Title VI of the Civil Rights Act

1
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
2
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.

3
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.

4
FTA Circular 4702.1A, Title VI and Title
VI-Dependent Guidelines for FTA Recipients

5
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.

6
Limited English Proficiency

7
(No Transcript)
8
Lau v Nichols, 1974

• Non-English-speaking students of Chinese origin
  sued San Francisco School District.
• The Supreme Court ruled that a recipients
  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

9
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

10
Who Should Comply

• Direct recipients and grantees of federal funding
• Subrecipients
• Local agencies
• Private and nonprofit entities
• MPOs

11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
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.

14
The LEP data used to develop this baseline
analysis comes from the U.S. Census Bureaus 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.
15
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
16
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.

17
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

18
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.

19
Reproduction of the Questions on Language From
Census 2000 - Source U.S. Census Bureau, Census
2000 questionnaire. http//www.census.gov/prod/200
3pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf
20
Language Group
Spanish 1,182,068 6.66
Indo-European 663,874 3.74
395,159 2.23
All Others 69,155 0.39
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
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.

25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
Safe Harbor LEP Thresholds

• Safe Harbor-Written translations of vital
  documents for each LEP group meeting the
  thresholdevidence 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.

28
Conclusion

• Recipients should be able to conclude
• Which eligible LEPs exist
• Which languages they speak
• Concentrations of LEPs

29
Factor 2 Frequency of Contact

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

30
Frequency of Contact

• Use of bus rail services
• Purchases of Passes tickets through TVMs and
  outlets
• Use of customer information
• Telephone translation services
• Translated web hits
• Operator surveys

31

• DOTs
• Survey key program areas and assess major points
  of contact with public

32
Factor 3 Nature Importance of Program

• Rule of thumb
• More importantmore contact
• More contactmore likely to need langue services
• What are the most important services?

33
Assessing importance of program

• DOTs
• Public Feedback Survey (translated) to rate the
  importance of DOTs different programs, services
  and activities.
• Inventory of vital documents.

34
Surveying Community

• NYSDOTs 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.

35
Community Focus Groups
36
Low-Literacy Population in the United States

• This map displays the percentage of the
  population in each state with level 1 literacy

37
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

38
Factor 4 Cost

• How much will it cost to deliver services?

39
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

40
Examples of Language Assistance
41
Examples of Language Assistance
42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
I Speak Cards
46
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

47
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

48
Model Plan

• Provide policy/criteria for evaluating language
  assistance (interpretive and translative service)
  providers

49
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

50
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.

51
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 FTAs
  Title VI page
• Email all questions or interest in receiving
  documents to
• fta.arracivilrightsreq_at_dot.gov