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. Ensure level and quality of transportation service is equitable

2. Identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects

3. Inclusive public involvements by underrepresented populations.

4. Prevent the denial, reduction of, or delay in benefits related to programs

5. 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.

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.

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.

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

Language Group # %

Spanish 1,182,068 6.66%

Indo-European 663,874 3.74%

395,159 2.23%

All Others 69,155 0.39%

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

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

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 multi-language 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:

fta.arracivilrightsreq@dot.gov