Transcript Document

Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act
42 U.S.C § 2000d, et seq
• “No person in the United States shall, on
the ground of race, color, or national
origin, be excluded from participation in,
be denied the benefits of, or be subjected
to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal Financial
assistance.”
Race, Color, National Origin
• Race: U.S. Census categories define race
– Persons of any race are protected classes
• Color: Discrimination based on skin color
or complexion is prohibited under Title VI
• National Origin: Foreign born ancestry.
FTA Circular 4702.1A, “Title VI and
Title VI-Dependent Guidelines for FTA
Recipients”
Circular Objectives
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ensure level and quality of transportation service is
equitable
Identify and address disproportionately high and
adverse effects
Inclusive public involvements by underrepresented
populations.
Prevent the denial, reduction of, or delay in benefits
related to programs
Ensure meaningful access to programs and activities
by persons with limited English proficiency.
Limited English Proficiency
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
Who Should Comply
• Direct recipients and grantees of federal funding
• Subrecipients
– Local agencies
– Private and nonprofit entities
– MPOs
Four Factors of Analysis
• Number or proportion of LEP persons eligible or
likely to be encountered by a program;
• Frequency with which LEPs come into contact
with program;
• Nature & importance of program provided by
recipients to LEPs lives;
• The resources available and costs.
The LEP data used to develop this baseline analysis comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2000 Summary
File 3 (SF 3), Table QT-P17, “Ability to Speak English.” The table presents data on language spoken at home
and the ability to speak English of people aged 5 and over. A sample of the actual question that is asked in
the survey, Question 11a, is shown below in Figure 1.
Question 11a asked respondents whether
they spoke a language other than English at
home. For people who answered “Yes,”
Question 11c asked respondents to indicate
how well they spoke English. Respondents
who said they spoke English “Very well”
were considered to have no difficulty with
English. Those who indicated they spoke
English “Not well,” or “Not at all” were
considered to have difficulty with English —
identified also as people who spoke English
less than “Not well and not at all.” These
people are Limited English Proficient.
LEP data available from the 2000 decennial census data provides data on broad language
categories: Spanish, “Other Indo European Languages,” “Asian and Pacific Island
Languages” and “All other Languages” but does not provide data for specific languages
within these categories:
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.
LEP
• Individuals who:
• Do not speak English as their primary
language
• Have a limited ability to read, speak, write,
or understand English
• Census: “A person who speaks another
language other than English at home and
does not speak English well or not at all”
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.
Reproduction of the Questions on Language From Census 2000 - Source: U.S. Census Bureau,
Census 2000 questionnaire. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf
#
%
Spanish
1,182,068
6.66%
Indo-European
663,874
3.74%
395,159
2.23%
69,155
0.39%
Language Group
All Others
Factor 1: Number or
Proportion of LEPs
• Identify geographic boundaries of the area that
your agency serves;
• Census data analysis;
• School data;
• Food Stamp data;
• GIS mapping;
• Community based organizations;
• Analyze collected data;
• Identify concentrations of LEP persons in your
service area.
Safe Harbor & LEP
Thresholds
• Safe Harbor-Written translations of vital
documents for each LEP group meeting the
threshold=evidence of compliance
• 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.
Conclusion
•
•
•
•
Recipients should be able to conclude:
Which eligible LEPs exist
Which languages they speak
Concentrations of LEPs
Factor 2: Frequency of
Contact
• Rule of thumb:
– More contact= More enhanced services
– What data would you analyze?
Frequency of Contact
• Use of bus & rail services;
• Purchases of Passes & tickets through
TVM’s and outlets;
• Use of customer information;
• Telephone translation services;
• Translated web hits
• Operator surveys
• DOT’s
• Survey key program areas and assess
major points of contact with public
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?
Assessing importance of
program
• DOT’s
• Public Feedback Survey (translated) to
rate the importance of DOT’s different
programs, services and activities.
• Inventory of vital documents.
Surveying Community
• NYSDOT’s survey asked what changed
would improve access to services:
• Signs, brochures and announcements in
languages other than English
• Picture signs
• Translators
• Multilingual phone line
• Website supported by multilingual texts.
Community Focus Groups
Reg/LIFT/ATP
Directions
Fares/Tickets Routes/Schedules
Service Disruptions
Emergency Info
Behavior Requirements
Emergency Response
Safety/Security
Evacuation
Delivery of Information
Auditory
Pictogram
Translated
Low-Literacy Population in the
United States
• This map displays the percentage of the
population in each state with level 1 literacy
Outreach to Community
•
•
•
•
Identify who LEPs are;
Contact/Explain
Meet
Provide information on:
– Specific languages spoken by LEPs;
– Population trends;
– What services are most frequently sought by
LEPs
Factor 4: Cost
• How much will it cost to deliver services?
What Language Assistance Is
Currently Being Provided?
• The most popular strategy is publishing
timetables and route maps in languages other
than English.
• Next most popular strategy is multilingual phone
lines and use of multilingual staff in information
booths.
• Agencies also use pictograms and multilanguage announcements.
• Language Identification “I Speak” cards
• Advertising in ethnic media
– New Jersey DOT Report
Examples of Language
Assistance
Examples of Language
Assistance
I Speak Cards
Model Plan
• All analysis from the four factor analysis
– Proportion of eligible LEPs (Demography)
– Frequency of Contact
– Nature and Importance of the program, activity,
service
• Determines level of responsibility & guides
you in determining the language access
services you should provide
Model Plan
• As a result of the four factor analysis• Identified language assistance measures
• Determined vital documents for translation:
– Provide notice of right to language assistance;
– Translate Title VI complaint forms & other vital documents
– Prohibited behavior signage;
– Important public notifications (special meeting requests,
acquisition of property letters, etc);
– Any document that could deny an LEP access to a service;
Model Plan
• Provide policy/criteria for evaluating language
assistance (interpretive and translative service)
providers;
Model Plan
• Training Staff on language assistance
measures:
– Awareness and type of language services
– How staff and LEP customers can obtain these
services
– How to respond to LEP correspondence, callers
and in-person contact
– How to document LEP needs
– How to respond to civil rights complaints
Model Plan
• Monitor progress and update plan:
– Assessment of the number of LEP persons in service area;
– Assessment of the current language needs of customers to determine
whether customers need an interpreter and/or translated materials to
communicate efffectively with staff;
– Assessment of whether existing language assistance services are
meeting the needs of clients with LEP;
– Assessment of whether staff members understand LEP policies,
procedures, how to access and carry them out;
– Assess whether language assistance resources and arrangements for
those resources are current;
– Feedback from LEP communities, including customers, and community
organizations about the effectiveness of grantees language access plan.
Email Questions
• A copy of this presentation is available to you with all
the calculations
• Sample Title VI best practices are available
• A model LEP program is available
• A model service and fare equity is available
• Suggest you sign up for our list serve on FTA’s Title
VI page
• Email all questions or interest in receiving documents
to:
[email protected]