related and other services
needed to help a newly arrived family move to a point of economic self-
support.
Comment: Three commenters commented on ORR's expectation that
services should be provided in a manner that is culturally and
linguistically compatible. Two of the commenters indicated that this
expectation would require the provision of services through a refugee-
specific system which, they felt, would be financially impractical.
Both commenters felt that it would be more cost-effective to fold
refugee services into the existing mainstream system. Another commenter
expressed support for the provision of services through a refugee-
specific system. One commenter asked for a clear definition of what
``culturally and linguistically compatible'' means.
Response: What ORR means by the provision of services in a manner
that is culturally and linguistically compatible is that an agency
providing refugee social services must employ or contract with staff
who (1) speak the native language of and (2) are either from the same
ethnic background as, or are culturally knowledgeable of, the refugee
populations the agency serves, and must use these staff in the
provision of services to refugee clients.
Regarding the cost-effectiveness of a refugee-specific service
system, we believe that the investment of refugee program funds in a
refugee-specific service system, particularly in the initial years
after a refugee's arrival in the U.S., will prove to be more cost-
effective in the long run than serving refugees through a mainstream
system. The provision of services through a service provider system
whose only clientele is refugees is likely to result in more tailored
and comprehensive services to refugees, resulting, we believe, in
earlier employment and self-sufficiency than what would otherwise occur
when refugees are served through a mainstream system. Refugees often
tend to receive minimal services or are the last to be served in
mainstream systems where they are one of many client groups served. We
wish to emphasize, however, that there is nothing to preclude, and in
fact we encourage, the use of mainstream resources to augment the
services provided through a refugee-specific service system.
Comment: Two commenters had concerns regarding ORR's encouragement
to States and counties to give special consideration to coalitions of
refugee service organizations. One commenter expressed concern about
how coalitions would be more cost-effective. The commenter also
questioned how ORR envisions special consideration for coalitions in
relation to the competitive procurement process. Another commenter felt
that coordination should not be mandated as an end in itself. The
commenter felt that if early employment is the goal, local service
systems should be as uncomplicated as possible in order to get the job
done efficiently. The commenter was concerned that current providers
that are doing an effective job would be dismantled prematurely.
Response: We believe that the formation of coalitions among refugee
service agencies ought to lead to service delivery efficiencies and to
a rational downsizing of existing systems that will be necessary to
keep pace with the changing nature of the refugee population to be
served. We believe the formation of coalitions will enable the pooling
of varied talents and skills within the agencies to more efficiently
serve the changing population of refugee arrivals that will occur over
the next few years. We also believe that the formation of coalitions
should result in the reduction of administrative costs such as
accounting and reporting costs, making coalitions more competitive. In
addition, we believe the formation of coalitions will result in better
coordination of services to refugees.
Encouragement of or special consideration for coalitions should not
interfere with State procurement requirements. Coalitions will have to
compete along with other applicants. However, States in their Requests
for Proposals (RFPs) could choose to include language that encourages
the formation of coalitions or could include bonus points for
coalitions in the scoring criteria, as long as these actions do not
violate State procurement rules.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether language
in the notice such as ``States are strongly encouraged'' and ``the
State should'' is advisory or is a mandatory requirement.
Response: When ORR uses phrases such as ``States are strongly
encouraged,'' ``States are expected to,'' or ``the State should,'' the
language is advisory in nature and should not be interpreted as a
mandatory requirement.
Comment: Six commenters made comments regarding requirements for
the use of discretionary funds for services to former political
prisoners (FPP) from Vietnam. One commenter requested that ORR specify
which family members are eligible for services under the FPP set-aside
or allow States and counties to make that determination. The commenter
also requested that ORR define what adjustment services may be provided
under the FPP program and recommended that ORR use the same definition
as used in 45 CFR 400.155(c) of the ORR regulations. One commenter,
noting ORR's prohibition against the purchase of advertising space and
air time with FPP funds, recommended that paid outreach announcements
through refugee community media and Vietnamese newspapers be allowed
under the FPP program.
One commenter noted that ORR requires States to allocate FPP funds
using a formula that reflects recent and anticipated arrivals of former
political prisoners. The commenter pointed out that there is no timely
or reliable source of anticipated arrivals by State and recommended
limiting the State allocation formula to recent arrivals and
recommended defining the term ``recent arrivals.'' One commenter
recommended that counties which administer FPP programs be granted 10%
for administrative costs and that States should be limited to no more
than 2% for administrative costs.
Two commenters recommended dropping outcomes as a performance
reporting requirement under the FPP program. One of the commenters
questioned the increased reporting requirements when the FPP program is
entering its last year of operation. Another commenter recommended
accepting available individual contract data on outcomes since it would
be difficult in some States with a wide range of FPP services to
provide a program-wide outcomes report. One commenter supported the
proposed FPP reporting requirements and did not feel the increased
reporting requirements would add significantly to existing workloads.
Another commenter recommended that FPP projects be supported that
demonstrate accountability for outcomes such as those that occurred in
the Amerasian projects. The commenter further suggested that ORR should
require coordination between the agencies that provide FPP services and
the voluntary agencies that resettle former political prisoners.
Response: Family members who are eligible for services under the
FPP set-aside include any relative of a former political prisoner who
lives in the same household with the FPP. Adjustment services are
defined as those services listed under 45 CFR 400.155(c) of the ORR
regulations. This definition is included in this notice. Regarding the
use of FPP funds for paid outreach announcements through the refugee
media, our position is unchanged on this issue; we do not feel that the
purchase of advertising space and air time constitutes an effective use
of FPP funds. FPP providers should work with the voluntary agencies
that resettled FPP refugees to contact these refugees within the
constraints of the Privacy Act.
We agree with the comment regarding the difficulty of basing a
State allocation formula on anticipated arrivals and have dropped this
factor from the formula. In the interest of consistency, we have
changed the notice to require States to allocate FPP funds using a
formula which reflects arrivals during FY 1993 to local jurisdictions,
the same formula used by ORR to allocate FPP funds to States. We have
no specific guidance regarding the distribution of administrative costs
between county and State; this is an issue that should be resolved
between the county and the State. All costs claimed against grants must
be in conformity with HHS grants regulations at 45 CFR part 92 and
other applicable Federal requirements.
In regard to performance requirements for the FPP program, we have
not added any new reporting requirements. As in FY 1993, States are
required to provide program performance information on the FPP program
consistent with the reporting requirements contained in 45 CFR 92.40,
under the terms and conditions of the social services grant awards to
States. In addition, we have simply clarified that the information to
be reported must include the four items listed in this notice.
Regarding program outcomes, States may provide available outcome data
from individual contracts. In regard to suggestions for additional
requirements for FPP projects, we have decided not to consider
additional requirements since this is the last year of the FPP set-
aside program.
Comment: Five commenters addressed the issue of ORR's use of 15% of
social service funds for ORR discretionary grants. Two commenters
indicated support for the 15% discretionary use, while two commenters
objected it. One commenter recommended that there should be equitable
distribution of discretionary funding with input and involvement of
States, an expansion of selection panels, more lead time to develop
proposals, and the development of meaningful evaluation criteria.
Another commenter felt that the notice should describe the focus of
discretionary funds for FY 1994, as has been done in previous years.
Response: We continue to believe that it is necessary to maintain a
portion of social service funds for discretionary use in order to carry
out national initiatives and special projects that respond to changing
needs and circumstances in the refugee program. Regarding the issue of
equitable distribution, discretionary funds are awarded on a
competitive basis, based on the quality of applications in relation to
the evaluation criteria, rather than on the basis of a population-based
allocation formula. Therefore, the geographic distribution of funds
awarded on the basis of merit may not be the same as a distribution by
formula. Regarding more State involvement in discretionary funding,
since States are frequently competitors for ORR discretionary funds,
along with other applicants, it is not possible to involve States in
funding decisions without creating a conflict of interest, a violation
of Federal grant rules. We do not believe our selection panels need to
be expanded; ORR selection panels have traditionally been broad-based,
involving a varied group of experts from the resettlement field and
other disciplines. We agree that sufficient lead time is necessary to
develop proposals; we are committed to allowing as much lead time as
the grant process timetable will bear. We also agree that the use of
meaningful evaluation criteria is essential in the review of grant
applications; such evaluation criteria are included in our grant
announcements. We have not included a description of our discretionary
focus for FY 1994 because we have been in the process of revamping our
discretionary program agenda this year. FY 1994 grant announcements
have recently been made available in the Federal Register.
Comment: Three commenters expressed support for the concurrent
provision of English language training with employment and employment-
related services. One commenter recommended that the provision of
English language training be tied to the provision of vocational
training and that the notice reflect this emphasis.
Response: We do not believe that English language training should
be tied exclusively to one type of employment-related service such as
vocational training. Our intent is to encourage the concurrent
provision of English language training in concert with other
employment-related services to speed the process of a refugee becoming
employed and self-sufficient. At the same time, we want to discourage
the provision of English language training in a sequential manner, as a
prerequisite to receiving other employment-related services.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding the
meaning of ``appropriate coordination'' with reception and placement (R
& P) agencies to ensure the provision of seamless services to refugees.
Response: Appropriate coordination means working with R & P
agencies to ensure that there is a smooth transition between services
provided by the R & P agencies and services provided to refugees
through the State program. When planning services, a State should take
into account what services are provided by R & P agencies so that there
is a relationship and a continuum between R & P services and State-
funded services and an absence of service gaps or service duplication.
Comment: One commenter expressed concurrence with the need for
continued provision of services after employment to help a refugee
retain employment or move to a better job. The commenter recommended
that ORR review the list of services in 45 CFR 400.153 through 400.156
and if additional services are desired, specify them in the notice.
Response: We are reviewing the list of allowable services in 45 CFR
subpart I to determine if changes should be made. Such changes would
have to be made through a regulatory change, not through the notice.
Comment: Two commenters commended ORR for not restricting services
to a 36-month refugee population, while one commenter expressed
disappointment that ORR did not limit services to a 36-month
population.
Response: As a point of clarification, a restriction of services to
a time-limited population could only be effected through regulatory
action.
Comment: One commenter complained that the requirement that States
must specify and justify the use of funds for services to refugees who
have been in the U.S. more than 3 years is a reversal from previous
years when a justification was required to use social service funds for
newly-arrived refugees.
Response: ORR regulations under 45 CFR 400.147 require that both
the use of funds for services to newly arriving refugees
(Sec. 400.147(a)) and the use of funds for services to refugees who
have been in the U.S. more than 36 months (Sec. 400.147(c)) must be
specified and justified as part of a State's annual services plan. This
regulation has been in effect since July 1, 1989. The notice this year
simply emphasized Sec. 400.147(c) instead of Sec. 400.147(a).
Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement that funds
should be used for services designed to get refugees a job in less than
one year, while one commenter supported the one-year requirement.
Response: We have responded to this comment in previous notices.
Since our position remains unchanged, we refer the commenter to our
response in the FY 1993 final social service notice, published in the
Federal Register on July 28, 1993 (58 FR 40437).
Comment: One commenter recommended that the notice clarify that
social service funds may be used to serve unemployed refugees who are
not receiving cash assistance as long as cash assistance recipients
make up a percentage of the social services caseload which is at or
above the State's welfare dependency rate. The commenter indicated that
the State currently interprets the ORR notice to mean that only cash
assistance clients may receive services.
Response: We believe the notice is clear that social services funds
may be used to serve non-cash-assistance recipients. The notice, under
the section ``Population to be Served,'' states that ``social service
programs should not be limited exclusively to refugees who are cash
assistance recipients.'' However, as the wording indicates, this is not
a mandatory requirement. States are not required to ensure that cash
assistance recipients make up a percentage of the social services
caseload that is not less than the State's welfare dependency rate.
States, however, are required to give priority to a refugee who is
receiving cash assistance.
Comment: One commenter objected to the use of a floor amount for
small States.
Response: We have responded to this comment in previous notices.
Since our position has not changed on this issue, we refer the
commenter to our response in the FY 1993 final social service notice,
published in the Federal Register on July 28, 1993 (58 FR 40437).
Comment: Two commenters objected to unlimited State administrative
costs for social services. One commenter recommended capping
administrative costs at 5% for any State receiving more than $12
million in social service funds and recommended that counties be
allowed a maximum of 20% for administrative costs.
Response: Since the statute does not specify a limitation on the
amount of social service funds that can be used for administrative
costs, we have not imposed a limit on States, choosing instead to allow
States to make that determination. In regard to the percentage of funds
that counties may use for administrative costs, this is an issue that
needs to be resolved between county and State, not ORR. As noted
earlier, all costs must meet Federal grant requirements.
Comment: One commenter suggested that ORR consider safeguards to
ensure that primary emphasis is placed on serving new arrivals, with
services beyond the initial period being the exception and only
allowable if a State has been successful in meeting the needs of new
arrivals.
Response: Such a requirement could be put into effect only through
regulatory action. We are giving this issue consideration.
Comment: One commenter felt that it is unwise to rely heavily on
the presence of bilingual female staff as the key factor in improving
services to refugee women. The commenter felt that the relevance of
service matters much more.
Response: The issue is access to services, not just relevance of
service. We believe that access to services and communication between
client and provider improve significantly for refugee women when there
are bilingual women on staff to provide services to these clients.
III. Allocation Formula
Of the funds available for FY 1994 for social services, $68,681,700
is allocated to States in accordance with the formula specified below.
A State's allowable allocation is calculated as follows:
1. The total amount of funds determined by the Director to be
available for this purpose; divided by--
2. The total number of refugees and Cuban/Haitian entrants who
arrived in the United States not more than 3 years prior to the
beginning of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated and
the number of Amerasians from Vietnam eligible for refugee social
services, as shown by the ORR Refugee Data System. The resulting per
capita amount will be multiplied by--
3. The number of persons in item 2, above, in the State as of
October 1, 1993, adjusted for estimated secondary migration.
The calculation above yields the formula allocation for each State.
Minimum allocations for small States are taken into account.
Allocations for political prisoners are based on FY 1993 arrival
numbers for this group in each State from the Refugee Data Center and
are limited to States with 170 or more political prisoner arrivals. We
have limited the population base to FY 1993 political prisoner arrival
numbers because these funds are intended to serve recent arrivals. We
have not included States with fewer than 170 former political prisoners
in the political prisoner allocations formula because the resulting
level of funding would be insignificant. In these States, we believe
the small number of political prisoners could be adequately served
under the State's refugee social services program.
IV. Basis of Population Estimates
The population estimates for the allocation of funds in FY 1994 are
based on data on refugee arrivals from the ORR Refugee Data System,
adjusted as of October 1, 1993, for estimated secondary migration. The
data base includes refugees of all nationalities, Amerasians from
Vietnam, and Cuban and Haitian entrants.
For fiscal year 1994, ORR's formula allocations for the States for
social services are based on the numbers of refugees and Amerasians who
arrived, and on the numbers of entrants who arrived or were resettled,
during the preceding three fiscal years: 1991, 1992, and 1993, based on
final arrival data by State. Therefore, estimates have been developed
of the numbers of refugees and entrants with arrival or resettlement
dates between October 1, 1990, and September 30, 1993, who are thought
to be living in each State as of October 1, 1993. Refugees admitted
under the Federal Government's private-sector initiative are not
included, since their assistance and services are to be provided by the
private sponsoring organizations under an agreement with the Department
of State.
The estimates of secondary migration were based on data submitted
by all participating States on Form ORR-11. The total migration
reported by each State was summed, yielding in- and out-migration
figures and a net migration figure for each State. The net migration
figure was applied to the State's total arrival figure, resulting in a
revised population estimate. Because the reporting period covered on
Form ORR-11 was a maximum of only 8 months as of June 1993 for the
majority of States whose reporting base was their cash/medical
assistance caseload, extra weight was given to the secondary migration
reported by those States to arrive at estimates of secondary migration
over a 36-month period. In 1993, no count of recently-arrived refugee
children was available from the Department of Education for use as a
comparison.
Estimates were developed separately for refugees and entrants and
then combined into a total estimated 3-year refugee/entrant population
for each State. Eligible Amerasians are included in the refugee
figures.
Table 1, below, shows the estimated 3-year populations, as of
October 1, 1993, of refugees (col. 1), entrants (col. 2), and total
refugees and entrants (col. 3); the formula amounts which the
population estimates yield (col. 4); and the allocation amounts after
allowing for the minimum amounts (col. 5). Table 1 also shows the
number of former political prisoner arrivals in FY 1993 (col. 6); and
the allocation amounts for services to this population (col. 7).
V. Allocation Amounts
Funding subsequent to the publication of this notice will be
contingent upon the submittal and approval of a State annual services
plan, as required by 45 CFR 400.11(b)(2). The following amounts are
allocated for refugee social services in FY 1994:
Table 1.--Estimated 3-Year Refugee/Entrant Populations of States Participating in the Refugee Program and Social Service Formula Amounts and Allocations
for FY 1994; and Former Political Prisoner Arrivals and Allocations for FY 1994
Former
political Former
Total prisoner political
State Refugees Entrants population Formula amount Allocation arrivals from prisoner
Vietnam in FY allocation
1993
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................. 894 19 913 $163,826 $163,826 39 $0
Alaskaa................................. 134 0 134 24,045 75,000 14 0
Arizona................................. 4,023 40 4,063 729,053 729,053 183 16,029
Arkansas................................ 296 0 296 53,113 94,142 64 0
Californiab............................. 96,019 499 96,518 17,318,904 17,318,904 10,279 900,324
Colorado................................ 3,915 2 3,917 702,855 702,855 230 20,145
Connecticut............................. 3,401 75 3,476 623,723 623,723 130 0
Delaware................................ 112 12 124 22,250 75,000 6 0
District of Columbia.................... 2,760 18 2,778 498,476 498,476 181 15,854
Florida................................. 12,898 15,989 28,887 5,183,398 5,183,398 546 47,823
Georgia................................. 8,811 51 8,862 1,590,171 1,590,171 1,294 113,340
Hawaii.................................. 982 0 982 176,207 176,207 119 0
Idaho................................... 925 4 929 166,697 166,697 111 0
Illinois................................ 13,511 102 13,613 2,442,676 2,442,676 358 31,357
Indiana................................. 1,160 6 1,166 209,224 209,224 73 0
Iowa.................................... 3,139 2 3,141 563,612 563,612 250 21,897
Kansas.................................. 2,201 3 2,204 395,479 395,479 282 24,700
Kentucky................................ 1,911 16 1,927 345,775 345,775 159 0
Louisiana............................... 2,503 58 2,561 459,538 459,538 306 26,802
Maine................................... 627 0 627 112,507 112,507 4 0
Maryland................................ 7,501 174 7,675 1,377,179 1,377,179 342 29,955
Massachusetts........................... 10,973 294 11,267 2,021,717 2,021,717 601 52,641
Michigan................................ 7,212 38 7,250 1,300,919 1,300,919 241 21,109
Minnesota............................... 7,458 0 7,458 1,338,241 1,338,241 421 36,875
Mississippi............................. 176 0 176 31,581 75,000 19 0
Missouri................................ 5,052 26 5,078 911,181 911,181 330 28,904
Montana................................. 345 0 345 61,906 100,000 0 0
Nebraska................................ 2,242 0 2,242 402,298 402,298 215 18,832
Nevada.................................. 828 168 996 178,719 178,719 38 0
New Hampshire........................... 571 0 571 102,459 102,459 88 0
New Jersey.............................. 7,558 496 8,054 1,445,186 1,445,186 262 22,948
New Mexico.............................. 1,086 164 1,250 224,296 224,296 39 0
New York................................ 65,250 760 66,010 11,844,639 11,844,639 527 46,159
North Carolina.......................... 3,543 22 3,565 639,693 639,693 177 15,503
North Dakota............................ 1,024 0 1,024 183,744 183,744 48 0
Ohio.................................... 6,042 39 6,081 1,091,157 1,091,157 164 0
Oklahoma................................ 1,629 1 1,630 292,482 292,482 288 25,226
Oregon.................................. 5,913 58 5,971 1,071,419 1,071,419 373 32,671
Pennsylvania............................ 11,048 86 11,134 1,997,852 1,997,852 353 30,919
Rhode Island............................ 1,066 11 1,077 193,254 193,254 3 0
South Carolina.......................... 450 2 452 81,106 100,000 79 0
South Dakota............................ 1,223 0 1,223 219,451 219,451 0 0
Tennessee............................... 3,294 32 3,326 596,808 596,808 196 17,167
Texas................................... 16,672 178 16,850 3,023,514 3,023,514 2,272 199,001
Utah.................................... 1,758 0 1,758 315,450 315,450 135 0
Vermont................................. 714 0 714 128,118 128,118 16 0
Virginia................................ 6,195 22 6,217 1,115,560 1,115,560 805 70,509
Washington.............................. 19,170 1 19,171 3,439,987 3,439,987 1,522 133,310
West Virginia........................... 85 0 85 15,252 75,000 0 0
Wisconsin............................... 4,876 1 4,877 875,114 875,114 22 0
Wyoming................................. 0 0 0 0 75,000 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 361,176 19,469 380,645 68,301,811 68,681,700 24,204 2,000,000
aThe Alaska allocation has been awarded for a Wilson/Fish demonstration project.
bA portion of the California allocation is expected to be awarded to continue a Wilson/Fish project in San Diego.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
This notice does not create any reporting or recordkeeping
requirements requiring OMB clearance.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 93.566 Refugee
Assistance--State Administered Programs)
Dated: June 6, 1994.
Lavinia Limon,
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[FR Doc. 94-14758 Filed 6-16-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P