[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 135 (Friday, July 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36292-36299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17338]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Refugee Resettlement
Refugee Resettlement Program: Allocations to States of FY 1995
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 1995 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 1995
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
[[Page 36293]]
previously set aside for social services discretionary projects.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 14, 1995.
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 8,
1995 (60 FR 12775). The population estimates that were used in the
proposed notice have been adjusted as a result of additional population
information submitted by 10 States.
I. Amounts For Allocation
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $80,802,000
in FY 1995 refugee social service funds as part of the FY 1995
appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services (Pub. L.
103-333).
Of the total of $80,802,000, the Director of ORR is making
available to States $68,681,700 (85%) under the allocation formula set
out in this notice. These funds are 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. Although we had
indicated in the FY 1994 social service allocations notice that FY 1994
would be the last year in which a special set-aside would be allocated
for additional services for former political prisoners from Vietnam, we
are continuing this special set-aside in FY 1995 due to continued
arrivals of this population in FY 1995.
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 is setting
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 1994. 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 (FPPs) 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. Funds may
also be used for the costs of leadership development training,
including the costs of travel to attend FPP conferences, for the
purpose of facilitating the ability of former political prisoners to
continue the FPP services that were begun under this program after the
set-aside program ends. 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 (other
than for travel costs to conferences), for the purchase of advertising
space or air time, or for services covered under the Department of
State Reception and Placement Cooperative Agreements.
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 to provide 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 1994.
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 (MAAs) 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 or indicate in its refugee program State plan
that Cuban/Haitian entrants will be served in order to use funds on
behalf of entrants as well as refugees.)
The Director is allocating $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, 1994 (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
[[Page 36294]]
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) is expected to 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 current 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.
However, effective October 1, 1995, the current requirements under
Sec. 400.147 will no longer be in effect and will be replaced by new
provisions in accordance with the final rule published in the Federal
Register on June 28, 1995, (60 FR 33584). Under the new provisions,
States will be required to provide services to refugees in the
following order of priority, except in certain individual extreme
circumstances: (a) All newly arriving refugees during their first year
in the U.S., who apply for services; (b) refugees who are receiving
cash assistance; (c) unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash
assistance; and (d) employed refugees in need of services to retain
employment or to attain economic independence.
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. No. 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 section 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 section 400.154. (Beginning October 1, 1995, States will
no longer have to adhere to this requirement since the final rule
eliminates this requirement.) 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, section 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
[[Page 36295]]
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.
Refugee-specific social services should be provided which are
specifically designed to meet refugee needs and are in keeping with the
rules and objectives of the refugee program, particularly during a
refugee's initial years of resettlement. 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 no longer provides set-aside funds to refugee mutual assistance
associations as a separate component under the social service notice;
instead we have folded these funds into the social service formula
allocation to States. Elimination of the MAA set-aside, however, does
not 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, ORR expects States to use MAAs as service providers to the
maximum extent possible. 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 8 letters of comment in response to the notice of
proposed FY 1995 allocations to States for refugee social services. The
comments are summarized below and are followed in each case by the
Department's response.
Comment: Six commenters made comments regarding requirements for
the set-aside of discretionary funds for services to former political
prisoners (FPP) from Vietnam. Four commenters suggested that funds from
the set-aside be made available to provide leadership development
training opportunities for former political prisoners (FPPs). One of
these commenters recommended that training be provided to former
political prisoners who arrived in the early 1990's to provide services
to newly arrived FPPs in order to expand current programs and to
prepare for the closing of funded services. Another commenter suggested
training be provided to volunteers such as detainees, lawyers, doctors,
and community leaders to form a detainee support group to help FPPs
move from dependency to self-sufficiency. Two commenters suggested that
funds be made available for the costs of travel to attend FPP
conferences and meetings.
A fifth commenter recommended that the notice include an
expectation by ORR that agencies receiving FPP awards should
participate in a planning process that ensures that other service
providers, such as voluntary agencies, have input in the design of
proposed services and in a coordinated referral system once an award is
made.
[[Page 36296]]
A sixth commenter recommended that counties which administer FPP
programs be allowed 15 percent for administrative costs and that States
be allowed no more than 5 percent for administrative costs.
Response: In consideration of the comments, we have included
leadership development training as an allowable activity under the FPP
set-aside, including the costs of travel and attendance of FPP
leadership at FPP conferences and meetings. Leadership training should
focus on enabling participants to continue the activities that were
begun under this program after ORR funding ends.
Although we encourage coordination and collaboration between
service providers with regard to both planning the design of services
and coordinating referrals, we do not believe that the last year of the
FPP set-aside is an appropriate time to introduce a new requirement.
Regarding the distribution of administrative costs between county
and State, we have no specific guidance regarding this issue and
believe this is an issue that needs to be resolved between the county
and the State.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the notice be clarified to
state that social service funds may be used to provide services to
unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash assistance as long as
refugees who are receiving cash assistance are given priority for
services. The commenter suggested that States should be required to
provide services to refugees not receiving cash assistance as a way to
keep these refugees from needing to access welfare.
Response: We believe that the notice is clear that social service
funds may be used to provide services to unemployed refugees who are
not receiving cash assistance. The notice, under the section
``Population to be Served,'' states that ``[w]hile 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.''
As the wording indicates, States may, and are encouraged to,
provide services to unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash
assistance. However, States are not required to provide services to
such refugees. States are required only to give priority in providing
services to refugees who are receiving cash assistance.
Effective October 1, 1995, however, in keeping with provisions in
the final rule, States will be required to provide services to refugees
according to a specific order of priority. Under the new rule,
unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash assistance will be the
third priority group after new arrivals and cash assistance recipients.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the notice include, in
addition to the provision for developing a service plan for refugees
accessing ORR-funded services, a requirement that States ensure a case
management system in which the service plan's objectives are closely
monitored and coordinated within the service delivery community.
Response: We agree that case management services are important to
coordinate and monitor the objectives of a client service plan.
Therefore, we strongly encourage States to provide such services.
However, we do not believe case management services should be imposed
on States as a mandatory requirement; we believe instead that States
should have the flexibility to make their own service choices, based on
local circumstances.
Comment: One commenter observed that the notice included the
requirement that States must have an approved State plan for the Cuban/
Haitian Entrant program in order to use ORR funds to provide services
to entrants. The commenter suggested that the distinction and the
additional plan are no longer appropriate. With larger numbers of
Cubans being admitted, the commenter indicated an expectation that
Cubans will be placed in more States than was previously the case; some
of these States will have little or no tradition of receiving this
population. The commenter suggested that access to services for Cubans
and Haitians should be facilitated regardless of whether the State in
which they are placed does or does not have an approved plan.
Response: In order to provide services to Cuban and Haitian
entrants, a State must either have a separate Cuban/Haitian entrant
program State plan or indicate in its refugee program State plan that
Cuban and Haitian entrants will be served. According to our records, 34
States now have approved State plans to provide services to Cuban and
Haitian entrants. An additional three States, which are not
participating in the refugee program, have privately administered
refugee program projects which can serve Cuban and Haitian entrants.
The requirement for a plan helps to ensure both that States are
prepared to provide appropriate services to entrants and that they are
prepared for increased numbers of entrants. We believe, therefore, that
the fact that larger numbers of Cubans are being admitted makes it more
important and appropriate, not less appropriate, that States have plans
for serving this population. Finally, because 34 States have already
met the requirement for having approved State plans, we do not believe
the requirement for a State plan impedes this population's access to
services. For these reasons, we do not intend to abolish the
requirement for an approved State plan for this population.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the formula for allocating
social service funds should be more flexible in order to accommodate
unanticipated arrivals that represent an impact on the current year's
funding allocation. The commenter suggested that there should be an
automatic, formulated adjustment made to States' allocations when
arrivals in the current year greatly exceed the pattern of the previous
three years.
Response: As the notice states, the allocation formula used for
social service funds is required by the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA). Section 412(c)(1)(B) of the INA states that social service funds
``* * * 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.'' No
change, therefore, can be made to the formula for allocating social
service funds without a statutory change.
It should also be noted that, when arrivals in a State greatly
exceed the pattern of the previous three years, the higher number of
arrivals is incorporated in the next year's formula. A State with high
numbers of unanticipated arrivals receives an allocation in the next
year that is proportionately higher than it would otherwise have been.
The formula does, therefore, accommodate, as quickly as possible within
statutory limitations, the impact of unanticipated arrivals.
Furthermore, ORR makes available discretionary grants to States to
fund social services for large numbers of unanticipated arrivals for
whom the existing social service system cannot respond adequately
because available ORR funding is already committed. This program is
intended to provide a bridge between the increased need for services
that results from increases in arrivals and the time when a State will
have incorporated services for these new arrivals into their existing
social service funded network. This program, by
[[Page 36297]]
providing funding for the types of activities generally funded by
States under their social services formula allocation, mitigates
against any adverse effect on States that the statutorily mandated
social service allocation formula might otherwise have when States
experience unanticipated arrivals or increases in arrivals to
communities where adequate services may not exist.
Comment: Two commenters addressed the issue of ORR's use of 15
percent of social service funds for discretionary grants. One commenter
expressed opposition to the use of 15% discretionary funds to non-
impacted counties and States and recommended that these funds be
distributed by formula to impacted areas. One commenter recommended
that States should have a role in the development and selection of
projects to be funded using discretionary funds. The commenter also
suggested that there should be greater lead time allowed for the
development of proposals, that the criteria by which proposals are
evaluated should be meaningful, and that the criteria should
incorporate input from the States involved.
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 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
fully agree that sufficient lead time is necessary to allow refugee
community groups adequate time to develop proposals. We are committed
to improving the process each year to allow as much lead time as
possible for potential applicants. We also agree that the use of
meaningful evaluation criteria is essential for the review of grant
applications. While we believe such evaluation criteria are already
included in our grant announcements, we would welcome specific
suggestions for evaluation criteria that States and other interested
parties may have for use in the future.
Comment: One commenter suggested that ORR reiterate in the notice
its expectation that States consider the views of local providers,
including voluntary agencies, in formulating State social service
plans.
Response: We concur with the commenter that States should consider
the views of local providers, including voluntary agencies, in
formulating State social service plans. The final rule that was
published on June 28, 1995, contains a provision that would require
States to develop annual service plans on the basis of a local
consultative process, effective October 1, 1995.
Comment: Two commenters made comments regarding State
administrative costs. One commenter objected to unlimited State
administrative costs for social services. The commenter recommended
capping administrative costs at 5 percent for any State receiving more
than $12 million in social service funds and allowing counties a
maximum of 15 percent for administrative costs. Another commenter
recommended that ORR consider ways to eliminate unnecessary
administrative costs and suggested that one approach might be to limit
the amount a State can charge for the administration of the refugee
program.
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. All costs must
meet Federal grant requirements. Regarding the suggestion that ORR
consider limiting the amount a State may charge for the administration
of the refugee program in general, States are reimbursed 100%, under
current regulations, for reasonable and necessary identifiable
administrative costs of providing assistance and services in the
refugee program. Under the final rule published on June 28, 1995, ORR
will review the issue of what constitutes reasonable and allowable
administrative costs in the refugee program and, if needed, develop
guidelines defining reasonable and allowable costs in consultation with
States. We do not intend, however, to impose a cap on what a State may
charge in administrative costs.
Comment: One commenter objected to the allotment of a floor amount
of social service funds to States with small refugee populations. In
particular, the commenter suggested that States with less than 1,000
refugees should not be included in the allocation.
Response: We do not concur with the commenter's suggestion that
States with less than 1,000 refugees should not receive a funding
allocation. If we implemented this suggestion, 15 States would not
receive social service funding. Such a policy would run counter to the
Federal commitment to provide a program of assistance and services to
refugees throughout the country.
Comment: One commenter requested that the population floor for
States receiving allocations from the discretionary funds set-aside for
services to former political prisoners be lowered from 320 FPP arrivals
to 300 FPP arrivals.
Response: In response to this comment, we have decided to lower the
population floor to 300 former political prisoners. In the notice of
proposed allocations we stated that we did not intend to make FPP
allocations to States with fewer than 320 FPPs because we believed the
resulting level of funding would be insignificant. In reducing the
floor in response to this comment, however, we have taken into
consideration that the only State requesting a change in the floor
received an allocation for an FPP program in previous years. We also
took into consideration that, in a small State receiving a relatively
small social service allocation, 300 or more FPPs might have a more
significant impact on services than would be the case in a larger State
with a larger social services allocation.
III. Allocation Formula
Of the funds available for FY 1995 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, 1994, 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 1994 arrival
numbers for this group in each State from the Refugee Data Center and
are limited to States with 300 or more political prisoner arrivals. We
have limited the population base to FY 1994 political prisoner arrival
numbers because these
[[Page 36298]]
funds are intended to serve recent arrivals. We have not included
States with fewer than 300 former political prisoners in the political
prisoner allocations formula in order to ensure that the resulting
level of funding for each State receiving funds is sufficient to
provide effective employment-oriented programs to assist FPPs. In
States with fewer than 300 FPPs, 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 1995 are
based on data on refugee arrivals from the ORR Refugee Data System,
adjusted as of October 1, 1994, for estimated secondary migration. The
data base includes refugees of all nationalities, Amerasians from
Vietnam, and Cuban and Haitian entrants.
For fiscal year 1995, 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: 1992, 1993, and 1994, 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, 1991, and September 30, 1994, who are thought
to be living in each State as of October 1, 1994. 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 on secondary migrants who
have resided in the U.S. for 36 months or less, as of September 30,
1994. 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.
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, 1994, 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 1994 (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 1995:
Table 1.--Estimated 3-Year Refugee/Entrant Populations of States Participating in the Refugee Program and Social Service Formula Amounts and Allocations
for FY 1995; and Former Political Prisoner Arrivals and Allocations for FY 1995.
Former
political Former
Total Formula prisoner political
State Refugees Entrants population amount Allocation arrivals prisoner
from Vietnam allocation
in FY 1994
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................... 746 22 768 $133,380 $133,380 18 $0
Alaska a.............................................. 143 1 144 25,009 75,000 23 0
Arizona............................................... 3,692 158 3,850 668,638 668,638 292 0
Arkansas.............................................. 303 1 304 52,796 94,113 84 0
California b.......................................... 89,172 692 89,864 15,606,873 15,606,873 11,760 871,014
Colorado.............................................. 3,874 3 3,877 673,327 673,327 360 26,664
Connecticut........................................... 3,348 131 3,479 604,205 604,205 158 0
Delaware.............................................. 132 12 144 25,009 75,000 5 0
Dist. of Columbia..................................... 1,874 3 1,877 325,983 325,983 274 0
Florida............................................... 12,686 26,102 38,788 6,736,395 6,736,395 651 48,217
Georgia............................................... 9,366 85 9,451 1,641,375 1,641,375 1,768 130,948
Hawaii................................................ 956 0 956 166,031 166,031 175 0
Idaho................................................. 998 4 1,002 174,019 174,019 87 0
Illinois.............................................. 13,534 141 13,675 2,374,967 2,374,967 522 38,662
Indiana............................................... 1,137 12 1,149 199,549 199,549 55 0
Iowa.................................................. 3,120 2 3,122 542,204 542,204 315 23,331
Kansas................................................ 2,240 4 2,244 389,720 389,720 355 26,293
Kentucky c............................................ 1,890 28 1,918 333,103 333,103 202 0
Louisiana............................................. 2,276 110 2,386 414,382 414,382 451 33,404
Maine................................................. 574 0 574 99,688 100,000 0 0
Maryland.............................................. 7,988 81 8,069 1,401,361 1,401,361 347 25,701
Massachusetts......................................... 11,413 357 11,770 2,044,121 2,044,121 780 57,771
Michigan.............................................. 7,766 39 7,805 1,355,511 1,355,511 332 24,590
Minnesota............................................. 9,490 2 9,492 1,648,496 1,648,496 464 34,367
Mississippi........................................... 128 8 136 23,619 75,000 38 0
Missouri.............................................. 5,278 18 5,296 919,768 919,768 371 27,478
Montana............................................... 154 0 154 26,746 75,000 3 0
Nebraska.............................................. 1,880 0 1,880 326,504 326,504 354 26,219
Nevada c.............................................. 703 470 1,173 203,717 203,717 9 0
New Hampshire......................................... 579 0 579 100,556 100,556 197 0
New Jersey............................................ 7,357 761 8,118 1,409,870 1,409,870 266 0
[[Page 36299]]
New Mexico............................................ 1,143 604 1,747 303,405 303,405 95 0
New York.............................................. 70,088 1,010 71,098 12,347,742 12,347,742 534 39,551
North Carolina........................................ 3,051 23 3,074 533,868 533,868 314 23,257
North Dakota.......................................... 1,150 0 1,150 199,723 199,723 26 0
Ohio.................................................. 6,035 46 6,081 1,056,100 1,056,100 179 0
Oklahoma.............................................. 1,379 3 1,382 240,015 240,015 348 25,775
Oregon................................................ 5,831 91 5,922 1,028,486 1,028,486 783 57,994
Pennsylvania.......................................... 11,016 100 11,116 1,930,540 1,930,540 360 26,664
Rhode Island.......................................... 934 11 945 164,120 164,120 12 0
South Carolina........................................ 488 2 490 85,099 100,000 113 0
South Dakota.......................................... 765 0 765 132,859 132,859 8 0
Tennessee............................................. 3,395 32 3,427 595,174 595,174 262 0
Texas................................................. 17,519 523 18,042 3,133,393 3,133,393 3,248 240,566
Utah.................................................. 1,609 0 1,609 279,438 279,438 220 0
Vermont............................................... 733 0 733 127,302 127,302 73 0
Virginia.............................................. 6,056 32 6,088 1,057,316 1,057,316 676 50,068
Washington............................................ 19,424 1 19,425 3,373,581 3,373,581 1,910 141,466
West Virginia......................................... 63 0 63 10,941 75,000 0 0
Wisconsin............................................. 5,986 5 5,991 1,040,470 1,040,470 20 0
Wyoming............................................... 6 0 6 1,042 75,000 0 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 361,468 31,730 393,198 $68,287,536 $68,681,700 29,897 $2,000,000
a The Alaska allocation has been awarded for a Wilson/Fish demonstration project.
b A portion of the California allocation is expected to be awarded to continue a Wilson/Fish project in San Diego.
c The allocation for Kentucky and Nevada is expected to be awarded to continue a Wilson/Fish project.
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: July 5, 1995.
Lavinia Limon,
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[FR Doc. 95-17338 Filed 7-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P