Transportation Services
Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT's Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient Populations Gao ID: GAO-06-52 November 2, 2005More than 10 million people in the United States are of limited English proficiency (LEP), in that they do not speak English at all or do not speak English well. These persons tend to rely on public transit more than English speakers. Executive Order 13166 directs federal agencies to develop guidance for their grantees on making their services accessible to LEP persons. The Department of Transportation (DOT) issued its guidance in 2001, with revised guidance pending issuance. This report reviews (1) the language access services transit agencies and metropolitan planning organizations have provided, and the effects and costs of these services; (2) how DOT assists its grantees in providing language access services; and (3) how DOT monitors its grantees' provision of these services.
Transit agencies and metropolitan planning organizations provide a variety of language access services, predominantly in Spanish, but the effects and costs of these services are largely unknown. Types of services provided included, among other things, translated brochures and signs; multilingual telephone lines; bilingual drivers; and interpreters at public meetings. However, few agencies we visited had conducted an assessment of the language needs in their service areas, or had conducted an evaluation of their language access efforts. As a result, it is unclear whether agencies' efforts are comprehensive enough to meet the needs of LEP persons, and community groups in the areas we visited saw important gaps in agencies' services. In addition, although those costs are largely unknown, several agencies saw providing language access as a cost of doing business, not as an additional cost. However, if efforts were to be expanded to include additional services or languages, agency officials told us that costs could become prohibitive. DOT assists grantees in providing language access through its guidance and other activities, but DOT has made limited efforts to ensure that grantees are aware of the available assistance, which was not often accessed by the agencies we visited. This assistance includes DOT's guidance--which provides a five-step framework for how to provide meaningful language access--as well as workshops and peer-exchange programs that include language access practices, and training courses that touch on language issues. DOT also participates in a federal LEP clearinghouse, www.lep.gov. However, few agencies we visited had accessed these resources. Several local officials stated that easily accessible training and assistance specific to language access and examples of how to implement DOT's guidance could help them more effectively provide access to LEP populations. Transit agencies' and metropolitan planning organizations' provision of language access services are monitored through in-depth civil rights compliance reviews and two broader reviews--triennial reviews of transit agencies and planning certification reviews. However, these reviews do not have consistent criteria for determining whether an agency is deficient in providing such services. Furthermore, these reviews do not fully reflect Executive Order 13166 or DOT's guidance. Without thorough and consistent monitoring that takes into account the guidance, local agencies' language access activities will likely remain varied and inconsistent.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-52, Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT's Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient Populations
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-52
entitled 'Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight
of DOT's Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English-
Proficient Populations' which was released on November 2, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate:
November 2005:
Transportation Services:
Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT's Guidance Could Lead to
Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient Populations:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-52]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-52, a report to the Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate:
Why GAO Did This Study:
More than 10 million people in the United States are of limited English
proficiency (LEP), in that they do not speak English at all or do not
speak English well. These persons tend to rely on public transit more
than English speakers. Executive Order 13166 directs federal agencies
to develop guidance for their grantees on making their services
accessible to LEP persons. The Department of Transportation (DOT)
issued its guidance in 2001, with revised guidance pending issuance.
This report reviews (1) the language access services transit agencies
and metropolitan planning organizations have provided, and the effects
and costs of these services; (2) how DOT assists its grantees in
providing language access services; and (3) how DOT monitors its
grantees‘ provision of these services.
What GAO Found:
Transit agencies and metropolitan planning organizations provide a
variety of language access services, predominantly in Spanish, but the
effects and costs of these services are largely unknown. Types of
services provided included, among other things, translated brochures
and signs; multilingual telephone lines; bilingual drivers; and
interpreters at public meetings. However, few agencies we visited had
conducted an assessment of the language needs in their service areas,
or had conducted an evaluation of their language access efforts. As a
result, it is unclear whether agencies‘ efforts are comprehensive
enough to meet the needs of LEP persons, and community groups in the
areas we visited saw important gaps in agencies‘ services. In addition,
although those costs are largely unknown, several agencies saw
providing language access as a cost of doing business, not as an
additional cost. However, if efforts were to be expanded to include
additional services or languages, agency officials told us that costs
could become prohibitive.
DOT assists grantees in providing language access through its guidance
and other activities, but DOT has made limited efforts to ensure that
grantees are aware of the available assistance, which was not often
accessed by the agencies we visited. This assistance includes DOT‘s
guidance”which provides a five-step framework for how to provide
meaningful language access”as well as workshops and peer-exchange
programs that include language access practices, and training courses
that touch on language issues. DOT also participates in a federal LEP
clearinghouse, www.lep.gov. However, few agencies we visited had
accessed these resources. Several local officials stated that easily
accessible training and assistance specific to language access and
examples of how to implement DOT‘s guidance could help them more
effectively provide access to LEP populations.
Transit agencies‘ and metropolitan planning organizations‘ provision of
language access services are monitored through in-depth civil rights
compliance reviews and two broader reviews”triennial reviews of transit
agencies and planning certification reviews. However, these reviews do
not have consistent criteria for determining whether an agency is
deficient in providing such services. Furthermore, these reviews do not
fully reflect Executive Order 13166 or DOT‘s guidance. Without thorough
and consistent monitoring that takes into account the guidance, local
agencies‘ language access activities will likely remain varied and
inconsistent.
Examples of Translated Signs in Orange County, California:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of DOT (1) ensure that DOT‘s revised
LEP guidance is directly distributed to all DOT grantees; (2) consider
providing additional assistance to grantees in providing language
access; and (3) more fully incorporate the revised guidance in current
review processes, and establish consistent norms for what constitutes a
language access deficiency.
DOT generally concurred with the findings and recommendations in this
report.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-52.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Kate Siggerud at (202)
512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov.
Translated report summaries are available in Spanish, Chinese,
Vietnamese, and Korean at http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/translations.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Several Types of Language Access Services Are Provided, but Little Is
Known about the Effects and Costs of Services:
DOT Assists Grantees on Language Access Services through Its Guidance
and Other Activities, but These Resources Are Not Often Accessed by
Local Agencies:
Three Review Processes Provide Limited Monitoring of Language Access
Activities, and Criteria for Finding a Deficiency Are Inconsistent:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Resources Available on Providing Language Access for
Transportation Services:
Provision of Language Access Services:
Community Involvement in Transportation Planning:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: FTA and FHWA Reviews:
Table 2: Language Access Deficiencies Found through Title VI Compliance
Reviews:
Table 3: Results of the Pilot LEP Review of the Brownsville Urban
System in Texas:
Table 4: Census Data on Language Ability and Transit Use for Seven Site
Visit Locations:
Table 5: Transit Agencies, MPOs, and Community and Advocacy Groups
Interviewed:
Figures:
Figure 1: LEP Population in 2000, by County:
Figure 2: Percentage Growth of LEP Populations between 1990 and 2000,
by County:
Figure 3: Percentage of Transit Agencies and MPOs We Visited That Make
These Types of Language Access Services Available in at Least Spanish:
Figure 4: English and Spanish Versions of the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Rider's Guide:
Figure 5: Seven-Language Bus Stop Sign in Oakland, California:
Figure 6: Meeting Notice Posted on a Bus in San Francisco, California,
in English and Chinese:
Figure 7: Posters in Orange County, California, in English and Spanish:
Figure 8: Golden Gate Transit's Spanish Phrase Guide for Drivers:
Figure 9: Spanish Version of the Ozark Regional Transit's Web Site Home
Page:
Abbreviations:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:
LEP: limited English proficiency:
MPO: metropolitan planning organization:
NHI: National Highway Institute:
NTI: National Transit Institute:
Letter November 2, 2005:
The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Sarbanes:
The United States has a highly diverse population representing cultures
from all over the world. English is not the primary language of many
people living in the United States, and significant numbers have little
or no English skills. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, more than 10
million people reported that they do not speak English at all, or do
not speak English well. These persons of limited English proficiency
(LEP), like English speakers, may depend on government for a wide range
of services, including public transportation. For many LEP persons,
public transit is a key means of achieving mobility. According to the
2000 Census, more than 11 percent of LEP persons aged 16 years and over
reported using public transit as their primary means of transportation
to work, compared with about 4 percent of English speakers.
The number of persons reporting that they do not speak English at all
or do not speak English well grew by 65 percent from 1990 to 2000. As
figures 1 and 2 demonstrate, while LEP populations tend to be largest
in counties in border and coastal states, the largest growth in these
populations is occurring in the Midwest and the South. Among limited
English speakers, Spanish is the language most frequently spoken,
followed by Chinese (Cantonese or Mandarin), Vietnamese, and Korean.
Figure 1: LEP Population in 2000, by County:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Percentage Growth of LEP Populations between 1990 and 2000,
by County:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[Footnote 1] prohibits
recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating on the
basis of race, color, or national origin. Executive Order 13166, which
was signed by President Clinton in 2000,[Footnote 2] sought to clarify
the responsibilities of federal agencies and their grant recipients
under Title VI to make their programs and activities accessible to LEP
populations, and it required federal agencies to issue guidance to
their funding recipients to avoid discriminating on the basis of
national origin. The Department of Transportation (DOT) issued guidance
in 2001, which discusses strategies for providing services to LEP
persons, based on guidelines put forth by the Department of Justice
(DOJ). This guidance, while in effect for grantees since 2001, was
subsequently revised by DOT after public comments were received on it.
The revised guidance was approved by DOJ on August 25, 2005, and DOT is
preparing to publish and release this revised guidance.
Advocacy organizations and others have raised concerns over the extent
to which DOT's guidance to its funding recipients is being implemented.
A lack of English skills has the potential to hinder many LEP persons
from fully utilizing public transit services and meaningfully
participating in the transportation planning process. The inability to
effectively access public transit services can result in an array of
harmful consequences for LEP persons, including a reduction in
employment opportunities, increased difficulty in accessing other
needed services, the perpetuation of social isolation, and the
diminishment of overall quality of life. In light of these issues, this
report discusses (1) the types of language access services that transit
agencies and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) have provided to
the LEP populations in their service areas, and the effects and costs
of these services; (2) how DOT and its modal administrations assist
grantees in providing language access services for LEP populations; and
(3) how DOT and the responsible modal administrations monitor grantees'
provision of language access services for LEP populations.
To determine the types of language access services that transit
agencies and MPOs provided to LEP populations, we visited seven
metropolitan statistical areas[Footnote 3] in Arkansas, California,
Illinois, North Carolina, and Texas.[Footnote 4] We used census data to
select these site visit locations on the basis of the size, proportion,
and growth of the LEP population, the number of languages spoken, and
the extent of public transit use.[Footnote 5] We conducted
semistructured interviews with officials from 20 transit agencies, 7
MPOs, and 16 community and advocacy groups and reviewed various
documents and other information. We complemented these case studies and
interviews with findings from a 2004 study, conducted for the New
Jersey Department of Transportation, which included a survey of 32
transit agencies around the country, and surveys and focus groups with
LEP persons in New Jersey.[Footnote 6] To understand how DOT assists
transit agencies and MPOs in providing language access services, we
interviewed DOT officials with knowledge of the resources available on
language access. We reviewed and analyzed the assistance provided by
DOT as well as other federal resources related to language access. To
document how DOT's Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) monitor transit agencies' and MPOs'
provision of language access services, we interviewed FTA officials
responsible for Title VI compliance reviews and triennial reviews, FTA
and FHWA officials responsible for planning certification reviews, and
regional officials in the areas we visited. We reviewed the
documentation and results of these three review processes and analyzed
the extent to which language access is considered by the reviews and
norms have been developed for reviewers to use in identifying
deficiencies related to language access. Furthermore, we reviewed the
status and outcomes of LEP complaints that were made to FTA against
transit agencies and MPOs. We conducted our work from February 2005
through October 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Appendix I contains more information about our
scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
Transit agencies and MPOs provided a variety of types and levels of
language access services, predominantly in Spanish, with the effects
and costs of these services largely unknown, although the cost burden
of these services currently does not seem significant. The types of
language access that these agencies provided included a wide variety of
communication strategies, such as translated information brochures and
signs, multilingual telephone services, translated Web sites, bilingual
drivers and customer service staff, translated recorded announcements,
and interpreters at public and community meetings. Almost all of the 27
transit agencies and MPOs we visited provided some materials and
services in at least one language other than English, typically
Spanish, although few agencies we visited regularly provided much
material or service in other languages. For example, although most of
the transit agencies we visited had at least Spanish-speaking operators
available through their telephone information lines, only 7 transit
agencies utilized multilingual telephone lines to provide service in
languages other than English and Spanish. The effects of the language
access services provided by transit agencies and MPOs on meeting the
needs of LEP communities are not well known or understood. Few agencies
we visited had conducted an explicit assessment of the needs of the LEP
communities in their service areas, or an evaluation of the
effectiveness of their language access efforts, even though DOT's LEP
guidance recommends such activities. As a result, it is unclear whether
those agencies' language access activities are comprehensive enough to
meet the needs of LEP persons, and community and advocacy groups in the
areas we visited perceived important gaps in agencies' language access
activities. For example, 1 group told us that information on service
changes is not consistently provided in languages other than English,
which can result in LEP individuals waiting for buses that were
rerouted. Furthermore, our case studies suggested that a lack of
proactive agency outreach and publicizing of agency services to LEP
communities may limit the impact and utilization of the materials and
services provided, whereas more proactive agency outreach and
publicizing to these communities might result in increased utilization
of the services and benefits, such as enhanced public support for the
agency and increased ridership. For example, although several transit
agencies provided multilingual telephone services, community groups we
spoke with often were not aware of the existence of such services.
While costs related to providing language access services are largely
unknown, we found that several agencies perceive providing language
access as a cost of doing business, not as an additional cost, at the
current level of activity. However, if the agencies were to
significantly expand their efforts to include additional languages
beyond English and Spanish, additional materials, or additional
services, agency officials told us that costs could become prohibitive.
DOT and its modal administrations assist grantees in providing language
access through DOT's guidance and other activities, but they have made
limited efforts to ensure that grantees are aware of this available
assistance, which was not often accessed by the transit agencies and
MPOs we visited. The most extensive assistance DOT provides is the LEP
guidance itself, which provides grantees with a five-step framework for
how to provide meaningful access to LEP populations, along with some
information on how to implement such a framework. DOT's LEP guidance
was published in the Federal Register, but was not publicized through
any other direct methods, and the majority of transit agencies and MPOs
we visited were not aware of it. In part, this lack of awareness may be
due to staff turnover within agencies since the initial release of the
guidance, although a DOT official told us that they have done little to
promote the guidance since its release. Of the 9 transit agencies and 3
MPOs we visited that were aware of the guidance, only 3 had changed
their language access activities in response to it, and only 1 transit
agency appeared to have fully implemented the five-step framework. In
part, this is because most transit agencies and MPOs told us that they
already had been providing language access services for many years
prior to the executive order and DOT's LEP guidance. In addition, FTA
and FHWA have given workshops at a few annual conferences that
specifically addressed the framework in the guidance and provided
information on how to implement portions of it, but few agencies we
visited had reported attending these workshops. DOT also participates
in the Federal Interagency Working Group on Limited English
Proficiency, which provides information and technical assistance to
federal grantees through an on-line clearinghouse at [Hyperlink,
http://www.lep.gov], although most of the Web site's information is not
specific to transportation. Other DOT resources, such as peer-exchange
programs hosted by FTA and FHWA, have a few postings that discuss
language access activities. Training curricula offered through FTA's
National Transit Institute and FHWA's National Highway Institute touch
on language access services through a broader context, such as the
transportation planning process, and not all of these curricula
specifically mention the guidance. Several transit agencies and MPOs we
visited stated that better training and technical assistance that is
easily accessible and specific to language access and on how to
implement DOT's LEP guidance could provide them with ways to more
effectively provide access to LEP populations.
Transit agencies' and MPOs' provision of language access services for
LEP populations is monitored through FTA's in-depth Title VI compliance
reviews and two broader reviews--FTA's triennial reviews of transit
agencies and planning certification reviews conducted jointly by FTA
and FHWA. However, these reviews do not assess grantees' activities
according to the framework in DOT's guidance and do not have consistent
criteria for determining whether an agency is deficient in providing
such services. While the framework and suggestions contained in DOT's
LEP guidance are not requirements, they serve as a useful guide for
ensuring that grantees' provision of language access services to LEP
persons is in compliance with federal requirements under Title VI.
However, the Title VI compliance reviews and the planning certification
reviews do not incorporate the LEP guidance, and the triennial reviews
have only a few specific questions referencing the LEP guidance.
Deficiencies regarding language access, to the extent they exist, are
rarely identified during these review processes. Furthermore, the
criteria that are used in these review processes to identify a
deficiency in providing language access services are inconsistent and
unclear. For example, under triennial reviews, a deficiency is only
determined if a complaint has been made against the local agency,
although under the other reviews, a complaint need not be made for a
deficiency to be found. As a result, what constitutes a deficiency
under one review may not constitute a deficiency under another,
although agencies under review may be providing the same level of
service. In addition to the three review processes, FTA investigates
Title VI complaints filed by the public alleging national origin
discrimination against LEP persons. FTA's investigations focus on
whether a recipient has taken reasonable steps to provide meaningful
access to LEP persons. To date, FTA has received only one complaint
related to language access. In that case, FTA found that the agency
under question should have provided language access to its planning
process. Without more thorough and consistent monitoring that takes
into account DOT's guidance, agencies' language access activities are
likely to remain varied and inconsistent and may leave agencies open to
further complaints.
We are making recommendations in this report that the Secretary of
Transportation take actions to ensure that DOT grantees are made fully
aware of the agency's LEP guidance and their related responsibilities,
that transit agencies and MPOs are provided with useful assistance in
developing and improving their language access services, and that
mechanisms are in place for clear and consistent oversight and
monitoring of transit agencies' and MPOs' language access activities.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOT generally concurred with
the findings and recommendations and offered a number of technical
comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
The statutory and regulatory framework for improving access to services
for LEP persons stems from Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964,[Footnote 7] an executive order, DOJ regulations and guidance, and
DOT regulations and guidance. Section 601 of Title VI provides that no
person 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."[Footnote 8] Section 602 of Title VI
directs federal agencies to implement section 601 of the act by issuing
rules, regulations, or orders.[Footnote 9] In its efforts to implement
section 601, DOJ has issued regulations that bar unjustified disparate
impact on the basis of national origin.[Footnote 10]
On August 11, 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13166 to
improve access to federally conducted and federally assisted programs
and activities for persons who, as a result of national origin, are
limited in their English proficiency.[Footnote 11] The order encouraged
all federal agencies to take steps to ensure that any recipients of
federal financial assistance under their purview provide meaningful
access to their LEP applicants and beneficiaries. The order further
requires that each federal agency providing federal financial
assistance to prepare guidance specifically tailored to its recipients.
The agencies' guidance must then be reviewed and approved by DOJ before
being issued.
DOJ released guidance[Footnote 12] in 2000 that set forth general
principles for federal agencies to apply to ensure that their programs
and activities provide reasonable access to LEP persons and, thus, do
not discriminate on the basis of national origin. The DOJ guidance
explains that, with respect to federally assisted programs and
activities, Executive Order 13166 "does not create new obligations, but
rather, clarifies existing Title VI responsibilities." Although Title
VI and its implementing regulations require that recipients take
reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons, federal
agencies' LEP guidance recognize that each situation is fact-specific,
and that it would not make sense for the guidance to mandate specific
approaches to comply with Title VI. Rather, the purpose of federal
agencies' guidance is to provide recipients with a framework for
assessing their obligations under Title VI, while maintaining
flexibility for the recipients to determine how best to comply with
those obligations. Thus, the guidance outlines steps federal-funds
recipients can take to avoid administering programs in a way that
results in discrimination on the basis of national origin, which would
be in violation of Title VI regulations.[Footnote 13] In general, the
test for assessing the existence of national origin discrimination on
the basis of language under Title VI is to determine whether the
failure to provide a service in a language that a recipient understands
will prevent the recipient from receiving essentially the same level of
service benefit as an English speaker.
DOJ's guidance established a four-factor analysis to help determine the
extent of a funding recipient's obligation to provide LEP services.
These four factors are (1) the number or proportion of LEP persons
eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by the program or
grantee; (2) the frequency with which LEP persons come in contact with
the program; (3) the nature and importance to people's lives of the
program, activity, or service provided by the grantee; and (4) the
resources available to the grantee and costs. According to DOJ, the
intent of the analysis is to suggest a balance that ensures meaningful
access by LEP persons to critical services, while not imposing undue
burdens on small businesses, local governments, or nonprofits.
DOT issued its guidance in 2001. This guidance was generally consistent
with DOJ's guidance but included three additional factors, as well as
the four factors previously outlined, suggesting that funding
recipients should also consider (1) the level of services provided to
fully English-proficient people; (2) whether LEP persons are being
excluded from services, or are being provided a lower level of
services; and (3) whether the agency has adequate justification for
restrictions, if any, on special language services. The guidance states
that such restrictions would be accepted only in rare circumstances. On
the basis of public comments, DOT subsequently revised its guidance,
and the revised guidance was approved by DOJ on August 25, 2005. DOT is
currently preparing to publish and release its revised guidance.
In addition to describing factors that funding recipients should
consider in assessing their obligations to provide LEP services, DOT's
guidance outlines several key components to an effective language
access program, stating that grantees should (1) conduct an assessment
of the language groups within their service areas and the language
needs of these groups; (2) develop and implement written plans
outlining their strategies for ensuring access to services for LEP
populations; (3) make staffs aware of the LEP access plan, and train
the staffs and provide them with the tools necessary to carry out the
plan; (4) ensure that language access services are actually provided in
a consistent manner, and that LEP populations are aware of the
services; and (5) develop monitoring programs that allow grantees to
assess the success of their LEP access programs and to identify needed
modifications. These five steps are designed to help DOT grantees
ensure that they are not administering their programs in a way that
results in discrimination in violation of Title VI.
Several offices within DOT, particularly the Office of Civil Rights
within FTA, have responsibility for ensuring that transit operators and
transportation planning entities receiving DOT funds are in compliance
with Title VI and responsibility for monitoring and overseeing their
language access activities.
Several Types of Language Access Services Are Provided, but Little Is
Known about the Effects and Costs of Services:
The types of language access services provided by the transit agencies
and MPOs we visited included translated service brochures, multilingual
telephone lines, translated Web sites, bilingual customer service
staffs, and a host of other services. However, the effects and costs of
these services are largely unknown. The extent of language access
provided varied across the areas we visited during our case studies,
and services provided often varied across agencies within the same
metropolitan area. Almost all of the transit agencies and MPOs we
visited provided at least some language access services in Spanish, the
largest LEP language group, and some agencies provided services in
other languages. Little is known about the effects of these services on
improving access to public transportation and the transportation
planning and decision-making process for LEP populations, but community
and advocacy groups in the areas we visited identified several gaps in
the language access services provided by agencies, such as a lack of
awareness in the community about the services available. Given such
problems, community groups told us that more proactive agency outreach
to LEP communities to determine specific needs and advertise existing
services might improve the effectiveness of language access services,
whereas a lack of outreach and poor publicizing of available services
could likely reduce the impact and utilization of the materials and
services provided. One agency cited the positive benefits it received
by improving its outreach to non-English-speaking populations,
including increased ridership and enhanced public support for the
agency. Little is also known about the costs of providing such
services, and most agencies saw the language access they provide as a
cost of doing business as opposed to an additional cost; however,
agencies told us that costs could become prohibitive if services were
substantially expanded or provided in several additional languages.
Types and Level of Language Access Services Varied, Although Core
Services Are Offered in Spanish by Most Agencies We Visited:
During our case studies, we found that providing language access to LEP
populations can be incorporated into all of the different ways in which
transit agencies and MPOs communicate with the public, not only
regarding the transportation services they provide but regarding how
agencies provide LEP communities with access to the transportation
planning and decision-making process. Transit riders and potential
transit riders may need a variety of different types of information to
plan their trips, use the transit system, and participate in the
transportation planning and decision-making process. For example,
potential riders may need to know about the existence of available
services, destinations, and travel options, and about time schedules,
route options, and transfer policies. When in the transit system,
riders may need to know where stops are located, whether service
changes have occurred, about available fare and payment options, and
about emergency and safety information. Riders may also need
confirmation that they are on the right route or are exiting at the
correct stop. To participate in the transportation planning and
decision-making process, individuals need to know how the process
works, what is the purpose and effect of their participation, and when
and where public meetings are being held, in addition to needing to be
able to understand the proceedings of public meetings and to make
statements and participate in those discussions.
To provide such access to LEP populations, transit agencies and MPOs
employed a host of different communication strategies, including the
following: providing bilingual or multilingual telephone services;
translating written materials; translating signs or notices posted at
stations, at stops, or on vehicles; providing in-person language
assistance through drivers, interpreters, or multilingual customer
service staffs; advertising in other languages on television, on radio,
or in newspapers; translating materials on their Web sites; translating
recorded announcements or electronic signs; or making ticket machines
accessible in other languages. In providing language access, the
agencies in each of the areas we visited faced different challenges. In
North Carolina and northwest Arkansas, agencies are facing a
substantial recent growth in the size of the Spanish-speaking
population. (See app. I for more information on the size and growth of
LEP populations in these two areas.) In parts of California--the San
Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles and Orange County areas--and in
Chicago, Illinois, the predominance of a number of Asian and other
language groups, in addition to a large percentage of Spanish-speakers,
presents further challenges. Agencies in Austin, Texas, have also
experienced growth in Asian languages spoken in the area. Figure 3
shows the percentages of the transit agencies and MPOs we visited that
provided services in at least Spanish for each of these communication
strategies. However, in some cases, agencies may not utilize these
communication strategies, even in English, and these agencies are not
included in the percentage calculation.
Figure 3: Percentage of Transit Agencies and MPOs We Visited That Make
These Types of Language Access Services Available in at Least Spanish:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Some agencies provide information and services in other
languages, in addition to English and Spanish. We visited 20 transit
agencies during our site visits.
[A] Included in this percentage are 20 transit agencies and 7 MPOs.
[B] Included in this percentage are 20 transit agencies and 7 MPOs.
Four transit agencies and 1 MPO posted translated information to their
Web sites without indication that the translated material was
available.
[C] Included in this percentage are just the 12 transit agencies that
have recorded announcements or electronic signs.
[D] Included in this percentage are just the 5 transit agencies that
utilize electronic ticket machines.
[End of figure]
The following sections discuss transit agency and MPO activities within
each of the broad categories shown in figure 3, and highlight examples
from the seven metropolitan statistical areas we visited. Following the
discussion of these activities, we further discuss agencies' community
outreach activities related to LEP populations and to the community and
advocacy groups that represent them.
Bilingual or Multilingual Telephone Services:
All but 1 of the 20 transit agencies we visited had at least some
telephone operators who were bilingual in English and Spanish, but the
availability of telephone information in other languages varied. In
contrast, a survey of 32 transit agencies conducted for the New Jersey
Department of Transportation found that only one-half of responding
agencies used multilingual telephone lines or bilingual or multilingual
persons in call centers.[Footnote 14] A few transit agencies we visited
in highly diverse areas, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, had
operators fluent in other languages. For example:
* The Metropolitan Transportation Authority in Los Angeles and San
Francisco's Municipal Transportation Agency have operators that speak
Tagalog and Chinese.
* The Bay Area Rapid Transit has Chinese-speakers available in its call
center.
In other cases, telephone services were not language accessible. For
example, the San Francisco Bay Area's 511 traveler information line,
which provides information on all of the transportation options
available in the area, is currently only accessible in English.
Transit agencies in Chicago; Los Angeles; Orange County; and
Greensboro, North Carolina, had access to a three-way call translation
service in numerous languages. While this service is available through
these agencies' general transit information lines, which are advertised
on most agency materials, the fact that translation services are
available through the three-way call service is not well publicized.
Therefore, LEP persons may not be aware of these translation services.
For example, representatives of a Chinese community center in Chicago
were not aware that Chinese translators were available through the
Chicago Regional Transportation Authority's language line, although
those representatives said they often assist new Chinese immigrants in
learning how to use the transit system. In addition, the New Jersey
study found, through its surveys and focus groups with LEP persons,
that awareness of the existence of the translation services available
in New Jersey was very low, although the study found such services to
be valued by LEP persons.[Footnote 15] Some community groups also
pointed to the availability of bilingual or multilingual operators as
one of the most critical and useful services that agencies can provide
to LEP persons. Without such services, LEP persons must rely on family,
friends, or other transit riders who speak their language to provide
assistance.
Transit agencies told us that complaints in other languages could also
be taken through their bilingual or multilingual telephone services;
many agencies had received complaints in languages other than English,
primarily in Spanish. However, specific complaints about language
access were rare, with only 1 agency reporting such a complaint in
relation to a rider's having trouble communicating with a driver.
In some areas we visited, other nontransportation agencies receiving
federal financial assistance also had contracts for multilingual
telephone translation services. Because those agencies also are subject
to the executive order and federal agency LEP guidance, the existence
of such contracts presents an opportunity for local agencies to
coordinate in order to more efficiently provide such services. Few of
the transit agencies or MPOs we visited had coordinated with any other
nontransportation agencies in their service areas in this regard.
However, in North Carolina, transit agencies in Raleigh, Durham, Chapel
Hill, and Greensboro all have relationships with other city departments
that can assist with language access needs, such as sharing bilingual
operators.
Translated Printed Service Information:
All but 2 of the 20 transit agencies we visited printed at least some
schedules and maps, how-to-ride guides, applications for specialized
transportation, or other service information materials in Spanish, and
many transit agencies provided extensive amounts of printed materials
in Spanish. (See fig. 4 for a sample of a translated service
information brochure.) In addition, the New Jersey survey of 32 transit
agencies found that two-thirds of responding agencies provided
translated timetables and route maps.[Footnote 16] However, officials
at 3 transit agencies indicated that they often do not translate the
language on maps and schedules because most of the information consists
of numbers, which are universal.
Figure 4: English and Spanish Versions of the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Rider's Guide:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Seven transit agencies we visited also provided selected guides and
maps in languages other than Spanish that are prevalent in their
service areas, and 4 agencies are able to provide translated materials
upon request. Some examples include the following:
* The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District in the San Francisco Bay
Area regularly prints service information in Spanish and Chinese.
* Also in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Bay Area Rapid Transit's
rider's guide is printed in Spanish and Chinese.
* On request, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority can provide information in several other languages, although
the agency acknowledged that such requests were very rare. The agency
also produced informational brochures in Chinese to advertise the
opening of its Gold Line light-rail service, which passes through
Chinatown in downtown Los Angeles.
Some community groups we spoke with indicated that, if service
information materials are not translated, many LEP transit riders will
likely learn to use the system from family, friends, or others in their
community. However, a lack of translated printed materials may
discourage use of the system or participation in the transportation
planning and decision-making process by affected language groups.
Officials at 1 agency told us that providing information in the
language the community is most comfortable with sends a message that
they are welcome on the system and in the planning process, while not
doing so may send the message that they are unwelcome. Community groups
also told us that more translated service information could encourage
greater ridership and make the system more welcoming to LEP persons. In
addition, the New Jersey study found that, next to having a staff
person speaking their native language, LEP groups most preferred to
have timetable, schedule, and other information in their native
language.[Footnote 17]
While MPOs can serve a variety of functions and may provide a wide
variety of services related to transportation, we specifically focused
on informational materials related to transportation planning and
public involvement provided by MPOs we visited. Three of the 7 MPOs we
visited had translated a summary of their transportation plan into
Spanish, with 1 MPO, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the
San Francisco Bay Area, also translating the document into Chinese. Two
MPOs had translated a citizen's guide to participation in the
transportation planning process into Spanish. Another MPO had
translated a transportation needs survey into Spanish.
Bilingual or Multilingual Signs and Service Change Notices:
Transit agencies we visited provided several different types of
translated signs in vehicles or at stations and stops. Of the 4
agencies out of 20 that did not have such signs, 2 were primarily
paratransit operators whose vehicles are operated by contractors. The
types of translated signs provided included basic service information
on bus stop signs, postings of service changes, fare box signs,
emergency exit and priority-seating signs, public meeting notices, and
posters for informational campaigns. Without translated postings of
service changes, bus stop closures, or fare policies, LEP persons are
at a disadvantage in accessing the transit system. One community group
cited an instance of LEP persons waiting at a bus stop that had been
closed due to a city event. This situation occurred because the transit
agency had not posted translated notices at the bus stop announcing the
closures.
Of the transit agencies we visited, 8 had some basic service
information signs at rail stations or bus stops available in languages
other than English, and 1 agency we visited had such information
available in languages other than Spanish at selected bus stops. For
example, Transportation Authorities in Orange County and Los Angeles
provide some information at some bus stops in Spanish (such as the
direction of travel and information on their telephone lines). One
agency, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District in Oakland, estimates
that approximately 750 of its 1,200 signs are translated in Chinese and
Spanish, with signs in bus shelters in the city of Oakland, California,
now being replaced with seven-language signs, an example of which is
shown in figure 5.
Figure 5: Seven-Language Bus Stop Sign in Oakland, California:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Officials at 3 transit agencies stated that they had not translated
street signs, or did not translate the entire sign, because much of the
information is numeric and because including several languages on such
signs would become unwieldy for transit riders to effectively use.
Agency officials also indicated that cost could become an issue in
replacing all of the signs throughout their systems, and some agencies
were looking into utilizing more pictograms in order to avoid the use
of multiple languages while providing more universal access. However,
some community group representatives told us that, although the use of
pictograms can be a useful way to communicate with non-English
speakers, some translated language may need to accompany the pictograms
in order for the information to be communicated effectively.
Several of the transit agencies we visited posted or provided, in
languages other than English, information on service changes or
closures at rail stations, at bus stops, and in vehicles. Some examples
include the following:
* The Orange County Transportation Authority puts service change flyers
in English and Spanish in vehicles on affected bus routes.
* The Golden Gate Transit in San Francisco posts Spanish and English
service change notices at its central transit hub.
* The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District provides service change
brochures in Chinese and Spanish.
Ten transit agencies had on-board signs that included information on
fares or emergency exits and priority-seating signs for elderly and
disabled persons, and 10 agencies posted public meeting notices on
their vehicles, translated into at least Spanish. A few agencies also
provided fare information or posted public meeting notices on buses or
in stations in other languages. For example:
* The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and the Alameda-
Contra Costa Transit District both provide fare information in Chinese
and Spanish.
* The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency posts some meeting
notices on its vehicles in Chinese and English, as shown in figure 6.
Figure 6: Meeting Notice Posted on a Bus in San Francisco, California,
in English and Chinese:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In addition, some transit agencies we visited had translated other
types of signs, such as posters in English and Spanish, generally
designed under the auspices of new initiatives or information
campaigns. For example, METRA Commuter Rail in Chicago and the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority both placed
posters in English and Spanish that highlight safety issues on those
systems. Orange County Transportation Authority officials credit the
wide acceptance of the agency's new "no pennies" fare policy to the
bilingual "Hasta Luego Pennies" campaign, as shown in figure 7.
Figure 7: Posters in Orange County, California, in English and Spanish:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In-Person Language Assistance:
While all but 3 of the transit agencies we visited had bilingual
drivers on staff, some agency officials noted that those drivers are
generally not required or instructed to make announcements in other
languages and are generally not assigned to routes where their language
skills may be useful. Some agency officials indicated that union rules
allow drivers to select preferred routes on the basis of seniority.
Therefore, there is no indication of the number of bilingual drivers
that are utilizing their languages skills, although agency officials
knew of individual occurrences. Three agencies we visited--Golden Gate
Transit in California; Capital Metro in Austin, Texas; and Chapel Hill
Transit in North Carolina--had provided their drivers with useful
phrase or word guides in Spanish, an example of which is shown in
figure 8. A few other agencies, including the Capital Area Rural
Transportation System and the Capital Metro in Austin, Texas, and the
Ozark Regional Transit in northwest Arkansas, have bilingual employees
available to translate over the radio on the bus.
Figure 8: Golden Gate Transit's Spanish Phrase Guide for Drivers:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Many of the transit agencies reported that they had some bilingual
staffs in customer information booths or ticket offices, although
agencies tended not to look for bilingual customer service staffs in
particular. Agency officials in several areas stated that customer
service personnel have language skills because their employees reflect
the ethnic and language diversity of their region. For public meetings
related to the transportation planning and decision-making process, 12
transit agencies and 4 MPOs had Spanish interpreters or bilingual
employees or board members available if needed at most public meetings,
while 6 transit agencies and 3 MPOs had Spanish interpreters available
by request. In areas where there is a preponderance of other languages
spoken, interpreters in languages other than Spanish were generally
provided on a "by-request" basis, although 1 agency reported that it
regularly provided Chinese translators.
While 16 transit agencies we visited had cultural sensitivity included
in their staff training, only 9 provided training or technical
assistance to their employees that directly related to LEP issues. The
New Jersey survey of transit agencies found that only one-quarter of
the responding agencies had training for customer service employees
that was specific to LEP service.[Footnote 18] Five agencies we visited
offered free Spanish classes to employees. For instance, Chapel Hill
Transit hired a contractor to teach conversational Spanish to
supervisors, dispatchers, and those employees who answer telephones
during work hours. The agency has not been able to offer the course to
drivers because of budgeting issues, since attending the course would
be considered part of the drivers' work week and they would have to be
paid overtime. However, the town of Chapel Hill does offer tuition
reimbursement to drivers who want to take Spanish classes on their own
time.
Community groups regularly pointed out the importance of having as many
bilingual bus drivers and customer service staff as possible. At a
community meeting in Aurora, Illinois, held by the Chicago Area
Transportation Study, the need for more bilingual bus drivers was
highlighted as a community transportation need. The New Jersey focus
groups with LEP travelers also found that the inability to communicate
with bus drivers was one of the chief complaints of the LEP travelers
in New Jersey.[Footnote 19] In terms of the availability of
interpreters at public meetings, community groups we met with
criticized the fact that interpreters are frequently only provided on a
"by-request" basis. Agencies generally require that requests be made 3
days in advance of the meeting, but community groups told us that if an
agency is advertising the meeting in different languages, as many of
the agencies we visited did, they should be prepared to provide access
to the proceedings of the meeting in those languages, rather than
relying on the public to request translation.
Bilingual or Multilingual Television, Radio, and Newspaper
Advertisements:
Fourteen transit agencies and 6 MPOs we visited posted notices of
public meetings in newspapers printed in languages other than English-
-with 10 posting notices in more than one language. A few agencies
posted such notices in as many as five different language newspapers.
For example, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority publishes its "Metro Briefs," which includes notices of
public meetings and other information, in Thai, Korean, Chinese,
Armenian, and Spanish language newspapers. Spanish radio and television
advertisements were also placed by several agencies, sometimes in
relation to ongoing information campaigns, such as rail safety
campaigns. For example, METRA Commuter Rail in Chicago advertised its
rail safety campaign on television and radio in Spanish.
Bilingual or Multilingual Translated Materials on Web sites:
Eleven of the 20 transit agencies we visited had some information on
their Web sites that was available in other languages; however, 4 of
the 11 made no indication on their home pages that translated materials
were available. Of the 7 MPOs we visited, 3 had such translated
information posted on their Web sites, and 2 had links on their home
pages indicating that translated materials were available. Some
examples of translated Web sites include the following:
* The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District's Web site provides basic
rider information in Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese--the three
largest LEP populations in its service area--that is directly
accessible through links in those languages on the home page.
* The Regional Transportation Authority in Chicago, and the Bay Area
Rapid Transit and the Golden Gate Transit in San Francisco, have basic
transit information available in seven and eight other languages,
respectively, indicated by country flag icons on the agencies' home
pages. The languages chosen are not fully reflective of the major LEP
groups in these areas, however, because these Web sites also serve
tourism purposes. For example, in Chicago, the Regional Transportation
Authority's Web site is translated into French, German, and Japanese,
although these are not major LEP groups in the city. However, the site
is not accessible in Chinese, although Chinese is the third largest LEP
population in Chicago.
Four transit agencies and 1 MPO had posted translated materials to
their Web sites but did not indicate on the home pages that those
materials were available. For example, materials translated into
Spanish are posted on the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority's Web site, but a user must navigate through
links that are in English to get to them. Also, the San Francisco
Municipal Transportation Agency has part of its Title VI plan
translated into Spanish and Chinese, but the user must navigate through
at least two links in English to find the translations. Only 1 agency
we visited, the Ozark Regional Transit, a small urban operator in
northwest Arkansas managed by First Transit, had made its entire Web
site accessible in another language, Spanish, as seen in figure 9. A
link in Spanish on the home page leads to a fully translated version of
the Web site. Furthermore, while many agencies have Web-based trip
planners, none of the agencies we visited had made that function fully
available in other languages.[Footnote 20]
Figure 9: Spanish Version of the Ozark Regional Transit's Web Site Home
Page:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Translated Web sites were not frequently identified by community groups
as being particularly useful for LEP persons because LEP persons often
do not have access to the Internet, according to the community group
representatives we met with. In addition, the New Jersey study found
that LEP focus groups did not often rate translated Web sites as a
major resource in addressing mobility needs.[Footnote 21] However,
providing translated information on an agency Web site without
indication in that language that it is available is likely to reduce
the usefulness of that information to those LEP persons who do have
Internet access.
Translated Recorded Announcements and Electronic Signs:
Only 3 of the transit agencies we visited had recorded announcements in
other languages on their vehicles or at their facilities, although many
agencies do not utilize recorded announcements at all. Also, although a
few transit agencies employ electronic media, such as televisions or
ticker-tape style displays, only 1 provided translated information on
its ticker-tape display. Examples of translated recorded announcements
include the following:
* The Capital Metro in Austin provides recorded announcements on its
buses in English and Spanish, which are also broadcast outside the bus
at bus stops.
* The Bay Area Rapid Transit has Spanish and Chinese announcements
recorded and available for use in the event of an emergency in its
train stations or on its trains.
* The Gold Line light-rail line in Los Angeles has recorded
announcements of stops and rider instructions in English and Spanish.
Bilingual or Multilingual Electronic Ticket Machines:
Of the transit agencies that utilize electronic ticket machines for
rail services--the Chicago Transit Authority, the METRA Commuter Rail
in Chicago, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority, the Bay Area Rapid Transit, and the San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency--only the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority had some machines accessible in English and
Spanish. This agency has installed ticket machines that are accessible
in Spanish on a newer light-rail line that passes through a
predominantly Hispanic neighborhood, and officials told us they were
considering replacing all ticket machines with machines that will be
accessible in six to eight languages. One group we met with pointed out
that, without translated information on fare discounts and without
ticket machines that are language accessible, LEP persons may not be
aware of the fare options available to them in the same manner that
English speakers would be, potentially leading to LEP persons' paying
more than needed for their trips.
Communicating Directly with LEP Communities or Community and Advocacy
Groups Representing LEP Persons:
Almost all of the transit agencies and MPOs we visited had made at
least some effort to communicate more directly with communities and to
conduct outreach with LEP communities and the community and advocacy
groups that serve LEP persons. For example, in Greensboro, the city
recently started a new program with Lutheran Family Services, a
community group that works with many LEP persons, to provide an
orientation for recent immigrants and refugees to the area. Under the
program, city departments identified as having the most public
interaction with LEP persons, make an interactive presentation of
services provided. These presentations are given in English and
simultaneously translated into several languages, including Spanish,
Vietnamese, Arabic, and Russian, depending on the availability of
translators. The city is also producing a video on its services,
including public transit, which will be translated into Spanish and
into other languages upon request. In Orange County, the Orange County
Transportation Authority conducts a program that includes visiting
Spanish-speaking senior centers to inform seniors about the agency and
its services. As part of the program, the agency will bring a bus to
the centers and walk the seniors through every step of riding the bus,
including getting on, paying the fare, and exiting. In addition, 2
agencies reported holding information sessions at bus terminals when
service changes or fare adjustments are about to occur. For example,
the Durham Area Transit Authority publicizes such information sessions
in the Spanish community, and then has translators on hand at bus
terminals to explain service changes and answer any questions.
In terms of transportation planning and decision making, federal law
and regulations require transit agencies and MPOs to involve the public
in transportation planning and decision-making processes,[Footnote 22]
and Title VI, as well as DOT's guidance, suggests that agencies should
also make this process accessible to non-English speakers. Providing
language access to planning and decision making can include all of the
communication strategies used by transit agencies and MPOs in this
process. Some communication strategies for public participation will
fall into the strategies previously outlined, such as providing
interpreters at public meetings and posting translated notices of
community or public meetings on Web sites, at stations, in vehicles, in
newspapers, or on television or radio. Some agencies also employed more
direct tactics to include LEP groups in the planning process. For
example, several transit agencies and MPOs we visited mailed out
notices of community and public meetings to community and advocacy
groups representing LEP persons, although in some cases, these notices
were not sent out in languages other than English. In addition, several
agencies we visited distributed translated public meeting notices in
various establishments throughout the community. For example, the
Golden Gate Transit in the Bay Area distributes meeting notices in
Spanish at convenience stores, restaurants, and laundromats in
predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods. Some transit agencies and MPOs
also kept in regular contact with community and advocacy groups
representing LEP persons or created specific advisory boards that
occasionally influenced language access activities. For example, the
Orange County Transportation Authority created a citizen's advisory
committee that pushed for the agency to provide translated notices of
service changes. In addition, some agencies reached out directly to LEP
communities with regard to the planning and decision-making process.
For example, Capital Metro in Austin started an outreach campaign that
involved sending teams of staff and volunteers, many of whom were
bilingual, into the community to provide information on new
transportation projects face-to-face. Capital Metro found that this
outreach resulted in greater public support for the agency and in
increased ridership.
Despite some of these efforts, community group representatives we spoke
with were often critical that agencies' outreach efforts related to
planning and decision making were generally not proactive and inclusive
of LEP persons. For example, one representative we spoke with told us
that attendance at a public meeting on transportation projects in a
predominantly Chinese-speaking neighborhood was not well attended by
members of that community, and that no Chinese translator was on hand
at the meeting. This representative believed that better outreach to
that community to encourage community involvement would have led to
higher attendance. A representative of another group explained that
community meetings are often very difficult to access for Spanish-
speaking members of the community, and that the local MPO tends to work
with elected officials rather than working more directly with members
of the community.
In the New Jersey surveys and focus groups of LEP travelers, some LEP
groups in New Jersey indicated that a lack of adequate transportation
services was the biggest impediment to their mobility.[Footnote 23]
Without access to and involvement with local transit agencies and
planning entities, the needs of this community are not likely to be
heard by these agencies. Furthermore, failing to provide language
access to decision making can lead to complaints of discrimination. FTA
has received one complaint that LEP persons were not given adequate
access to the planning and decision-making process.
Effects of Language Access Services on Meeting Needs Are Not Well
Known:
The efficacy of the LEP access services provided is largely unknown due
to a lack of data. Most transit agencies and MPOs we visited could
provide only limited information about the utilization or effectiveness
of their language access services. Furthermore, few of the agencies we
visited had conducted a formalized assessment of the needs of the LEP
populations in their service areas, or had assessed the success of
their language access activities in meeting these needs, although DOT's
LEP guidance recommends that they do so. Data limitations were present
in analyzing the effects of all types of LEP access services. For
example, although some transit agencies print thousands of translated
brochures, they do not keep track of how many brochures are placed on
buses or in stations. In addition, because many brochures are printed
with English and another language in the same booklet, it is impossible
to know whether the language accessible section is being utilized. Data
on the utilization of bilingual or multilingual telephone operators
were also generally not available for the majority of the transit
agencies because they do not formally track calls received in languages
other than English. In those instances where calls were tracked, they
were predominantly in Spanish, and calls in other languages were
generally not common. For 1 transit agency, of the 378 calls in
languages other than English that were received in 2004, 90 percent of
them were in Spanish. For another, just 3 percent of calls were in
languages other than English and Spanish. One agency in Los Angeles did
receive a relatively large percentage of calls in Russian, Farsi, and
Armenian to its language line. For Web sites, data on the utilization
of multilingual pages were only available in some instances. Even when
tracked, these Web site data were often inconclusive regarding how
often the translations were accessed relative to English portions of
the sites. Finally, information on the effectiveness of translated
signs was not determined by any of the transit agencies or MPOs we
visited.
Although little effort had been made by the transit agencies and MPOs
we visited to closely examine the impact of their LEP activities, a few
agencies were considering language issues as part of their more
comprehensive assessments of ongoing communication and outreach
efforts. For example, the Regional Transportation Authority in Chicago
has started a long-term study of the overall communication strategies
of all the transit agencies in Chicago, including language access
issues. Part of the study's methodology was for a researcher to ride
along with a LEP rider to identify areas where communication was
lacking and the rider encountered problems. The study found that
language barriers made it difficult to understand changes to schedules
or service, or changes in how to navigate through the system. The study
is looking at an increased use of pictograms as one potential solution
to making access easier for LEP populations.
Despite the lack of supporting data, most agencies felt that they were
adequately responding to the demand for language access services in
their areas. Agency officials believed that because no complaints had
been recorded concerning the level of language access provided, and
because they generally did not receive many requests for translated
materials or interpreters, they were doing a reasonable job of
providing such access. Several agency officials did state that there
was still room for improvement, and some were considering providing
more information in languages other than Spanish. Agency officials also
recognized the need for greater outreach efforts in general, especially
for ethnic communities that may have language barriers, since turnout
at public meetings by these groups is typically low. However, some
agency officials told us that agencies may lack the needed staff to
regularly conduct proactive community outreach activities.
By contrast, community and advocacy groups we met with generally saw
several shortcomings in the provision of language access services,
sometimes within the larger context of how transit agencies and MPOs
communicate with the public in general. In their opinion, a lack of
complaints regarding LEP issues did not necessarily mean that transit
agencies were doing a satisfactory job, but rather might reflect the
fact that many LEP persons were not likely to complain about the
provision of language access services, due to cultural differences and
wariness about interacting with government agencies. Many community
group representatives we spoke with complained of a lack of knowledge
in the community about the materials and services that were available,
and a lack of materials in languages other than Spanish. Even in areas
where transit agencies do provide translated materials, representatives
of community groups stated that these materials were often not readily
available or easy to locate. In addition, many community groups were
unaware of the existence of multilingual telephone lines, or they
complained that Spanish-speaking operators were often not available
when they called.
In addition to questioning the level of service information available
to LEP populations, community groups cited concerns about the lack of
actual transit services available to certain communities where large
LEP populations reside, as well as concerns about a lack of effective
involvement of these communities in the planning and decision-making
process, as previously discussed in this report. Many representatives
we spoke with were unaware of public meetings held by transit agencies
and MPOs, and they complained about the lack of ongoing communication
with them and the communities they represent. Furthermore,
representatives of community groups told us that these agencies rarely
used them as a resource or consulted with them on LEP transportation
issues.
These representatives made several suggestions regarding how language
access services could be improved, and which types of activities would
likely be most effective in meeting community needs. Several
suggestions involved facilitating the inclusion of ethnic communities,
including LEP persons, in the planning process. For example,
representatives from one group stated that public meetings should have
agendas that are clear, specific, and of value to the community, and
that these communities should be sought out and included early in the
process. Other representatives stated that established community and
advocacy groups should be used more effectively as a conduit to the
community. Regarding language access services, community group
representatives recommended having ticket machines and discount fare
information available in other languages so that LEP communities could
take advantage of fare discounts. They also said that having spoken
announcements in other languages or having bus drivers or other
personnel available to communicate in other languages would be highly
effective in improving access for LEP persons.
The New Jersey survey and focus groups of LEP travelers provided some
data on the needs of LEP transit users. Like the community group
representatives, some LEP groups in this study reported that inadequate
service in their neighborhoods was their chief concern. In terms of
travel assistance needed, LEP groups most often cited having a driver
or staff person available to assist them in their own language.
Reaction was split among LEP travelers on whether multilingual
telephone lines were helpful. Some travelers felt they were helpful,
and others felt that if the information is prerecorded, it is not
effective. While New Jersey Transit does have a multilingual telephone
line (not prerecorded), most of the respondents in this study were not
aware of the service, which was likely due to a lack of advertising.
Finally, LEP groups stated that Web sites were also not particularly
helpful because many of the respondents did not have access to the
Internet.[Footnote 24]
Costs May Not Be Burdensome at the Current Level of Activity, but They
Could Escalate with Additional Languages and Services:
On the basis of our site visit data, we determined that agencies
generally did not believe that the costs for existing language access
activities were burdensome.[Footnote 25] Many transit agencies believed
that providing services to LEP populations makes sound business sense.
Such agencies recognize that LEP populations represent a significant
portion of both their current and their potential ridership. Thus,
making services more accessible to LEP persons could increase
ridership. For instance, officials at Austin's Capital Metro told us
that their outreach efforts to LEP communities has resulted in
increased ridership and greater public support for the agency.
While several of the transit agencies we interviewed did not view LEP
language access costs as burdensome, the majority of agencies were
unable to provide much data on many of the costs associated with their
LEP access services. Sometimes these costs were simply not tracked
because they were spread out over several departments, or because LEP
access activities were not separated from broader costs. The New Jersey
survey of transit agencies also found little available data on costs,
with only one-third of respondents sharing cost information.[Footnote
26] Of the respondents to that survey providing cost information, about
one-half of them reported annual costs of between $10,000 and $30,000;
one-quarter reported costs of under $5,000; and one-quarter reported
costs greater than $100,000.
Transit agencies and MPOs were able to avoid incurring substantial
additional costs by utilizing existing staff. For instance, many
agencies stated that rather than contracting out for interpreters at
public meetings, they bring in bilingual staff members, use bilingual
board members, or rely on community groups or individuals to bring
their own interpreters as needed. A similar situation occurs in
providing interpreters for customer service telephone lines. While 7
transit agencies have access to some form of a language line with
formalized services, many agencies have operators who are bilingual or
who will utilize various bilingual staff members throughout their
operations to field LEP calls when needed. In terms of printed
documents and materials, many of the transit agencies and MPOs we
visited have their translations done in-house using bilingual staff
members. Often, translation is not part of these staff members'
official responsibilities, but it is done on a voluntary basis at no
cost to the agency beyond the use of staff time.
Although several transit agencies and MPOs did not report unduly
burdensome costs, the cost of providing LEP access has the potential to
increase significantly if agencies seek to undertake more comprehensive
programs.[Footnote 27] As we previously discussed, many agencies rely
on existing staff to do their translations of materials and to act as
interpreters. Utilizing existing staff becomes more difficult when an
agency attempts to provide access beyond just one or two languages. In
that case, agencies would likely have to contract out for translation
and translator services, or have to expend additional time and effort
during the hiring process to find qualified candidates fluent in the
languages desired. Contracting out for both translation and translator
services can be costly. For example, the Capital Metro in Austin
estimates that it spends between $10,000 and $15,000 a year for outside
translations of materials. The Chicago Transit Authority stated that it
spent over $1,100 for interpreters at four public hearings in 2004.
Costs will also rise for agencies if they seek to make more
comprehensive translated information about their services and programs
available through multiple sources. For example, only 1 agency we
visited had developed a comprehensively Web site. In addition to any
translation costs incurred, developing fully translated Web sites is
likely to require modifications to an agency's Web site architecture,
which has the potential to be costly. For instance, the Chicago Transit
Authority estimated that the initial costs of translating its Web site
into Spanish, Chinese, and Polish could potentially be between $74,000
and $99,000. In addition, the ongoing costs for maintaining the
translated sites could also be substantial. Agency officials told us
that the capability to update just the Spanish section of a translated
Web site on a regular basis would require a new full-time employee and
the purchase of additional software, costing an estimated $47,000 to
$60,000 annually. In addition, providing language line service that
covers multiple languages could raise costs significantly for transit
agencies, depending on the usage of the line. Costs for language line
services vary, depending on the provider as well as the language being
translated, but generally costs per minute range from $1.00 to $1.50,
which can add up to significant amounts. For example, the Chicago
Regional Transportation Authority's language line cost about $16,000 in
2004, and Access Services in Los Angeles spent $3,500 in the first 3
months of 2005. In addition, to the extent that agencies seek to
provide printed materials in languages other than Spanish, there would
be increased typesetting and formatting issues that would give rise to
higher costs as well. This is especially true with languages using non-
Roman alphabets. For example, officials at the Orange County
Transportation Authority estimated that the cost of producing materials
in Chinese would be significantly more than for Spanish materials.
Finally, in terms of public outreach, a shift to more proactive
strategies may lead to higher costs. Transit agencies and MPOs that
take the initiative to actively reach out to various community groups
and LEP populations would likely need to dedicate a greater amount of
staff time and resources.
DOT Assists Grantees on Language Access Services through Its Guidance
and Other Activities, but These Resources Are Not Often Accessed by
Local Agencies:
DOT's LEP guidance provides grantees with a five-step framework for how
to provide meaningful access to LEP populations, along with some
information on how to implement such a framework; however, officials at
the majority of the 20 transit agencies and 7 MPOs we visited were not
aware of the LEP guidance. Of the agencies that were aware of the
guidance, only 3 had changed their language access activities in
response to it, and only 1 transit agency appeared to have fully
implemented the five-step framework. DOT and DOJ have also provided
other types of assistance on language access services--such as
workshops, a DOJ-sponsored interagency Web site, and other resources--
but most of the transit agencies and MPOs we visited had not accessed
these resources. Officials at transit agencies and MPOs we visited
stated that training and technical assistance that is widely available,
and specific to language access and how to implement DOT's LEP
guidance, could help them more effectively provide access to LEP
populations.
DOT's LEP Guidance Provides Steps to Meaningful Access, but DOT Took
Limited Steps to Make Grantees Aware of Guidance:
DOT's 2001 LEP guidance outlines five steps funding recipients should
take to provide meaningful access for LEP persons, including (1)
conducting an assessment of the language groups within their service
areas and the language needs of these groups; (2) developing and
implementing written plans outlining their strategies for ensuring
access to services for LEP populations; (3) making staff aware of the
LEP access plan, training them, and providing them with the tools
necessary to carry out the plan; (4) ensuring that language access
services are actually provided in a consistent manner and that LEP
populations are aware of these services; and (5) developing monitoring
programs that allow agencies to assess the success of their LEP access
programs and to identify needed modifications. The guidance gives some
information on how to implement the framework and examples of promising
practices. For example, the guidance lists components that a written
plan should generally include, although it does not provide examples of
such a plan.
DOT made its guidance available to its funding recipients through the
Federal Register, its Web site,[Footnote 28] and the DOJ interagency
Web site; however, DOT headquarters officials did not distribute the
guidance through any other direct method to ensure that grantees were
aware of it, such as through a policy memorandum or other outreach to
grantees. According to a DOT official, DOT relies on its operating
agencies to make grantees aware of the guidance, and, in turn, these
operating agencies may rely on regional representatives to make
grantees aware of the guidance. In the areas we visited, however, FTA
regional representatives had not disseminated the guidance or made
grantees in their areas aware of the guidance. Staff turnover in DOT's
agencies, as well as in local transit agencies and MPOs, likely
complicate agency awareness of the guidance, since newer employees may
not be aware of documents issued years earlier. Although, according to
a DOT official, DOT has not done much to reinforce awareness of the
guidance, or grantees' responsibilities under it, since its original
publication in the Federal Register in 2001.
As a result, the majority of officials we visited during our site
visits who are primarily responsible for implementing aspects of DOT's
guidance were not aware of the guidance. Some of the officials we
visited who were aware of the guidance had not made significant changes
in response to it. Rather than citing DOT's guidance, officials at the
transit agencies and MPOs we visited indicated that they provide
language access activities in response to their customer base and
demographics, as a result of the Environmental Justice
initiative,[Footnote 29] or as a result of requests from community
groups or board members. Officials at many transit agencies and MPOs we
visited said they had been providing language access services for many
years prior to the executive order and DOT's guidance. Other officials
indicated that they were not sure what their responsibilities were
under the guidance.
Of the 9 transit agencies and 3 MPOs we visited that were aware of
DOT's guidance, only 2 transit agencies and 1 MPO made changes to their
languages access activities as a result. Examples of agency responses
to the guidance include the following:
* The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District developed an inventory of
its language access activities, with several proposals for improving
language access services that are now being implemented.
* The Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay
Area indicated that, while it had not significantly changed its
practices as a result of the guidance, it had increased its efforts.
* The Chicago Transit Authority formed a committee to examine LEP
issues after the release of the guidance in 2001. This committee
determined the languages spoken in its service area from Census data
and has discussed the idea of implementing a survey to determine what
language needs exist. No current plan or timeline for developing or
implementing the proposed survey exists.
Officials from the California, North Carolina, and Texas state
departments of transportation reported that they had begun to monitor
their small urban and rural grantees' LEP activities as a result of the
executive order and DOT's guidance. As a result, some materials have
been provided to grantees about their responsibilities under the
guidance.[Footnote 30]
Some of the transit agencies and MPOs we visited told us that technical
assistance and information would be helpful in implementing DOT's
guidance, and 1 transit agency cited a lack of funds and time to
conduct an assessment of language access needs and to provide and
evaluate language access activities. For example, an MPO in North
Carolina said it would benefit from the ability to easily access
practical resources on language access services for LEP persons. In
addition, agency officials at a transit agency in California told us
that an example of a needs assessment--with estimates of the cost to
conduct one and effective ways to outreach to LEP persons--would be
very helpful. A DOT official told us that, in anticipation of issuing
DOT's revised guidance, additional training and assistance was being
considered within DOT.
Other Federal Resources Address Language Access Issues to Varying
Degrees, but They Are Not Frequently Used by Grantees:
DOT's Workshops at Conferences and Federal Web Sites Provide Some
Assistance on DOT's LEP Guidance:
FTA and FHWA have hosted a few workshops at annual conferences[Footnote
31] that have provided assistance on how to implement portions of the
framework described in the guidance.[Footnote 32] Presentations held by
FTA and FHWA reviewed the LEP executive order, and DOT's LEP guidance,
and provided workshop participants with real-world LEP information,
including how to identify LEP populations in their service areas. For
example, workshops included the following:
* Strategies for Complying with FHWA LEP Requirements, was held at the
Southern Transportation Civil Rights Conference in Orlando in August
2005.[Footnote 33] This training identified strategies to ensure that
LEP persons have access to programs, services, and information through
the application of DOT's guidance. In addition to this presentation, a
"train the trainer" curriculum was developed regarding LEP
awareness.[Footnote 34] Training attendees were provided with a manual
with resources on providing language access, which included DOT's
guidance, language identification flash cards, language statistical
data, language assistance self-assessment tools, and commonly asked
questions and answers.
* Fair Transportation: Incorporating Equity Concerns into Transit
Planning and Operations, presented to the Conference of Minority
Transportation Officials by FTA's Office of Civil Rights, occurred in
July 2005. This presentation discussed the changing demographics and
growing multicultural nature of the American population and the
increase in the number of LEP persons nationwide. FTA staff summarized
the requirements of DOT's LEP guidance, and recommended that transit
agencies incorporate attention to the needs of LEP persons into
elements of their routine planning and operations, such as their
complaint procedures, marketing, customer surveys, and community
outreach.
* LEP: A Lesson in Redefining Public Involvement was given at the 2003
Conference of Minority Transportation Officials National Meeting and
Training Conference. This presentation provided information about the
LEP executive order and DOT's guidance, and used real-world examples to
illustrate the complications an agency may face as a result of not
providing information to LEP populations during the planning process.
The presentation also defined compliance with the LEP executive order
by listing important components in DOT's guidance (i.e., a needs
assessment, a written language assistance plan, language assistance,
and monitoring).
* How to Identify LEP Populations in Your Locality was given by FHWA at
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials'
2004 Civil Rights Conference. This presentation also provided
information on the LEP executive order; DOT's guidance; and specific
information about what resources can be used to identify LEP
populations, which is the first step of conducting a needs assessment.
For example, the presentation highlighted using Census and state
departments of education data to identify the size and location of LEP
populations. This presentation is available on FHWA's Civil Rights Web
site.
Besides offering workshops, DOT also participates in the Federal
Interagency Working Group on Limited-English Proficiency, which
provides resources to federal grantees mainly through its Web site,
[Hyperlink, http://www.lep.gov]. The resources available on the Web
site are generally not specific to transportation, with the exception
of DOT's LEP guidance and a multilingual video on using public transit,
"Making Public Transit Work for You," which was produced by the Contra
Costa Commute Alternative Network. The Web site, which is maintained by
DOJ, serves as a clearinghouse by providing and linking information;
tools; and technical assistance about LEP and language services for
federal agencies, recipients of federal funds, users of federal
programs and federally assisted programs, and other stakeholders. While
most of the information on the Web site is not specifically about
transportation, some of it could be applicable to transit agencies. For
example, the Web site contains a variety of tools--including a self-
assessment--to help local agencies assess their current language
services and plan for the provision of additional language assistance
to LEP individuals. The Web site also provides an overview of how to
develop a language assistance plan, and it contains performance
measures, such as a measure of the extent of ongoing feedback from the
community, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of LEP activities. In
addition, there is a video on the Web site regarding LEP access issues
that could be used in training for customer service personnel at
transit agencies. FTA's Title VI Web page provides a link to this Web
site.
Other DOT Resources Have Few Language Access Activities or Touch on
Language Issues in a Broader Context:
FTA and FHWA have two peer-exchange programs through which local
agencies can share innovative or effective practices on various topics
that have sometimes included language access. FTA's peer-exchange
program, called Innovative Practices for Increased Ridership, and FTA
and FHWA's collaborative peer-exchange program, called the
Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program, allow agencies to
easily share information over the Internet. FTA's Innovative Practices
Web site serves as a central information resource for innovative
strategies on various topics. Innovative practices are submitted by
transit organizations and reviewed by FTA, and these practices are then
made available for other transit organizations to search records,
review innovations, and potentially implement similar programs. A
search of FTA's Innovative Practices Web site revealed some assistance
on language access issues. In one example, a transit agency in Maine
created a multilingual brochure that provided basic information about
riding its bus service in eight languages, including Spanish, Serbo-
Croatian, Russian, Khmer, Somali, Vietnamese, French, and English, and
plans to translate the brochure into six more languages, including
Farsi, Arabic, Acholi, Swahili, Chinese, and Bulgarian. The transit
agency credits this effort with increasing its ridership.
The Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program[Footnote 35]
provides resources to local agencies through its Web site, where users
can search various topics to find out if any other agency has posted
helpful information on those topics. LEP resources are not directly
available through an explicit link on this Web site. However, a search
of the program's Web site under Title VI and Environmental Justice
issues revealed some assistance on language access. For example, the
materials from a workshop called Identifying and Engaging Low Literacy
and Limited English Proficiency populations in the Transportation
Decision-making Process, which was held in Atlanta in May 2004, was
made available to users on the Web site. The workshop refers to the LEP
executive order and describes innovative and effective practices that
some agencies have employed to improve awareness among communities and
transportation planning agencies of the existence of low-literacy and
LEP populations in their areas.
FTA and FHWA also provide federal grantees with training and technical
assistance--through the National Transit Institute (NTI) and the
National Highway Institute (NHI), respectively--that address language
access issues to some extent in training on other subjects, such as
public participation in the transportation planning process. Funded by
grants from FTA, NTI provides training, education, and clearinghouse
services in support of public transportation. Representatives from NTI
identified five training courses in which language issues were
discussed in the broader context of other issues.[Footnote 36] In
addition, NTI is developing a course for transit employees that will
specifically address cross-cultural communications, including tips for
overcoming language barriers, such as speaking slowly, being patient,
and not using slang words. NHI also provides training, resource
materials, and technical assistance to the transportation community,
although, like NTI training, language issues are addressed as they
relate to the course content. An official from NHI identified two
training courses in which language issues were discussed. An example is
NHI's course called Fundamentals of Title VI/Environmental Justice, in
which LEP issues are woven into the course materials. The training
gives examples of outreach done by various agencies, which includes
providing meeting materials and flyers in Spanish. Another course,
entitled Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision
Making, describes the importance of including LEP populations in the
planning process; provides suggestions on effective ways to reach out
to LEP populations, such as through community groups and informal
meetings; and outlines ways to continue communication with LEP groups
once a connection has been established. For example, the training
states that providing translated materials and interpreters at meetings
is essential in reaching non-English speakers. NHI and NTI
representatives told us that they are working to combine their relevant
training courses on public involvement in the transportation planning
process into one course.
Other Available Federal Resources Are Rarely Used by Grantees:
The majority of transit agencies and MPOs we visited did not access the
federal resources previously discussed because many officials were
unaware that these resources exist. Only a few agencies we visited had
reported attending workshops held at annual conferences on language
access issues,[Footnote 37] and no agency we met with had reported
accessing information available through [Hyperlink,
http://www.lep.gov]. Furthermore, statistics on the number of Internet
users that accessed LEP resources on the Web-based peer- exchange
programs indicate that these resources are not accessed often in
comparison to other resources on those Web sites. A few transit
agencies we visited were aware of or had accessed the NTI training
entitled Public Involvement in Transportation Decision-Making, which
includes a section on ensuring that nontraditional participants--that
is, minority, low-income, and LEP populations--are included in the
public involvement process associated with transportation planning.
Three Review Processes Provide Limited Monitoring of Language Access
Activities, and Criteria for Finding a Deficiency Are Inconsistent:
Language access activities of transit agencies and MPOs are monitored
through three review processes--FTA's Title VI compliance reviews,
FTA's triennial reviews, and planning certification reviews conducted
jointly by FTA and FHWA (described in table 1). However, these reviews
do not fully take into account Executive Order 13166 or DOT's LEP
guidance, and the criteria for finding a deficiency with regard to
providing language access are inconsistent.
Table 1: FTA and FHWA Reviews:
Type of review: Title VI compliance review;
Description and scope: A Title VI compliance review is conducted to
determine if the grantee's required efforts under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 are represented to the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA). This review lasts 2 to 3 days and assesses
implementation of Title VI programs in areas such as general reporting
requirements, service standards and policies, and language access. This
review covers each agency's policies, procedures, and record keeping
related to Civil Rights and Title VI.
Type of review: Triennial review;
Description and scope: The triennial review is a periodic process
review that is conducted at least once every 3 years for each formula
grant recipient. The results of the triennial review are integrated
into FTA's grant management functions and ultimately serve as the basic
review of FTA's comprehensive oversight program. Although it is broad
in scope, the triennial review is the only FTA review that is
statutorily mandated.
Type of review: Planning certification review;
Description and scope: The planning certification review occurs at
least once every 4 years in all Transportation Management Areas, which
are metropolitan areas that have a population that exceeds 200,000
people. Unlike the aforementioned reviews, the planning certification
review is conducted jointly by FTA and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). The objective of this review is to enhance the
effectiveness of federal oversight of the transportation planning
process. The planning certification review process includes a desk
review, on-site interviews with all participants in the planning
process, and input from the public. The review concludes with a final
report of findings and recommendations, which is intended to provide an
overview of the planning process and identify areas where FTA and FHWA
need to provide guidance or direction to the process.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
The Title VI compliance review[Footnote 38]--an in-depth review of a
limited number of transit agencies, MPOs, and state DOTs--does not
assess language access activities using the LEP guidance, but rather
assesses them using guidelines in an FTA circular, which asks agencies
to describe the language access they provide.[Footnote 39] However, the
circular does not provide agencies with a framework, and does not have
much specificity regarding what agencies should provide in terms of
language access. FTA officials told us that the circular is used for
the compliance review because it is a requirement for agencies, while
agencies are not required to implement all aspects of DOT's LEP
guidance. The officials further stated that they have considered
including more aspects of DOT's guidance in the compliance review.
We reviewed Title VI compliance reviews completed between 2002 and 2004
and found that the scope of these reviews of language access activities
varied, and may not assess local agencies' language activities across
the entire breadth of communication strategies previously outlined in
this report. For example, in one review, an agency was found deficient
because it did not have safety and emergency information translated,
yet in other reviews it was unclear whether safety and emergency
information was included in the scope of the review. Furthermore, the
scope of the multilingual communications portions of the Title VI
compliance reviews has varied on the basis of the primary objective of
the endeavor. Some of these reviews considered only the extent to which
language assistance was provided to persons wanting to involve
themselves in the transit system's planning and decision-making
processes because the scope of the reviews focused solely on these
processes. Other reviews evaluated only the extent to which language
assistance was provided to persons wanting to use the transit system.
Table 2 provides examples of deficiency findings related to language
access from these Title VI reviews.
Table 2: Language Access Deficiencies Found through Title VI Compliance
Reviews:
Agency: Chicago Transit Authority;
Type of review: Limited scope review - Review of Service/Fare Change;
Finding: The agency did not adequately communicate information at
public meetings in other languages;
Recommendation: The agency should improve its community outreach
efforts to ensure that minority residents are heard;
Agency response: The agency pledged to establish a public participation
process that increases the number of public meetings and outreach to
community organizations.
Agency: Metro St. Louis;
Type of review: Limited scope review - Review of Service/Fare Change;
Finding: Review found that language access considerations may not have
adequately been taken into account;
Recommendation: Review recommended that the agency evaluate whether
there is a need for considering limited English-proficient (LEP)
persons when disseminating information;
Agency response: The agency indicated that it would prepare a written
assessment of the need to address LEP needs. The assessment will
include targeted surveys of operators and customers on routes known to
serve immigrant populations, as well as interviews with advocacy
groups, community groups, and human service agencies that serve
immigrant populations.
Agency: New York City Transit;
Type of review: Full Title VI compliance review; Finding: Sampling of
vehicles and facilities failed to confirm the consistent use of Spanish
in safety and emergency evacuation procedures;
Recommendation: Within 90 days, the agency must submit to the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) documentation that a Policy for
Translating Customer Information Materials has been finalized and
implemented;
Agency response: The agency submitted its draft policy, which indicated
it would translate safety notices into Spanish, and FTA accepted it.
The agency also provided several examples in its quarterly progress
reports of safety messages translated into Spanish.
Source: GAO review of Title VI compliance reviews, 2002-2004.
[End of table]
In March of 2003, FTA's Office of Civil Rights conducted a pilot Title
VI compliance review of the Brownsville Urban System in Texas,
specifically looking at the extent to which the agency had implemented
DOT's LEP guidance. This pilot was initiated as part of a refocusing of
Title VI compliance reviews on more specific issues within Title VI,
including multilingual communications, fare increases, service changes,
and equitable allocation of resources. Brownsville was selected by
FTA's Office of Civil Rights for the pilot assessment for multilingual
communication because of its large Spanish-speaking community.[Footnote
40] The assessment guidance used in the pilot incorporated sections of
DOT's guidance in addition to the multilingual facilities section of
the FTA circular used in other Title VI compliance reviews. The
assessment focused on whether the Brownsville system had ensured
meaningful access to LEP persons by assessing 11 different aspects of
providing greater access to LEP persons. For example, the review
focused on whether the agency had a needs assessment and a written
language assistance plan; the agency's provision of language services
(e.g., oral interpretation; written translations; and alternative,
nonverbal methods); and its provision of language access to its
grievance or complaint procedures. Brownsville was found deficient in 5
of the 11 areas, as shown in table 3.
Table 3: Results of the Pilot LEP Review of the Brownsville Urban
System in Texas:
Area examined: Needs assessment;
Result of review: Deficiency - overall assessment not conducted;
Recommendation: Identify other language needs in the community.
Area examined: Assessment of linguistically isolated populations;
Result of review: Deficiency - assessment not conducted;
Recommendation: Identify linguistically isolated populations during
overall needs assessment.
Area examined: Identification of barriers;
Result of review: Deficiency - not conducted;
Recommendation: Identify communication barriers during overall needs
assessment.
Area examined: Written language assistance plan;
Result of review: Deficiency - language assistance plan not in writing;
Recommendation: Draft written language assistance plan.
Area examined: Availability of multilingual communications;
Result of review: Deficiency - reasonable efforts to provide
multilingual communications; however, several items found only in
English;
Recommendation: Translate the hours of operation and remaining
information on the route schedules and system maps into Spanish.
Area examined: Staff training;
Result of review: No deficiency - staff aware of and understand
language assistance plan;
Recommendation: None.
Area examined: Special language assistance;
Result of review: No deficiency - adequate and effective methods for
notification of language assistance;
Recommendation: None.
Area examined: Monitoring;
Result of review: No deficiency - regular oversight provided;
Recommendation: Use passenger survey for additional feedback.
Area examined: Types of language services;
Result of review: No deficiency - adequate mix of oral interpretation
and written translations;
Recommendation: Consider the use of alternative, nonverbal methods of
communication.
Area examined: Grievance or complaint procedures;
Result of review: No deficiency - adequate complaint procedure in
place;
Recommendation: Put complaint procedure in writing.
Area examined: Limited English-proficient community outreach and
education;
Result of review: No deficiency - adequate community outreach;
Recommendation: None.
Source: GAO review of the Brownsville Pilot Title VI Assessment on
Language Access.
[End of table]
FTA's Office of Civil Rights has also recently developed an initiative
that focuses on fare and service changes, but FTA's advice to agencies
related to this initiative has not always been consistent. While this
initiative is based on the Executive Order on Environmental Justice, it
does include an LEP component. In 2004, FTA developed and disseminated
a self-assessment (also posted on the FTA's Title VI Web site) to about
20 transit agencies considering fare and service changes. This
assessment included questions about the public involvement process and
asked the transit agency whether it believed outreach to the LEP
population was warranted, and, if so, what steps the transit agency had
taken or was planning to take to inform its LEP population about the
service or fare changes and to offer this population the chance to
comment on the changes. The majority of the agencies that returned this
self-assessment reported that they had taken steps to reach out to
their LEP populations using methods similar to those previously noted
in this report, such as posting information about the upcoming fare
increases in multiple languages in vehicles and stations, advertising
the changes in other-language newspapers, and including interpreters at
public meetings established to discuss the changes. Several of the
transit agencies responding to this initiative stated that they had not
engaged in LEP outreach because the number and proportion of LEP
persons in their service areas were very small (i.e., less than 1
percent). For 1 agency, FTA encouraged the agency to conduct a further
assessment of the LEP population, even though the agency reported that
only 119 residents in its service area (less than ½ of 1 percent) did
not speak English well. Yet, in another location, where the agency
reported that only ½ of 1 percent of the service area population was
LEP, FTA encouraged the transit agency to monitor demographic trends to
determine whether limited English proficiency may become more relevant
in the future, rather than conduct a further assessment.
Another of the review processes, the triennial review, looks at whether
transit agencies that receive Urbanized Area Formula Grants have
complied with statutory and administrative requirements in 23 areas,
one of which is Title VI.[Footnote 41] Because this review covers a
wide variety of activities and federal requirements, it is not as in-
depth with regard to Title VI as Title VI compliance reviews. However,
the triennial review serves as the basic review of FTA's oversight
program. Under the Title VI section of the triennial review, specific
questions make reference to DOT's LEP guidance: "Has the grantee
assessed and addressed the ability of persons with limited English
proficiency to use transit services? Are schedules and other public
information provided in languages other than English? If yes, what
other languages are provided?" In the triennial review, the grantee is
found deficient only if a complaint has been made and the grantee has
not conducted an assessment of the population and the need for LEP
materials. However, several community and advocacy groups we met with
indicated that there may be language barriers to making a complaint,
and, as we previously discussed, there may be different cultural or
social norms that preclude LEP persons from making complaints (i.e.,
some persons may feel that it is not their place to question the
government, or may feel uncomfortable doing so).
Because a deficiency is found only if a complaint has been made and the
agency has not conducted an assessment, findings of deficiencies are
rare; although our case studies and the New Jersey survey of transit
agencies suggest that most agencies have not conducted a language needs
assessment.[Footnote 42] We reviewed 34 triennial reviews conducted in
fiscal year 2005 that identified one or more deficiencies in the area
of Title VI and found only one deficiency related to LEP. In 2005, the
Fayetteville Area System of Transit was found deficient for not
conducting an assessment of the extent to which there are LEP persons
in its service area. Within 90 days, the agency was to provide FTA with
documentation that it had conducted an LEP assessment and with
information on the steps it would take to address any needs identified.
The third of the three review processes that monitor language access
activities is the planning certification review, which looks at how
well state and regional planning processes comply with DOT planning
regulations.[Footnote 43] This review is conducted jointly by FTA and
FHWA and is also not as in-depth with regard to Title VI as Title VI
compliance reviews. One section of the review guidelines is directed at
LEP issues with regard to public participation in the planning process,
but the review does not incorporate the LEP guidance. The section
states that agencies should "if necessary, make available
communications for the hearing impaired and provide sign and foreign
language interpreters." It is not clear what constitutes a deficiency
in these reviews, and during the past 2 years, there have been no
deficiency findings regarding language.
In addition to the review processes, FTA investigates Title VI
complaints filed by the public alleging national origin discrimination
against LEP persons. These investigations focus on whether a recipient
has taken reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to LEP persons.
However, FTA has received only one complaint related to language access
to date. The complaint--which was made by West Harlem Environmental
Action, Inc.,[Footnote 44] against New York City Transit in November
2000--stated that no opportunity had been given for community groups to
comment on New York City Transit's capital plan to construct additional
bus parking facilities next to an existing bus depot. The complaint
further stated that the capital plan was not published in Spanish and
no monolingual Spanish-speaking resident of northern Manhattan was
afforded the opportunity to comment on the capital plan. New York City
Transit noted that since Executive Order 13166 and the LEP guidance
were issued after the development of its 2000-2004 capital program,
there was no requirement to issue the plan in any language other than
English at that time. FTA responded that although the executive order
and the LEP guidance were issued subsequent to the issuance of the
plan, New York City Transit should have provided language access under
its 1988 Circular on Multilingual Facilities. In resolving the
complaint, FTA requested (1) copies of Spanish translations of public
hearing notices and summaries of the capital program and (2) a report
on what steps New York City Transit had taken to involve the public,
including minority, low-income, and LEP populations, in its 2005-2009
capital planning process. FTA closed its investigation of this
complaint in letters of finding transmitted in January 2005.
Conclusions:
Transit agencies and MPOs across the country are providing a wide
variety of language access services. Determining and providing
reasonable and effective language access to transportation services,
however, is not a clear-cut matter. To do so, an agency must have a
strong understanding of the size and location of the LEP community in
its area as well as the information needs of this community, although
such assessments are rarely done. The agency must then deal with a
whole host of issues, such as determining which language access
services to provide and in what quantity, how translations are to be
accomplished, where such materials or services are best distributed,
and how such materials and services are best publicized to the LEP
communities. For agencies in very diverse areas, the challenges grow
exponentially. Specifically, some of the questions they may need to
address are as follows: How many languages should materials and
services be translated into? Is there a threshold with regard to the
size or proportion of different language groups before translations
should be provided? Will translated signs be too complex for transit
users to effectively use? Will the costs of translations, telephone,
and Web services be burdensome, given the relatively light use some of
these services may receive? Furthermore, providing language access is
just one part of a larger communication strategy for these agencies,
which can include determining how to provide useful information in
English, how to communicate with the hearing or sight impaired, or how
to deal with communication to persons with cognitive disabilities. One
clear need in all of these instances is for agencies to outreach to
these various communities and work in partnership to determine and meet
a variety of information needs.
DOT's LEP guidance, and many of the available federal resources, can
provide some assistance to transit agencies and MPOs when facing these
challenges and making decisions about the level of language access to
provide; however, the absence of local agency awareness of the
existence of these resources limits their usefulness. In addition, for
some transit agencies and MPOs, the available assistance was not
effective in helping them answer some of the difficult questions
previously outlined, because the assistance does not provide much
information on what a good language and needs assessment contains, or
how one is done. It also does not provide templates or examples of
effective language access plans, nor does it provide much help in
determining how to monitor and judge the effectiveness of agencies'
language access activities. Given the lack of data available on the
effectiveness of services, the availability of such assistance takes on
greater importance. More direct dissemination of the LEP guidance and
available assistance, and the development of additional assistance
related to conducting assessments, developing plans, and monitoring the
effectiveness of language access activities could help connect local
agencies with information and resources that may help them improve
access to their services for LEP persons.
While complaints concerning language access are rare, transit agencies'
and MPOs' language access efforts are often perceived by community
groups to be lacking in certain areas, particularly with regard to the
inclusion of such communities in decision-making processes, thus
opening up the potential for further complaints against these agencies
for not providing reasonable language access. At present, however,
monitoring and oversight activities conducted by FTA and, to a lesser
extent, FHWA, are not likely to remedy perceived gaps in the provision
of language access, due to the inconsistencies in scope and criteria
for what constitutes a deficiency. For example, one of the chief
complaints of community groups is the lack of involvement of LEP
communities or the community groups that represent them, in decision-
making processes; however, planning certification reviews do not look
at involvement per se, but rather they focus on whether interpreters
were provided at public meetings "if necessary." Furthermore, FTA's
pilot review of language access, which used DOT's LEP guidance,
revealed several deficiencies that would not have been found under
current review processes, and these deficiencies can commonly be found
across countless numbers of agencies. It is important, though, to
consider that findings of deficiency, such as those found under the
pilot review, do not necessarily indicate that an agency has been
discriminatory. Nonetheless, further incorporation of key aspects of
DOT's LEP guidance in existing review processes and consistent criteria
for what constitutes a deficiency could help transit agencies and MPOs
understand their responsibilities under the executive order and DOT's
LEP guidance and lead to improved services for LEP persons.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve awareness and understanding of DOT funding recipients'
responsibilities to provide language access services, we recommend
that, upon final issuance of DOT's LEP guidance, the Secretary of the
Department of Transportation ensure that the guidance is distributed to
all DOT funding recipients through a policy memorandum or other direct
methods and direct regional personnel to make grantees in their areas
fully aware of the existence of the guidance, and of grantee
responsibilities under the guidance.
To enhance and improve transit agencies' and MPOs' language access
activities, we recommend that the Secretary, when issuing DOT's revised
LEP guidance, take the following two actions:
* Provide additional technical assistance, such as templates or
examples, to aid these agencies in developing assessments of the size,
location, and needs of the LEP population; plans for implementing
language access services; and evaluations of the effectiveness of
agencies' language access services.
* Publicize the availability of existing federal resources on LEP
issues, including workshops, [Hyperlink, http://www.lep.gov], peer-
exchange programs, and available training to transit agencies and MPOs,
and make these resources easily accessible through an explicit link to
LEP Assistance on the Transportation Planning Capacity Building
Program's Web site.
To ensure that transit agencies and MPOs understand their
responsibilities to provide language access, and to ensure that they
are providing adequate language access to their services and their
transportation planning and decision-making processes, we recommend
that the Secretary more fully incorporate the revised LEP guidance into
current review processes by taking the following three actions:
* Include questions on whether agencies have conducted assessments,
have language access plans, and have evaluation and monitoring
mechanisms in place in Title VI compliance reviews and triennial
reviews.
* Include more specific questions regarding language access to the
planning process and involvement of LEP communities in planning
certification reviews.
* Establish consistent norms for what constitutes a deficiency in the
provision of language access across and within these review processes,
ensuring that what constitutes a deficiency could directly lead to
lesser service for LEP persons or complaints against the agency.
Agency Comments:
We obtained comments on a draft of this report from DOT officials who
generally agreed with the findings and recommendations in the report.
These officials also provided technical clarifications, which we
incorporated in the report as appropriate. In particular, the officials
said that DOT is already planning to take actions to address some of
our recommendations, including ensuring that its revised LEP guidance
is fully and appropriately distributed, and enhancing its training and
technical assistance to grantees.
We also provided DOJ with an opportunity to comment on segments of the
report that pertain to DOJ processes and policies. DOJ provided
technical clarifications, which we incorporated in the report as
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees and to the Secretary and other appropriate officials of the
Department of Transportation. We will also make copies available to
others upon request. The report will be available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. In addition,
translated summaries of this report in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese,
and Korean will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/translations].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or at [Hyperlink, siggerudk@gao.gov].
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who
made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Katherine Siggerud:
Director, Physical Infrastructure:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the types of language access services that transit
agencies and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) provide to
limited English-proficiency (LEP) populations, we visited seven
metropolitan statistical areas in Arkansas, California, Illinois, North
Carolina, and Texas. We used U.S. Census Bureau data to select site
visit locations, on the basis of the size and proportion of the LEP
population, the number of languages spoken, the growth of the LEP
population, and the extent of public transit use, to capture a variety
of different circumstances agencies may face in providing language
access services. We eliminated from our site visits areas that had
recently had in-depth reviews by the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), as well as agencies that had been highlighted in a recent report
for best practices in providing LEP access, to broaden the limited
amount of research and data available in this area. Notable areas
eliminated from our potential site visits for these reasons included
New York, New York; Washington, D.C; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle,
Washington.[Footnote 45] The relevant statistics for the seven areas we
visited are presented in table 4.
Table 4: Census Data on Language Ability and Transit Use for Seven Site
Visit Locations:
Metropolitan statistical area: Los Angeles/Riverside/Orange County,
California;
Total population aged 5 years and over in 2000 that spoke English less
than well: 2,024,765;
Percentage of population in 2000 that spoke English less than well:
12.4;
Percentage change in persons that spoke English less than well 1990-
2000: 30.0;
Major languages spoken by the LEP population: Spanish, Chinese,
Vietnamese, and Korean;
Estimated percentage of LEP persons aged 16 years and over using public
transportation[A]: 14.5.
Metropolitan statistical area: San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose,
California;
Total population aged 5 years and over in 2000 that spoke English less
than well: 551,266;
Percentage of population in 2000 that spoke English less than well:
7.8;
Percentage change in persons that spoke English less than well 1990-
2000: 59.0;
Major languages spoken by the LEP population: Spanish, Chinese,
Vietnamese, and Korean;
Estimated percentage of LEP persons aged 16 years and over using public
transportation[A]: 16.3.
Metropolitan statistical area: Chicago/Gary/Kenosha, Illinois, Indiana,
Wisconsin;
Total population aged 5 years and over in 2000 that spoke English less
than well: 522,238;
Percentage of population in 2000 that spoke English less than well:
5.7;
Percentage change in persons that spoke English less than well 1990-
2000: 75.0;
Major languages spoken by the LEP population: Spanish, Polish, Chinese,
and Korean;
Estimated percentage of LEP persons aged 16 years and over using public
transportation[A]: 11.9.
Metropolitan statistical area: Austin/San Marcos, Texas;
Total population aged 5 years and over in 2000 that spoke English less
than well: 67,115;
Percentage of population in 2000 that spoke English less than well:
5.4;
Percentage change in persons that spoke English less than well 1990-
2000: 209.0;
Major languages spoken by the LEP population: Spanish and Vietnamese;
Estimated percentage of LEP persons aged 16 years and over using public
transportation[A]: 10.5.
Metropolitan statistical area: Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, North
Carolina;
Total population aged 5 years and over in 2000 that spoke English less
than well: 38,365;
Percentage of population in 2000 that spoke English less than well:
3.2;
Percentage change in persons that spoke English less than well 1990-
2000: 607.0;
Major languages spoken by the LEP population: Spanish and Chinese;
Estimated percentage of LEP persons aged 16 years and over using public
transportation[A]: 3.8.
Metropolitan statistical area: Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point,
North Carolina;
Total population aged 5 years and over in 2000 that spoke English less
than well: 33,633;
Percentage of population in 2000 that spoke English less than well:
2.7;
Percentage change in persons that spoke English less than well 1990-
2000: 544.0;
Major languages spoken by the LEP population: Spanish and Vietnamese;
Estimated percentage of LEP persons aged 16 years and over using public
transportation[A]: 1.1.
Metropolitan statistical area: Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers,
Arkansas;
Total population aged 5 years and over in 2000 that spoke English less
than well: 9,621;
Percentage of population in 2000 that spoke English less than well:
3.1;
Percentage change in persons that spoke English less than well 1990-
2000: 1,892.0;
Major languages spoken by the LEP population: Spanish and Vietnamese;
Estimated percentage of LEP persons aged 16 years and over using public
transportation[A]: 0.0[B].
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
[A] All estimated percentages have margins of error not exceeding plus
or minus 2.5 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
[B] At the time of the 2000 Census, transit service in this area was
predominantly demand-response. Since then, Ozark Regional Transit has
begun some limited fixed-route service.
[End of table]
We conducted semistructured interviews with officials from 20 transit
agencies and 7 MPOs in these locations who were responsible for some
facet of providing language access services. We interviewed officials
from various departments, including operations, marketing, public
affairs, community relations, training, civil rights, and planning. At
smaller agencies, we interviewed the general managers as well as other
agency officials. We chose agencies in each location according to their
size and characteristics. For example, we interviewed the largest
transit agency in each location, and where there were several transit
agencies operating, we then interviewed the next largest agencies. In
certain locations, such as the Southern California area and the San
Francisco Bay Area, we were unable to interview all of the agencies in
the area due to the large number of transit agencies. In these areas,
we chose additional agencies on the basis of different operating
characteristics. For example, in Los Angeles, California, we chose to
interview the major provider of specialized transit services for
persons with disabilities, whereas, in the San Francisco Bay Area, we
chose a suburban bus system to complement the urban systems we were
obtaining information on. We also interviewed officials from the major
MPOs in areas we visited. In some cases, an MPO also may provide some
level of transportation service. For example, the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay Area operates the
region's 511 transportation information lines. In these instances, we
did not count such agencies as transit agencies, but we included the
services they provide in the appropriate section of this report.
We structured the agency interviews on the basis of the elements of the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) LEP guidance and the findings of
previous research and surveys conducted of the language access
activities of transit agencies. During our interviews, we discussed the
types of language access activities provided in terms of day-to-day
transportation services and in the planning and decision-making
process; we also discussed the costs and effects of these services. We
also reviewed documents and other information in support of the
language access services provided by transit agencies and MPOs.
We also interviewed representatives from 16 community and advocacy
groups in the areas we visited as well as representatives from national
advocacy groups, such as the National Council of La Raza, the Center
for Community Change, and the National Asian Pacific American Legal
Consortium. We chose groups in the locations we visited on the basis of
recommendations from these national groups, FTA regional officials,
transit agency officials, and our own research into the transportation
issues in these areas. We structured these interviews in order to
understand the perspectives of these community and advocacy groups with
regard to how transit agencies and MPOs in the areas are providing
access to their services to the communities these groups serve, and the
effects of these services on meeting the needs of LEP communities. The
agencies and groups we included in our interviews are listed in table
5.
Table 5: Transit Agencies, MPOs, and Community and Advocacy Groups
Interviewed:
Metropolitan statistical area: Los Angeles/Riverside/Orange County,
California;
Agency or group name: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority;
Description: The primary provider of bus, subway, and light-rail
transit services within the county of Los Angeles.
Agency or group name: Access Services;
Description: A paratransit service provider in the Southern California
region.
Agency or group name: Orange County Transportation Authority;
Description: The second largest transit provider in Southern
California, serving Orange County.
Agency or group name: Southern California Association of Governments;
Description: Metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) for the Southern
California region.
Agency or group name: Los Angeles Busrider's Union;
Description: An organization in Los Angeles that seeks to promote
environmentally sustainable public transportation for the entire
population of Los Angeles.
Agency or group name: Alameda Corridor Jobs Coalition;
Description: A grass roots organization that represents 35 other
community-based organizations in Los Angeles, whose goal is to secure
jobs and careers that offer communities living wages and ethical
benefits.
Agency or group name: Center for Community Change;
Description: A social justice organization. Part of the center is the
Transportation Equity Project that seeks to advance equity in
transportation planning and policy.
Agency or group name: Asian Pacific American Legal Center;
Description: Provides Asian and Pacific Islander and other communities
with multilingual, culturally sensitive services and legal education.
Agency or group name: Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles;
Description: The frontline law firm for low- income people in Los
Angeles.
Agency or group name: Africans in America Community Resource Center;
Description: A community group in South Los Angeles that represents
Africans living in Southern California.
Agency or group name: South Asian Network;
Description: A grassroots, community-based organization dedicated to
advancing the health, empowerment, and solidarity of persons of South
Asian origin in Southern California.
Metropolitan statistical area: San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose,
California;
Agency or group name: Municipal Transportation Agency;
Description: The primary provider of bus and rail transit services in
the city of San Francisco.
Agency or group name: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District;
Description: A regional rail transit provider serving the nine-county
Bay Area.
Agency or group name: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District;
Description: The primary bus transit provider in the city of Oakland
and the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa.
Agency or group name: Golden Gate Transit;
Description: The primary bus transit provider in Marin County.
Agency or group name: Metropolitan Transportation Commission;
Description: MPO for the nine-county Bay Area.
Agency or group name: Chinatown Community Development Center;
Description: The center provides services in six work areas--programs,
advocacy and organizing, planning, housing development, property
management, and tenant services--and has done some work in the
provision of public transportation in its community.
Agency or group name: Rescue MUNI;
Description: A transit advocacy organization for the city of San
Francisco.
Agency or group name: Urban Habitat;
Description: An advocacy and organizing group that seeks to connect
environmentalists, social justice advocates, government leaders, and
the business community.
Metropolitan statistical area: Chicago/Gary/Kenosha, Illinois, Indiana,
Wisconsin;
Agency or group name: Chicago Transit Authority;
Description: Chicago Transit Authority serves Chicago and 40 suburbs
with its extensive train lines and bus routes.
Agency or group name: PACE Suburban Bus;
Description: The provider of bus service to Chicago's six-county
suburbs.
Agency or group name: METRA Commuter Rail;
Description: The provider of commuter rail service between the downtown
Chicago business district and the counties of Cook, DuPage, Lake, Will,
McHenry, and Kane.
Agency or group name: Regional Transportation Authority;
Description: The financial oversight and regional planning body for the
three public transit operators in northeastern Illinois: the Chicago
Transit Authority, METRA commuter rail, and PACE suburban bus.
Agency or group name: Chicago Area Transportation Study;
Description: MPO for the northeastern Illinois region.
Agency or group name: Center for Neighborhood Technology;
Description: An advocacy group based in Chicago with a mission to
invent and implement new tools and methods that create livable urban
communities for everyone.
Agency or group name: Chicago Chinese Community Center;
Description: The primary community provider of services to Chicago
Chinatown residents.
Metropolitan statistical area: Austin/San Marcos, Texas; Capital Metro;
Description: The primary provider of bus transit services in the city
of Austin.
Agency or group name: Capital Area Rural Transportation System;
Description: The provider of bus transit service in the counties of
Bastrop, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell, Fayette, Hays, Lee, Travis, and
Williamson.
Agency or group name: Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization;
Description: MPO for Williamson, Travis, and Hays counties.
Agency or group name: Just Transportation Alliances;
Description: An organization that seeks to organize people with
disabilities, seniors, low-income individuals, and others for equitable
transportation through state and local alliances.
Agency or group name: Poder (Bus Rider's Union);
Description: A grass-roots organization that advocates for the Hispanic
communities in Austin.
Metropolitan statistical area: Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers,
Arkansas;
Agency or group name: Razorback Transit;
Description: The primary provider of bus transit services in the city
of Fayetteville, with the vast majority of its ridership consisting of
students and faculty at the University of Arkansas.
Agency or group name: Ozark Regional Transit, a public transit system
managed by First Transit;
Description: The primary provider of bus transit and demand-response
transit services, serving both the urban and rural areas of Benton,
Carroll, Madison, and Washington counties.
Agency or group name: Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission;
Description: The designated MPO for transportation in northwest
Arkansas.
Agency or group name: Rogers Community Support Center;
Description: A community center in Rogers, Arkansas, that provides
information and assistance to members of the community.
Metropolitan statistical area: Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, North
Carolina and Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point, North Carolina;
Agency or group name: Description: Capital Area Transit;
Description: The provider of bus transit services in the city of
Raleigh.
Agency or group name: Durham Area Transit Authority;
Description: The provider of bus and paratransit services, serving all
parts of Durham, including Research Triangle Park.
Agency or group name: Chapel Hill Transit;
Description: The provider of bus transit services throughout the Chapel
Hill, Carrboro, and University of North Carolina community.
Agency or group name: Triangle Transit Authority;
Description: The provider of regional bus transit services in Research
Triangle Park, connecting to the cities of Raleigh and Chapel Hill.
Agency or group name: Greensboro Transit Authority;
Description: The primary provider of bus transit services in the city
of Greensboro.
Agency or group name: Capital Area MPO;
Description: MPO for the Raleigh/Durham metropolitan area.
Agency or group name: Durham-Chapel Hill MPO;
Description: MPO for the western part of the Research Triangle Area.
Agency or group name: El Centro Hispano;
Description: A nonprofit, community-based organization based in Durham
dedicated to Latino empowerment through education and leadership
development.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
We also conducted interviews with officials within the Texas,
California, and North Carolina departments of transportation and
conducted additional Internet research of state departments of
transportation, to determine how these agencies were involved in
providing or monitoring language access. Furthermore, we requested that
the Community Transportation Association of America, which operates a
list-serve of Job Access and Reverse Commute grantees, send a query
requesting that any grantees involved in providing language access
services under those grants provide information on the types of
services they offer. We received two responses from this query.
We complemented these case studies and interviews with findings from a
survey of transit agencies across the country and surveys and focus
groups with LEP persons in New Jersey conducted for the New Jersey
Department of Transportation.[Footnote 46] We reviewed the methodology
of this study and found it to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes
of our report. However, the results of the surveys and focus groups
reported in this study cannot be generalized to the full universe of
transit agencies or LEP persons. Rather, we used the findings in this
study to provide additional information on the types of strategies that
agencies use as well as the types of challenges that LEP populations
face.
We synthesized the information we collected from the site visits,
structured interviews, and the New Jersey study. We analyzed this
information to identify major themes, commonalities, and differences in
the level of language access provided by transit agencies and MPOs. We
observed that almost all transit agencies and MPOs we visited provided
some level of language access services, although levels varied across
agencies and locations. Because these findings are based on a
nonprobability sample of case studies and a survey of 32 transit
agencies, they cannot be generalized to the full universe of transit
agencies or MPOs across the country.[Footnote 47] These case studies
are meant to highlight the variety of different strategies agencies may
use to improve communication with LEP persons, as well as key themes
that emerge under various circumstances.
To understand how DOT assists local agencies in providing language
access services, we interviewed officials at the Offices of Civil
Rights in FTA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
representatives from the National Transit Institute and the National
Highway Institute, and DOT regional officials. During our interviews,
we identified and discussed various resources available that may
include information on language access activities, including training
curricula and workshops. We interviewed officials from FHWA offices in
California, Maryland, and New Jersey regarding some of their LEP
activities, such as hosting workshops at annual conferences and other
assistance they have provided grantees. We reviewed Executive Order
13166, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) and DOT's draft LEP guidance,
other federal laws and regulations, and research related to providing
access to services to LEP populations. We requested copies of
identified trainings and reviewed them. We also identified and reviewed
other various DOT resources and other federal resources to determine
whether language access issues were addressed, including [Hyperlink,
http://www.lep.gov] lep.gov and peer-exchange programs maintained by
FTA and FHWA.
To understand the extent to which local agencies are accessing DOT's
resources, we discussed with local agency officials their awareness and
implementation of DOT's LEP guidance. We also discussed with these
officials whether the agency has accessed DOT's resources and, if so,
had the resources been helpful in the provision of language access
activities. In addition, we reviewed Web statistics for materials
available on the Internet for additional information on how often those
materials were accessed.
To document how FTA and FHWA monitor transit agencies' and MPOs'
provision of language access services for LEP populations, we
interviewed officials from the FTA Office of Civil Rights; the FTA
Office of Program Management; and FHWA's Office of Planning,
Environment and Realty. We also interviewed FTA regional
representatives from Arkansas, California, Illinois, North Carolina,
and Texas. We reviewed oversight documents pertaining to Title VI
compliance reviews, triennial reviews, and planning certification
reviews to determine how language access is considered by these reviews
(i.e., specific questions regarding language access activities) and to
what degree these reviews incorporate DOT's LEP guidance. In addition,
we collected available data on any findings from these reviews to
analyze the extent to which norms have been developed for reviewers to
determine whether deficiencies are found and reported. Furthermore, we
reviewed the status and outcomes of LEP complaints.
We conducted our work from February 2005 through October 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Resources Available on Providing Language Access for
Transportation Services:
Provision of Language Access Services:
* Executive Order 13166 Improving Access to Services for Persons with
Limited English Proficiency: Executive Order 13166 was signed by
President Clinton in 2000. It clarifies federal agencies and their
grant recipients' responsibilities under Title VI, to make their
services accessible to LEP populations. [Hyperlink,
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/Pubs/eolep.htm].
* DOT Guidance to Recipients on Special Language Services to Limited
English Proficient (LEP) Beneficiaries: DOT's guidance was issued in
2001. It discusses strategies for providing services to LEP persons and
outlines a five-step framework to an effective language access program
as well as innovative practices.
[Hyperlink, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/lep/dotlep.htm];
* Federal Interagency Working Group on Limited-English Proficiency: The
[Hyperlink, http://www.lep.gov] Web site, maintained by DOJ, serves as
a clearinghouse, providing and linking information, tools, and
technical assistance regarding LEP and language services for federal
agencies, recipients of federal funds, and users of federal programs
and federally assisted programs. The Web site includes a self-
assessment tool and an overview of how to develop a language assistance
plan with performance measures. There is also a video available from
the Web site on LEP access issues that could be used in training for
customer service personnel at transit agencies.
[Hyperlink, http://www.lep.gov];
* FTA Title VI Web site: FTA's Title VI Web site provides information
and resources on Title VI, including links to Executive Order 13166,
DOT's LEP guidance, and [Hyperlink, http://www.lep.gov].
[Hyperlink, http://www.fta.dot.gov/16241_ENG_HTML.htm];
* FHWA Office of Civil Rights Web site: FHWA's Office of Civil Rights
Web site provides links to Title VI, Executive Order 13166, and DOT's
LEP guidance.
[Hyperlink, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/nondis.htm];
* Workshop entitled How to Identify Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Populations in Your Locality: This workshop was given by FHWA at the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official's
2004 Civil Rights Conference. The workshop provides information on the
LEP executive order, DOT's LEP guidance, and specific information about
what resources can be used to identify LEP populations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/confworkshops04.htm];
* FTA's Innovative Practices to Increase Ridership: The Web site serves
as a central information resource on innovative strategies on various
topics. Innovative practices are submitted by transit organizations,
reviewed by FTA, and are then made available for other transit
organizations to search records, review innovations, and potentially
implement similar programs. Innovative practices regarding language
access services are available.
[Hyperlink, http://ftawebprod.fta.dot.gov/bpir/];
* FTA and FHWA's Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program:
Users can search various topics to find out if like sized or any type
of agency has posted any helpful information on those topics.
Information regarding language access services is available.
[Hyperlink, http://www.planning.dot.gov/];
* National Transit Institute course entitled Public Involvement in
Transportation Decision-Making: This course includes is a section on
ensuring that nontraditional participants, that is, minority, low-
income, and LEP populations are included in the public involvement
process that is associated with transportation planning.
[Hyperlink, http://www.ntionline.com/];
* National Highway Institute course entitled Fundamentals of Title
VI/Environmental Justice and Public Involvement in the Transportation
Decision-Making Process: These courses include a discussion on language
access issues in the planning process.
[Hyperlink, http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/];
* Caltrans Title VI Web site: Caltrans' Title VI Web site includes
information and resources on Title VI and links to FHWA's Office of
Civil Rights training resources, the Web site for the Civil Rights
Division of DOJ, and [Hyperlink, http://www.lep.gov]. In addition,
there are three training videos available for free, one specifically on
the language assistance for LEP persons.
[Hyperlink, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep/title_vi/t6_index.htm];
* Mobility Information Needs of Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
Travelers in New Jersey: A report written by Dr. Rongfang (Rachel) Liu,
prepared for the New Jersey Department of Transportation/Federal
Highway Administration. December 2004.
[Hyperlink, http://transportation.njit.edu/nctip/final_report/LEP.htm];
Community Involvement in Transportation Planning:
* The Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process: Key Issues: A
Briefing Notebook for Transportation Decisionmakers, Officials, and
Staff: Published by the Transportation Planning Capacity Building
Program, this document has information on public participation,
including sections on Title VI and Environmental Justice.
[Hyperlink,
http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/BriefingBook/BBook.htm];
* Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision-Making:
Published by FHWA, this document discusses public involvement
techniques for transportation decision making for ethnic, minority, and
low-income groups, such as including community groups that may provide
access to individuals and can serve as forums for participation.
[Hyperlink, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/contents.htm];
* Final report September 2002: Title VI Challenge Grant from the
Federal Transit Administration to the National Capital Region
Transportation Planning Board: This report outlines recommendations for
how to include communities not typically involved in the transportation
planning process. Included in the report is a discussion concerning LEP
issues.
[Hyperlink,
http://www.planning.dot.gov/Documents/EnvJustice/EJFinalReport.htm];
* Innovations in Public Involvement for Transportation Planning: This
document discusses techniques for getting the public involved in
transportation planning, such as using surveys with questions in
languages other than English and accessible to persons with
disabilities.
[Hyperlink, http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/trans.html];
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Kate Siggerud (202) 512-2834 or [Hyperlink, siggerudk@gao.gov]:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Rita Grieco, Assistant
Director; Michelle Dresben; Edda Emmanuelli-Perez; Harriet Ganson; Joel
Grossman; Diane Harper; Charlotte Kea; Grant Mallie; John M. Miller;
Sara Ann Moessbauer; Marisela Perez; Ryan Vaughan; Andrew Von Ah; Mindi
Weisenbloom; and Alwynne Wilbur made key contributions to this report.
(542052):
FOOTNOTES
[1] 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
[2] Executive Order 13166, "Improving Access to Services for Persons
with Limited English Proficiency." 65 Fed. Reg. 50121 (Aug. 16, 2000).
[3] A metropolitan statistical area is a core area containing a
substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities,
having a high degree of social and economic integration with that core.
Metropolitan statistical areas comprise one or more entire counties.
The Office of Management and Budget defines metropolitan statistical
areas for the purposes of collecting, tabulating, and publishing
federal data. Metropolitan statistical area definitions result from
applying published standards to U.S. Census Bureau data.
[4] The metropolitan statistical areas we visited were as follows: (1)
Los Angeles/Riverside/Orange County, California; (2) San
Francisco/Oakland/San Jose, California; (3) Chicago/Gary/Kenosha,
Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin; (4) Austin/San Marcos, Texas; (5)
Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers, Arkansas; (6) Raleigh/Durham/Chapel
Hill, North Carolina; and (7) Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point,
North Carolina.
[5] We did not include in our site visits, areas that recently had in-
depth reviews by FTA as well as agencies that had been highlighted in a
recent report prepared for the New Jersey Department of Transportation,
in order to broaden the limited amount of research and data available
in this area.
[6] Dr. Rongfang (Rachel) Liu, Mobility Information Needs of Limited
English Proficiency (LEP) Travelers in New Jersey (December 2004). Dr.
Liu prepared this study for the New Jersey Department of
Transportation/Federal Highway Administration. The results of this
study cannot be generalized to all transit agencies or to all LEP
persons.
[7] 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et. seq.
[8] 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
[9] 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1.
[10] Disparate impact claims involve practices that are facially
neutral in their treatment of different groups but that, in fact, fall
more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by
business necessity. Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (2003).
Under the disparate impact theory of discrimination, a facially neutral
practice may be deemed illegally discriminatory without evidence of
subjective intent to discriminate, which is required in disparate-
treatment cases.
[11] 65 Fed. Reg. 50121.
[12] 65 Fed. Reg. 50123. Additionally, DOJ developed its own guidance
document for its funding recipients, which was initially issued on
January 16, 2001. 66 Fed. Reg. 3834. Revised guidance was issued on
June 18, 2002, after revising the guidance to reflect public comments.
67 Fed. Reg. 41455.
[13] In Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), the Supreme Court
interpreted regulations similar to the DOJ regulations, and held that
Title VI prohibits conduct that has a disproportionate effect on LEP
persons because such conduct constitutes national-origin
discrimination. The Court held that a San Francisco school district
that had a significant number of non-English-speaking students of
Chinese origin was required to take reasonable steps to provide them
with a meaningful opportunity to participate in federally funded
educational programs. In Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), a
non-English-speaking applicant for a driver's license brought a lawsuit
challenging Alabama's requirement that driver's license examinations be
conducted only in the English language. The plaintiff claimed that this
violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating
against non-English speakers on the basis of their national origin.
Without addressing the merits of the claim, the Supreme Court held that
a private individual was not entitled to file a lawsuit to enforce DOJ
regulations on disparate impact under Title VI. DOJ has emphasized that
the Court did not invalidate its regulations under Title VI or
Executive Order 13166, and that those remain in force. See the October
26, 2001, Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies General
Counsels and Civil Rights Directors from Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Rights Division.
[14] Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 32.
[15] Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 29.
[16] Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 32.
[17] Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 28.
[18] Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 32.
[19] Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, pp. 27-28.
[20] Two examples of agencies with language-accessible trip planners
are the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority, which
makes that function available in several languages, and the Tri-Met in
Portland, which makes that function available in Spanish. We did not
visit these agencies.
[21] Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 29.
[22] For example, see 23 U.S.C. § 134 (i)(5) and 23 C.F.R. §
450.316(b).
[23] Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 28.
[24] Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, pp. 28-29.
[25] Several different cost components can be associated with efforts
to provide access to public transit for LEP persons. These costs must
be differentiated from costs that would ordinarily be experienced by an
agency whether a service is provided in English or in another language.
Extra costs borne by an agency that are directly attributable to LEP
access activities include the following: outside translation and
interpreter costs, cost differentials for developing and printing
materials in other languages versus providing these services in
English, the creation of translated pages on Web sites, premiums paid
to bilingual employees, and software costs to provide multiple
languages options at ticket machines.
[26] Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 32.
[27] Cost considerations are one of the factors that federal agency
guidance suggests agencies consider when determining what constitutes
reasonable access. DOJ's guidance to federal agencies states that the
resources available to an agency may have an impact on the nature of
the steps that recipients must take. Smaller recipients with more
limited budgets would not be expected to provide the same level of
services as larger recipients with larger budgets. 67 Fed. Reg. 41455,
41460 (June 18, 2002).
[28] DOT's guidance is available electronically on FTA's Web site under
"Transit Data & Info" and then "Title VI policy, Guidance &
Procedures," and through FHWA's Civil Rights Office Web site under "Non-
Discrimination."
[29] Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," issued on
February 11, 1994, directed every federal agency to make environmental
justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing the effects
of all programs, policies, and activities on "minority populations and
low-income populations." DOT's environmental justice initiatives
accomplish this goal by involving the potentially affected public in
developing transportation projects that fit harmoniously within their
communities without sacrificing safety or mobility. There are three
fundamental environmental justice principles, which are to (1) avoid,
minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health
and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on
minority populations and low-income populations; (2) ensure the full
and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the
transportation decision-making process; and (3) prevent the denial of,
reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by
minority and low-income populations.
[30] The California Department of Transportation has developed a
written department policy for LEP persons. The intent of the policy is
to ensure departmental employees are aware that LEP persons shall be
provided meaningful access to the department's programs, activities,
and services that are normally provided in English. In addition to the
draft policy for LEP, the department is in the process of finalizing
"standard" LEP office procedures for the various program areas and
districts to use. Finally, the department developed an LEP training
module, which includes requirements under state law (Dymally-Alatorre
Bi-lingual Services Act of 1973); federal law (Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964); and Executive Order 13166, "Improving Access to
Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency." This training
module will be used to inform departmental staff of LEP requirements
and assist them to ensure that the regulatory requirements are met.
Process reviews of program areas will be conducted in conjunction with
Title VI reviews to determine the level of compliance; corrective
action, if necessary; and best practices.
[31] Since 2003, FTA and FHWA have held workshops that specifically
address language issues in the context of the guidance at conferences
held by the Conference of Minority Transportation Officials, the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and
the Community Transportation Association of America.
[32] The North Carolina State Department of Transportation became aware
of DOT's LEP guidance through a 2-day workshop on Civil Rights and
Environmental Justice, which was given by FHWA at the department's
request.
[33] According to the FHWA official, the presentation should soon be
available on FHWA's Civil Rights Web site. Additionally, this official
told us the presentation will be shared with others via FHWA's internal
Community of Practice Web site.
[34] This curriculum was developed for Maryland state employees to
assist them in implementing a proposed law on language access. The
Maryland State Senate Bill requires state departments, agencies, or
programs to take reasonable steps to provide equal access to public
services for LEP individuals, which includes the translation of forms
and documents ordinarily provided to the public into any language
spoken by any LEP population that constitutes 3 percent of the overall
population within the geographic area served by a local office of a
state department, agency, or program.
[35] The Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program is designed
to help decision makers, transportation officials, and staffs resolve
the increasingly complex issues they face when addressing
transportation needs in their communities.
[36] In addition to the five courses identified, 1 transit agency in
North Carolina cited an NTI training course, entitled Customers,
Conflicts, and You: A Transit Operators Guide to Problem Solving, in
which language was discussed.
[37] We did not review overall attendance at these workshops to
determine the extent to which this information was accessed by transit
agencies nationwide, but rather we focused on whether the agencies we
visited were aware of the resources that DOT provides.
[38] Since 2002, FTA has conducted roughly six compliance reviews per
year of transit providers, state DOTs, or MPOs, final reports from
these reviews are available on FTA's Title VI Web page. See
http://www.fta.dot.gov/16241_ENG_HTML.htm. FTA identifies recipients
for review on the basis of complaints against the recipient, media
reports, recommendations of regional civil rights officials,
outstanding findings on past triennial reviews, and FTA's desire to
review both smaller and larger grantees in areas around the country.
[39] Recipients of FTA funding assistance are subject to the Title VI
compliance conditions associated with the use of these funds pursuant
to FTA Circular 4704.1, "Title VI Program Guidelines for Grant
Recipients," dated July 26, 1988; Part II, Section 117(a) of the FTA
Agreement; and FTA Circular 4702.1, "Title VI Program Guidelines for
Federal Transit Administration Recipients," dated May 26, 1988. The
program guidelines of FTA Circular 4702.1 define the components that
must be addressed and incorporated in the recipients' Title VI Program
and are the basis for the selection of compliance elements that are
reviewed in FTA discretionary reviews.
[40] FTA's Office of Civil Rights informed us that they have plans to
conduct a similar assessment of another entity in fiscal year 2006.
[41] The triennial review focuses on compliance with statutory and
administrative requirements, and, should the review reveal a deficiency
on the part of the grantee to comply with Title VI--or any other of the
23 oversight topics--further and more detailed reviews will follow to
ensure continued adherence to federal standards. In addition, grantees
found not to be in compliance may have their funding reduced or
eliminated. FTA conducts this review with some of its own personnel,
but it also uses several contractors to complete the review.
[42] Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 32.
[43] DOT prepares review guidelines for reviewers at the regional
level. These reviewers may modify their review questions on the basis
of regional differences. Every state and regional planning process is
reviewed every 3 years. Of the approximately 400 MPOs across the
country, only the largest one-third of them (in areas with populations
over 200,000) is subject to formal certification. The remaining
agencies are required to self-certify. Over a 3-year period, about 130
to 140 regional planning processes are reviewed.
[44] West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc., is a nonprofit, community-
based, environmental justice organization dedicated to building
community power to fight environmental racism and improve environmental
health, protection, and policy in communities of color.
[45] For more information on the specific language access activities of
the main transit agencies in these four areas, see Dr. Rongfang
(Rachel) Liu, Mobility Information Needs of Limited English Proficiency
(LEP) Travelers in New Jersey (December 2004). Dr. Liu prepared this
study for the New Jersey Department of Transportation/Federal Highway
Administration.
[46] Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers.
[47] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make
inferences about a population because in a nonprobability sample, some
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown
chance of being selected as part of the sample.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
