3

Title VI

1

• “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national

2

origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal

4

Financial assistance .” 42 U.S.C § 2000d, et seq 2

2

Race, Color, & National Origin are three ‘protected classes’

•

Race

– U.S. Census categories define race – Persons of any race are protected classes •

Color

– Discrimination based on skin color or complexion is prohibited •

National Origin

– Foreign born ancestry 3

3

Program or Activity

Applies institution-wide • Title VI applies institution-wide,

not

solely limited to primary recipients operations • Examples?

4

4

Title VI applies to both

•

Recipeints & Sub-recipeints

Recipient

: • State DOT • Transit Agency • Or any public or private agency, institution, department or other organizational unit receiving funding from FTA •

Sub-recipient

: • any entity that receives FTA financial assistance as a pass-through from another entity 5

FTA Direct Grant Recipients meet their Title VI obligations through the Circular

• Addresses requirements of FTA Title VI Circular 4702.1A, – AKA “The Circular” • Submission Recurrence – Recipients every 3 years – MPOs every 4 yrs 6 http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Title_VI_Circular_4702.1A.pdf

Guidelines for All Recipients and Subrecipients

• Title VI guidelines cover: – Procedures for investigating complaints – How to record complaints, investigations, and lawsuits – Notifying the public of Title VI rights – EJ analysis in NEPA – Minority, low-income and LEP’s are included in decision making processes – Steps to ensure meaningful access for LEP persons

Procedures for Investigating Complaints Why must I develop complaint procedures?

• Procedures are – for investigating and tracking complaints – available upon request

Complaint Procedures

• What constitutes a complaint?

– Legal Bases • Must Haves – Timeline for accepting complaint – Investigation and resolution timeline – Who investigates the complaint – Who resolves the complaint

Complaint Procedures

• Reasons for dismissal • Report or letter of finding • Tracking complaint • Accessibility of complaints (written) • Language assistance measures • When to send to FTA

Notifying the Public of Rights

• The City of USA operates its programs without regard to race, color, and national origin in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Any person who believes they have been aggrieved by any unlawful discriminatory practice under Title VI may file a complaint with the City of USA. • For more information on the City of USA’s civil rights program, the obligations, and procedures to file a complaint, contact 800-656-1234, (TTY 800-656-4567), email [email protected]

; visit our administrative office at 1234 Center Street, Anywhere, CA, 17970 www.city.usa.ca.us

• If information is needed in another language contact, 800-656-1234 (MAKE SURE THIS IS IN THE OTHER LANGUAGE)

Public Involvement

• Early and continuous opportunities to be involved in proposed transportation decisions • Meeting times, locations • Childcare • Use of social media • Citizens advisory • Non-traditional methods

Lau v Nichols, 1974

• Non-English-speaking students of Chinese origin sued San Francisco School District.

• The Supreme Court ruled that a recipient’s failure to ensure meaningful opportunity to national origin minority, LEPs to participate in federally funded programs violates Title VI and Title VI regulations.

• The school was to take reasonable affirmative steps to provide meaningful opportunity to participate in the federaly funded education program. • Applies beyond education to include all programs and activities of all recipients of federal financial assistance

LEP Executive Order 13166

• Signed by Clinton August, 2000 • Assess language needs • Determine steps to ensure meaningful access for LEPs • Develop a language access plan or alternative framework • Failing to ensure LEPs effectively participate in or benefit from federally assisted programs may constitute national origin discrimination

Four Factor Analysis for LEP

1) Number of LEPs eligible or likely to be encountered by program 2) Frequency program that LEPs come into contact with 3) Nature & importance of program to LEPs 4) Resources available and costs to program

Factor 1: Number or Proportion of LEPs

• From a particular language group; • Eligible to be served or encountered; • The greater the number or proportion, the more services needed.

Factor 2: Frequency of Contact

• Rule of thumb: – More contact= More enhanced services – What data would you analyze?

Factor 3: Nature & Importance of Program

• Rule of thumb – More important=more contact – More contact=more likely to need langue services – What are the most important services?

Community Focus Groups

Fares/Tickets

Reg/LIFT/ATP Directions

Routes/Schedules

Service Disruptions Emergency Info Behavior Requirements Emergency Response

Safety/Security

Evacuation

Auditory

Delivery of Information

Pictogram Translated

Factor 4: Cost

• How much will it cost to deliver services?

Safe Harbor & LEP Thresholds

• • •

Safe Harbor

– Requires written translations of vital documents for

each

LEP group meeting threshold

LEP threshold

– 5% or 1,000 individuals, whichever is less.

Vital documents

– Documents critical for accessing recipients services or benefits – Letters requiring response from customer – Informing customers of free language assistance – Complaint forms – Notification of rights

How are LEP plans typically implemented?

• Popular Strategies – Publishing timetables and route maps in languages other than English – Multilingual phone lines and use of multilingual staff in information booths – Pictograms and multi-language announcements – Language Identification with “I Speak” cards – Advertising in ethnic media

I Speak Cards

A Model Plan

• A Model Plan guides you in determining the level of language access services you should provide • Includes comprehensive four factor analysis 1) Proportion of eligible LEPs 2) Frequency of Contact 3) Nature and Importance 4) Cost • Provides policies for evaluating language assistance providers

Sample Elements Model Plan

• Provide notice of right to language assistance • Identified vital documents for translation – i.e. any document that could deny an LEP access to a service • Important public notifications – Special meeting requests – Acquisition of property letters • Behavior signage

Training Staff on the Model Plan

• Staff members should understand LEP policies, procedures, and how to carry them out • Train staff on: – Documenting LEP needs – Responding to LEP correspondence • Both callers and in-person contact – Responding to LEP civil rights complaints

Model Plan Monitoring

Areas to Continuously Monitor

• Current language needs of customers – Assess whether existing language assistance services are meeting the needs of LEP customers – Number of LEP persons in service area • Need for language assistance resources and arrangements • Feedback from LEP communities, including customers, and community organizations about the effectiveness language access plan.

Guidelines for Transit Agencies Serving Large Urban Areas

• Collect demographic information on beneficiaries – Maps and overlays – Customer surveys – Local options • Service standards and policies – Set policies – Service and fare change analysis – Monitor – Report every three years to FTA

36

Customer survey

Measurement

Of all riders Transit dependency by race Of transit dependent riders Trips made most for work Shopping

Minority

15% 38% 29% 44% 16% Trips for rec 2+ Trips Aware of TT by phone Intend to use TT Use TT by cell 15% 64% 52% 19% 30%

Non-Minority

82% 18% 71% 32% 15% 27% 40% 41% 10% 9%

Headway

Weekday Headway

60 40 20 0 Peak Midday PM Peak Evening

Frequency of Service

Minority Non-minority

Weekday Span Minority Non-minority Span (Hours) 17.1

Service Begins 5:14 AM 14.9

5:39 AM Service Ends 10:19 PM 8:35 PM

Saturday Span Minority Non-minority Span (Hours) 17.5

13.8

Service Begins Service Ends 5:43 AM 7:15 AM 11:13 PM 9:02 PM

Service Coverage

Service Coverage (Minority and Non-Minority)

Percents Minorities Non-Minorities System Less than 1/2 Mile More than 1/2 Mile from Service from Service 89.4% 76.8% 78.5% 10.6% 23.2% 21.5%

All Residents of Census Block Groups where Geographic Center lies within 1/2 Mile of a Bus Stop are Considered within 1/2 Mile of Service Source: 2000 Census Block Group Data

Vehicle Load PM Peak AM Peak 0

Weekday Loads

20 40

Average Load

Minority Non-minority 60

Monitoring Program MINORITY TRACTS TO TOP 3 DESTINATIONS Top Destination #1 #2 #3 Top 3 Total Avg Transfers Avg Travel Time 0.3

0.6

0.5

0.5

28.6

21.8

29.9

26.8

Avg Distance 0.3

0.6

0.5

0.5

Avg Total Cost $1.68

$1.65

$1.68

$1.67

Avg Cost/Mile $0.17

$0.39

$0.33

$0.29

Monitoring Program NON-MINORITY TRACTS TO TOP 3 DESTINATIONS Top Destination #1 #2 #3 Top 3 Total Avg Transfers Avg Travel Time 0.3

0.4

0.8

0.5

26.7

26.0

39.6

30.8

Avg Distance 0.3

0.4

0.8

0.5

Avg Total Cost $1.73

$1.70

$1.73

$1.72

Avg Cost/Mile $0.16

$0.21

$0.47

$0.28

Monitoring Program

Summary of Quality of Service Assessement

Averages from Sample Tracts to Top 3 Destinations Cost of Trip Cost / Mile Avg/Distance (mi) Avg Travel Time (min) Avg # of Transfers From Minority Tract $1.67

$0.29

0.49

26.8

0.5

From Non-Minority Tract $1.70

$0.28

0.48

30.8

0.5

The tract with the highest percentage of minorities in different geographic areas were selected as the minority sample tracts. The tracts with the lowest percentage of minorities in different geographic areas were selected as the non-minority sample tracts.

Guidelines for State DOTs and Administering Agencies

• Conduct statewide transportation planning in a non-discriminatory manner.

• Subrecipients – Pass through FTA funds to subrecipients in a non discriminatory manner.

– Monitor subrecipients for compliance with Title VI. • Report every three years to FTA

Guidelines for Metropolitan Planning Organizations

• Demographic profile of metropolitan area; ID locations (Minority, low-income) • Planning process ID’s needs of low-income and minority populations • Analytical process ID’s benefits & burdens of investments for different groups, ID imbalances and responding to the analysis • Subrecipients – Pass through FTA funds to subrecipients in a non discriminatory manner.

– Monitor subrecipients for compliance with Title VI. • Report every 4 years

Discrimination Prohibitions

•

Disparate Treatment

( Intentional Discrimination ): Actions that result in circumstances where similarly situated persons are treated different because of their race, color, or national origin.

•

Disparate Impact

( Unintentional Discrimination ): The recipient’s procedure or practice while neutral on its face has the effect of disproportionately excluding or adversely affecting members of the projected class without substantial legitimate justification.

Examples of Intentional? Examples of Unintentional?

Alexander v. Sandoval

• In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs can sue under the intentional discrimination provisions in Section 601 of Title VI.

• However, plaintiffs cannot bring suits under the disparate impact regulations promulgated by Federal agencies under Section 602 of Title VI.

• Persons may still file administrative complaints with Federal agencies under the Title VI regulations.

Discrimination: Disparate Impact

• A recipient can take actions that have disparate impacts when the policy is supported by a “substantial legitimate justification” and • There are no comparably effective alternative practices that would result in less disparate impacts and • The justification for the action is not a pretext for discrimination

53

Service & Fare Equity Analysis Goals

• Assess the effects of the proposed fare or service changes.

• Assess the alternatives available for people affected by change.

• Determine if proposals would have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low ‐ income riders.

• Describe the actions proposes to minimize, mitigate, or offset any adverse effects 54

Should I conduct a Service Equity Analysis?

YES Service Equity Analysis Major Service Change?

Disproportionate Impact?

YES NO NO NO ACTION AVOID MINIMIZE MITIGATE

Service & Fare Change

• When: Conducted at programming stages • Who: Urbanized area over 200,000 who proposes major service change or fare change ( Note: No threshold for fare changes) • Why: Required by FTA Circular 4702.1A

56

57

Establishing a Major Service Change Policy

• Recipient should have established guidelines or threshold for what it considers “major” change to be • Often defined as a numerical standard – e.g. change effects greater than 25% of service hours on any route 58

59

Option A: Prescriptive Method

Create Maps Span of Service, Modes Assess Alternatives Travel Time, Cost Determine if disproportionate impact Mitigate

Option B:

Most agencies

Create your

Option B

own method

Evaluate changes during planning Explain your own methodology Determine if disproportionate impact Identify Alternatives & Mitigate 60

SERVICE & FARE EQUITY ANAYLSIS Measurable Attributes

Headway Span-of Service Route Elimination Vehicle Type Load Factor Cost Location 61

Golden Rule for Preparing Service Equity Analysis APPLES TO APPLES ORANGES TO ORANGES

62

General idea of the analysis

• Detail major service changes and how they qualify as major relative to policy • How would the proposed service changes impact L-I & minority populations at the geographic level(s) you identified?

63

Analytical Approach

• What dataset(s) will you use?

• At what geographic levels will you assess disparate impacts? (By route, for the entire service area, …) • At what geographic level will you measure minority and low-income concentrations? (Census tract, block group, TAZ, … or by ridership) • Within which population will you identify disparate impacts? (Riders, service area population, …) • Regardless of option: analytical method for determining disparate impact 64

Presentation of analysis

• GIS Maps • Impacts associated with each type of service change Headway Span-of Service Route Elimination Vehicle Type Load Factor Cost Location 65

Example: Impacts of route-level changes on surrounding populations Summary of service changes Segment discontinuation, headway reduction Minority proportion of population Along line 38.9% Threshold 34.3% Low-income proportion of population Along line 16.7% Threshold 12.2% 66

Example: impacts of span of service changes on ridership

- An agency proposes to eliminate late-evening service on ALL routes.

Type of service change Minority proportion of ridership Low-income proportion of ridership

Affected trips 39.9% Threshold 43.7% Affected trips 48.6% Threshold 41.4% Service span 67

Example: impacts of span of service changes by route classification

An agency has classified certain routes as “low-income” based on the Census tracts they serve. The agency proposes span of service changes to many of its routes.

Average span of service (hours)

Weekday Saturday Sunday

Existing Low Income Higher Income

16.6

16.1

14.8

16.2

14.7

13.2

Proposed Low Income Higher Income

16.1

15.8

13.9

16.1

14.5

12.9

Change Low Income Higher Income

-0.5

-0.3

-0.9

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

68

Example: impacts of a service improvement on existing riders

- An agency proposes to replace an express bus route with a faster fixed guideway service. The agency analyzes travel time differences for existing riders based on their origin locations.

Average travel time by ridership group (minutes) Existing bus service New fixed guideway Change Absolute Percentage

Minority Low-income Overall 57.1

58.6

62.1

48.8

50.3

53.8

-8.3

-8.3

-8.3

-14.5% -14.2% -13.4% 69

Example: impacts of headway changes by route classification An agency has classified certain routes as “minority” based on the Census tracts they serve. The agency proposes headway changes to many of its routes.

Average headway (minutes) Existing Proposed Change Minority Non-Minority Minority Non-Minority Minority Non-Minority Weekday Peak Weekday Midday 23.5

25.9

22.7

27.5

23.8

27.2

22.9

28.3

0.3

1.3

0.2

0.8

Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 28.4

35.4

42.2

31.0

36.9

45.2

31.5

36.3

44.7

33.4

38.0

46.4

3.1

0.9

2.5

2.4

1.1

1.2

70

Mode Change

• If an agency operates multiple modes of service but proposed service changes only affect one mode: an equity analysis must be performed at the modal level based on proportions of L-I & minority ridership for each mode. 71

Alternative services available

 What alternative services are available for people impacted by the service change?

  How would the use of alternatives affect riders’ travel times and costs?

Example: Other lines or services, potentially involving transfers and/or other modes, that connect affected riders with destinations they typically access.

 Can test alternatives using a trip planner 72

   

MITIGATE, MINIMIZE & OFFSET DISPARATE IMPACTS!

Alignment or frequency changes to nearby lines or services to offer more convenience to affected areas Expansion of demand-response service in affected areas Guaranteed ride home program Other budgetary actions to taken to limit impacts to riders, i.e. internal cost-containment strategies 73

Conclusions

• What are your conclusions as to the impact of proposed service changes on L-I and minority populations?

• If disparate impact: – Meets a substantial need that is in the public interest – Alternative strategies have more severe adverse effects than preferred alternative – 1 & 2 not a pretext for discrimination – & considered alternatives & mitigation 74

75

76

2008 Customer Satisfaction Survey (Systemwide) Weekday Ethnicity by Fare Type Weighted by originating rides Count Fare type

FR Cash FR Day Metro Pass Express Bus Cash Express Bus Day Pass Rail Cash 1-Zone Rail Cash 2-Zone Rail 1-Zone Day Pass Rail 2-Zone Day Pass Cash Single Ride Student Seniors Disability Fare card Active Duty/Military Disability Fare Card (ADA certified) Dillo STS Adult 31 31-Day R Pass Student 31-Day R Pass Adult 7-Day R Pass Dillo Monthly Pass Express & Rail Adult 31-Day Pass (all zones) Express & Rail Reduced fare 31-day rolling Pass (all zones) Stored Value Card STS Monthly Pass STS 10-Ride Ticket Booklet RideShare Monthly Total

Non-minority

149,131 158,451 5,198 2,166 28,395 9,321 9,321 335,544 130,489 6,498 11,262 10,620 11,789

Ethnicity M inority

302,021 290,456 1,047 1,047 17,681 29,280 9,321 511,225 192,661 3,140 77 1,396 780 10,497 17306 885,490 15408 1,385,960 60.9%

Total

451,152 448,907 6,245 3,213 0 0 0 0 0 46,077 38,600 0 18,641 0 0 846,769 323,150 0 0 9,637 12,658 11,400 22,286 32,714 4,248

Example Fare Data Is there a disparate impact?

Fare Type NonMin Minority Cost/Ride

Cash 1-ride Day Pass Monthly Pass 149,131 158,451 511,225 302,021 290,456 355,544 $1.00

$1.25

$0.75

TOTAL 686,930 1,122,250 78

Recommendation: Identify Fare Type by Ethnicity

79

Compare & Mitigate Proposed Fare Changes

• Analysis should compare the fares paid under the change with fares that would be paid through available alternatives • Describe actions to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of proposed fare changes on minority and low-income populations 80

Service & Fare Equity Analysis Summary Points

      Evaluate changes during planning Determine if discriminatory impact Compare “apples-to-apples” Explain methodology Use graphics Describe actions to mitigate

Remember! Compare Apples to Apples, Oranges to Oranges

81

•

Yes or No?

• It is always the case that if a transit agency raises fares where the percent increase is the same for all fares, are the increased fares equitable?

Yes

No

No

•

This is correct.

• Even where the percent increase is the same for all fares does

NOT

determine whether the fare policy is equitable. • Recipients can only determine that fare increases are equitable once they have done a comparative analysis between which fares are used by minority and low-income riders versus non-minority and low income riders.