title vi of the civil rights act training overview for fta funding recipients

Title VI• “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.”

42 U.S.C § 2000d, et seq

1

2

3

4

2

Race, Color, & National Originare 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

2

3

Program or Activity Applies institution-wide

• Title VI applies institution-wide, not solely limited to primary recipients operations

• Examples?

3

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

4

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

6http://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 title.VIcomplaint@abc.org; 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 that LEPs come into contact with program

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 Translated

Delivery of Information

Pictogram

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 analysis1) Proportion of eligible LEPs

2) Frequency of Contact

3) Nature and Importance

4) Cost

• Provides policies for evaluating language assistance providers

Sample ElementsModel 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 MonitoringAreas 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 Minority Non-MinorityOf all riders 15% 82%

Transit dependency by race 38% 18%Of transit dependent riders 29% 71%

Trips made most for work 44% 32%

Shopping 16% 15%

Trips for rec 15% 27%

2+ Trips 64% 40%

Aware of TT by phone 52% 41%Intend to use TT 19% 10%

Use TT by cell 30% 9%

Headway

Weekday Headway

0204060

Peak Midday PMPeak

Evening

Frequency of Service

Min

ute

s

Minority

Non-minority

Weekday Span

Span (Hours) Service Begins Service EndsMinority 17.1 5:14 AM 10:19 PMNon-minority 14.9 5:39 AM 8:35 PM

Saturday Span

Span (Hours) Service Begins Service EndsMinority 17.5 5:43 AM 11:13 PMNon-minority 13.8 7:15 AM 9:02 PM

Service Coverage

PercentsLess than 1/2 Mile

from ServiceMore than 1/2 Mile

from ServiceMinorities 89.4% 10.6%Non-Minorities 76.8% 23.2%System 78.5% 21.5%

Source: 2000 Census Block Group Data

Service Coverage (Minority and Non-Minority)

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

Vehicle Load

Weekday Loads

0 20 40 60

AM Peak

PM Peak

Op

era

tin

g

Pe

rio

d

Average Load

Minority Non-minority

Monitoring Program

Top Destination Avg Transfers Avg Travel Time Avg Distance Avg Total Cost Avg Cost/Mile#1 0.3 28.6 0.3 $1.68 $0.17#2 0.6 21.8 0.6 $1.65 $0.39#3 0.5 29.9 0.5 $1.68 $0.33Top 3 Total 0.5 26.8 0.5 $1.67 $0.29

MINORITY TRACTS TO TOP 3 DESTINATIONS

Monitoring Program

Top Destination Avg Transfers Avg Travel Time Avg Distance Avg Total Cost Avg Cost/Mile#1 0.3 26.7 0.3 $1.73 $0.16#2 0.4 26.0 0.4 $1.70 $0.21#3 0.8 39.6 0.8 $1.73 $0.47Top 3 Total 0.5 30.8 0.5 $1.72 $0.28

NON-MINORITY TRACTS TO TOP 3 DESTINATIONS

Monitoring Program

Averages from Sample Tracts to Top 3 Destinations

From Minority

Tract

From Non-Minority

Tract

Cost of Trip $1.67 $1.70

Cost / Mile $0.29 $0.28

Avg/Distance (mi) 0.49 0.48

Avg Travel Time (min) 26.8 30.8

Avg # of Transfers 0.5 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.

Summary of Quality of Service Assessement

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?

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

60

Most agencies

use Option B

SERVICE & FARE EQUITY ANAYLSISMeasurable Attributes

61

Golden Rule for Preparing Golden Rule for Preparing Service Equity AnalysisService 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

65

66

Example: Impacts of route-level changes on surrounding populations

Example: impacts of span of service changes on ridership

67

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

Example: impacts of span of service changes by route classification

68

- 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.

Example: impacts of a service improvement on existing riders

69

- 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 57.1 48.8 -8.3 -14.5%

Low-income 58.6 50.3 -8.3 -14.2%

Overall 62.1 53.8 -8.3 -13.4%

70

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.

71

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.

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

74

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

75

76

2008 Customer Satisfaction Survey (Systemwide)WeekdayEthnicity by Fare TypeWeighted by originating rides

CountFare type Non-minority Minority TotalFR Cash 149,131 302,021 451,152FR Day Metro Pass 158,451 290,456 448,907Express Bus Cash 5,198 1,047 6,245Express Bus Day Pass 2,166 1,047 3,213Rail Cash 1-Zone 0Rail Cash 2-Zone 0Rail 1-Zone Day Pass 0Rail 2-Zone Day Pass 0Cash Single Ride Student 0Seniors 28,395 17,681 46,077Disability Fare card 9,321 29,280 38,600Active Duty/Military 0Disability Fare Card (ADA certified) 9,321 9,321 18,641Dillo 0STS 0Adult 31 31-Day R Pass 335,544 511,225 846,769Student 31-Day R Pass 130,489 192,661 323,150Adult 7-Day R Pass 0Dillo Monthly Pass 0Express & Rail Adult 31-Day Pass (all zones) 6,498 3,140 9,637Express & Rail Reduced fare 31-day rolling Pass (all zones) 11,262 1,396 12,658Stored Value Card 10,620 780 11,400STS Monthly Pass 11,789 10,497 22,286

STS 10-Ride Ticket Booklet 17306 15408 32,714RideShare Monthly 4,248Total 885,490 1,385,960 2,275,698

60.9%

Ethnicity

77

Example Fare DataIs there a disparate impact?

Fare Type NonMin Minority Cost/Ride

Cash 1-ride 149,131 302,021 $1.00

Day Pass 158,451 290,456 $1.25

Monthly Pass 511,225 355,544 $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 AnalysisSummary Points

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

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.