Question. Has the Department initiated any new Fish/Wilson Demonstration projects in fiscal year 1991? What steps have been taken to make it easier to states, localities and voluntary agencies to develop and implement alternative refugee resettlement models through the Fish/Wilson demonstration process?

Answer. One project in San Diego which was approved in FY 1990, has been implemented in FY 1991. The Department has been talking with two other interested parties, the county of Los Angeles and the State of Washington.

The Department has made every effort to make the application process easier. It has responded to every contact from every group expressing interest in a Fish/Wilson demonstration project, and has consulted fully with each one to assure that the applicant has a workable concept and has assisted applicants in reaching the agreements needed locally and with State governments. These more consultative procedures are expected to be codified in a new public announcement in FY 1992.

Question. Would you please provide for the Subcommittee a breakdown of allocations under the state administered Cash and Medical Assistance program. How much was allocated for the various priority categories within the account.

Answer: The table below provides this information.

Question. What has been the largest area of growth within the Cash/Medical assistance program?

Answer. The special programs of refugee cash assistance (RCA) and refugee medical assistance (RMA) for needy refugees who do not meet the categorical eligibility requirements for AFDC, Medicaid, and SSI have experienced the largest growth in cash and medical assistance.

Question. Would you please outline briefly the present status of refugee dependency rates. What is the average dependency rate for eligible refugees? To what degree do dependency rates vary from State to State?

Answer. As of September 30, 1989, the dependency rate of refugees who had arrived in the United States during the previous 24 months was 48.5 percent. Rates have varied greatly from State to State throughout the refugee program. The table below provides State-by-State figures.

FSA is not able to provide comparable dependency rates for September 30, 1990, because the Federal refugee funding period for AFDC, Medicaid, and SSI was reduced from 24 months to four months in January 1990 and to zero months in September 1990. Consequently, the data collected on refugees receiving assistance under these programs are no longer comparable.

Cash Assistance Dependency Among Time-Eligible Refugees
September 30, 1989, and September 30, 1988

Cash Assistance Dependency Among Time-Eligible Refugees
September 30, 1989, and September 30, 1988

a/ Caseload data derived from the Quarterly Performance Reports, or
QPRS (Form ORR-6), are submitted by 49 States (Alaska does not
participate in the refugee program) and the District of Columbia for
all time-eligible refugees and entrants. Caseload data include
AFDC, RCA, GA, and SSI recipients as reported by the States as of
9/30/89. Please note that caseload data may include children born in
the United States to refugee families, while the base population does
not include these children. This factor inflates the calculated depend-
ency rate to an unknown degree, which may be significant in States
with large AFDC caseloads. In a State with a small caseload, it may
cause the dependency rate to exceed one hundred percent.

b/ California's cash assistance data include 35,528 recipients participating in the State's Refugee Demonstration Project (RDP) as of 9/30/89.

c/ California's cash assistance data include 29,816 recipients participating in the State's Refugee Demonstration Project (RDP) as of 9/30/88.

d/ Oregon's cash assistance data include 652 recipients participating in the State's Refugee Early Employment Project (REEP) as of 9/30/89. e/Oregon's cash assistance data include 278 recipients participating in the State's Refugee Early Employment Project (REEP) as of 9/30/88.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTTED BY SENATOR WARREN RUDMAN

The FY 92 request for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program is $585 million below the FY 1991 appropriation, including amounts provided in an Energy Emergency Contingency Fund. This is a reduction of more than 36 percent. In testimony before the Subcommittee, these massive reductions were justified on the basis that energy burdens on families have been reduced as a result of a decline in prices and consumption. However, your most recent report on the program states that fewer households are receiving LIHEAP assistance and that the percent of household income spent on energy remained about the same as in 1981.

Question. If fewer households are receiving benefits and eligible households continue to pay as large a percentage of income as a decade ago, how do you interpret this as a sign of less need?

As

Answer. According to HHS' annual LIHEAP report to Congress for FY 1989, the percent of household income spent on energy has not remained the same as in 1981. In fact, it has declined sharply. shown in table K-13 (page 21), the average home energy (space heating and cooling) burden of low income households declined from 8.0 percent of household income in 1981 to 5.4 percent of household income in 1989, indicating a reduced need for LIHEAP to offset home energy costs as a percent of household income.