[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