For fiscal year 2004, it is estimated that 19,000 Cuban and Haitian entrants will be served. In fiscal year 2003, the program served over 12,000 Cuban and Haitian entrants.

Uses and Use Restrictions

Assistance is limited to Cuban and Haitian entrants as defined in the authorizing Act.

Federal policy governs further eligibility factors.

The scope of services for which funds are available to grantees, or cooperative agreement recipients, are defined in program announcements published in the Federal Register dated March 9, 1981, January 5, 1983, July 5, 1985, April 12, 1988, June 26, 1989, and January 5, 1995.

People Building Stronger Communities

Big Data Analysis: Engine to Economic Development?

Need for Substance Abuse Counseling Increases in Dickinson

Benefitting Underserved Communities Through Community Development Efforts

SVP Summit Assembles Philanthropy Groups and Leaders at Chapel Hill

Economic Development Plan to Bring Entrepreneurs to Craig

Social Entrepreneur Spotlight on Fairbourne Consulting\'s Peter Harris

More Arkansans Signing Up for Health Coverage

NAACP Officials Connect With Haitian Government and Civil Society Leaders

Maplewood Receives Community Development Grant

Eligibility Requirements

Applicant Eligibility

Public or Private, nonprofit organizations or agencies, and under certain conditions for-profit organizations, agencies, or institutions.

Beneficiary Eligibility

Cuban and Haitian nationals who meet the definition of entrant set forth in Title V, Section 501(e) of Public Law 96-422.

Credentials/Documentation

Persons for whom assistance is authorized through resettlement programs are limited to Cuban and Haitian nationals who possess documentation as described in Title V of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422). This program is excluded from coverage under OMB Circular No. A-87.

Aplication and Award Process

Preapplication Coordination

Preapplication coordination is not required.

This program is eligible for coverage under E.O.

12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs." An applicant should consult the office or official designated as the single point of contact in his or her State for more information on the process the State requires to be followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for review.

This program is excluded from coverage under OMB Circular No.

A-102.

Application Procedures

Application deadline and other information are contained in the application/program guidance.

Award Procedures

Applications or plans are reviewed by DHS program and administrative staff. Any issues or concerns noted in the application will be negotiated with the successful applicant prior to the award being issued.

Deadlines

Refer to announcement or application guidance for further information.

Authorization

Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980, as amended, Title V, Section 501 C, Public Law 96-422, 94 Stat. 1809; Executive Order 12341, January 21, 1982; Economy Act of 1932, 31 U.S.C. 1535, as amended.

Range of Approval/Disapproval Time

Refer to program guidance document.

Appeals

None.

Renewals

A grant or cooperative agreement may be amended in order to extend the program and budgetary period if funds are available and the proposed amendment does not represent a substantive deviation from previous services or costs. Applications may also be renewed through the competitive process after the end of the program period.

Assistance Considerations

Formula and Matching Requirements

None.

Length and Time Phasing of Assistance

Refer to program guidance. Awards are subject to the Cash Management Improvement Act for payment and/or reimbursement of expenditures.

Post Assistance Requirements

Reports

Grantees are required to submit quarterly financial and performance reports.

Quarterly "Progress Reports" must include the progress of each sub-grant award.

Reports are due 30 days after the end of each quarter: January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30.

Final financial and performance reports are due 90 days after the expiration or termination of grant award.

Audits

In accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-133 (Revised, June 27, 2003), "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Nonprofit Organizations," nonfederal entities that expend financial assistance of $500,000 or more in Federal awards (or receive property, or a combination of both, within the fiscal year) will have a single or a program-specific audit conducted for that year. Nonfederal entities that expend less than $500,000 a year in Federal awards are exempt from Federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in Circular A-133. These audits are due to the cognizant Federal agency, submitted through the Federal Audit Clearinghouse, not later than 9 months after the end of the grantees fiscal year.

Records

Grant records shall be retained for a period of 3 years from the day the recipient submits its final expenditure report. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit, or other action involving the records has been started before the expiration of the 3-year period, the records must be retained until completion of the action and resolution of all issues which arise from it, or until the end of the regular 3-year period, whichever is later. Grant records include financial and program/progress reports, support documents, statistical records, and other documents that support the activity and/or expenditure of the recipient or sub-recipient under the award.

Financial Information

Account Identification

70-0504-0-1-999.

Obigations

(Grants) FY 07 $8,688,037; FY 08 est $10,000,000; and FY 09 est not available.

Range and Average of Financial Assistance

Refer to program guidance.

Regulations, Guidelines, and Literature

Several regulations apply to the resettlement grants. Until further notice, these include but are not limited to: 28 CFR Part 42, Sub-parts C,G, H and OMB Circular Nos. A-110, A-122, A-133, and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Sub-part 32.1.

Information Contacts

Regional or Local Office

DHS, ICE, OIA, PHAB Miami Office: Room 220, 51 SW 1st Ave., Miami, FL 33130. Telephone: (305) 536-4261.

Headquarters Office

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 245 Murray Lane, Bldg 410 Washington, DC 20258.

Criteria for Selecting Proposals

Refer to the program guidance for information on criteria for selecting proposals. The applicant provides for effective program structure and accountability as demonstrated by administrative and programmatic controls, as well as program and client records and reports. (10 POINTS) F. The adequacy of the program evaluation plan, including the methodology and criteria for evaluating effective of the program in resettling the clients. (10 POINTS). Programmatic control, predictability and accountability as evidenced by the structure and continuity inherent in the program design. (15 POINTS) 5. The adequacy of the plans for: a. developing and updating individual client service plans; and, b. the proposed system of case management. (10 POINTS) 6. The reasonableness of the proposed budget and budget narrative, in relation to proposed program activities. (10 POINTS) 7. The plan for program evaluation, including the methodology and criteria for evaluation the program. (5 POINTS) 8. The degree to which the application has provided written documented evidence of community support and acceptance of the program. (5 POINTS). Programmatic control, predictability and accountability as evidenced by the structure and continuity inherent in the program design. (15 POINTS) 5. The adequacy of the plans for: a. developing and updating individual client service plans; and, b. the proposed system of case management. (10 POINTS) 6. The reasonableness of the proposed budget and budget narrative, in relation to proposed program activities. (10 POINTS) 7. The plan for program evaluation, including the methodology and criteria for evaluation the program. (5 POINTS) 8. The degree to which the application has provided written documented evidence of community support and acceptance of the program. (5 POINTS) Programmatic control, predictability and accountability as evidenced by the structure and continuity inherent in the program design. (15 POINTS) 5. The adequacy of the plans for: a. developing and updating individual client service plans; and, b. the proposed system of case management. (10 POINTS) 6. The reasonableness of the proposed budget and budget narrative, in relation to proposed program activities. (10 POINTS) 7. The plan for program evaluation, including the methodology and criteria for evaluation the program. (5 POINTS) 8. The degree to which the application has provided written documented evidence of community support and acceptance of the program. (5 POINTS)mmatic control, predictability and accountability as evidenced by the structure and continuity inherent in the program design. (15 POINTS) 5. The adequacy of the plans for: a. developing and updating individual client service plans; and, b. the proposed system of case management. (10 POINTS) 6. The reasonableness of the proposed budget and budget narrative, in relation to proposed program activities. (10 POINTS) 7. The plan for program evaluation, including the methodology and criteria for evaluation the program. (5 POINTS) 8. The degree to which the application has provided written documented evidence of community support and acceptance of the program (5 POINTS).the applicant provides for effective program structure and accountability as demonstrated by administrative and programmatic controls, as well as program and client records and reports. (10 POINTS) F. The adequacy of the program evaluation plan, including the methodology and criteria for evaluating effective of the program in resettling the clients. (10 POINTS). Programmatic control, predictability and accountability as evidenced by the structure and continuity inherent in the program design. (15 POINTS) 5. The adequacy of the plans for: a. developing and updating individual client service plans; and, b. the proposed system of case management. (10 POINTS) 6. The reasonableness of the proposed budget and budget narrative, in relation to proposed program activities. (10POINTS) 7. The plan for program evaluation, including the methodology and criteria for evaluation the program. (5 POINTS) 8. The degree to which the application has provided written documented evidence of community support and acceptance of the program. (5 POINTS). Programmatic control, predictability and accountability as evidenced by the structure and continuity inherent in the program design. (15 POINTS) 5. The adequacy of the plans for: a. developing and updating individual client service plans; and, b. the proposed system of case management. (10 POINTS) 6. The reasonableness of the proposed budget and budget narrative, in relation to proposed program activities. (10 POINTS) 7. The plan for program evaluation, including the methodology and criteria for evaluation the program. (5 POINTS) 8. The degree to which the application has provided written documented evidence of community support and acceptance of the program. (5 POINTS) Programmatic control, predictability and accountability as evidenced by the structure and continuity inherent in the program design. (15 POINTS) 5. The adequacy of the plans for: a. developing and updating individual client service plans; and, b. the proposed system of case management. (10 POINTS) 6. The reasonableness of the proposed budget and budget narrative, in relation to proposed program activities. (10 POINTS) 7. The plan for program evaluation, including the methodology and criteria for evaluation the program. (5 POINTS) 8. The degree to which the application has provided written documented evidence of community support and acceptance of the program. (5 POINTS)mmatic control, predictability and accountability as evidenced by the structure and continuity inherent in the program design. (15 POINTS) 5. The adequacy of the plans for: a. developing and updating individual client service plans; and, b. the proposed system of case management. (10 POINTS) 6. The reasonableness of the proposed budget and budget narrative, in relation to proposed program activities. (10 POINTS) 7. The plan for program evaluation, including the methodology and criteria for evaluation the program. (5 POINTS) 8. The degree to which the application has provided written documented evidence of community support and acceptance of the program. (5 POINTS)