Language Access
Selected Agencies Can Improve Services to Limited English Proficient Persons Gao ID: GAO-10-91 April 26, 2010Executive Order 13166 (August 11, 2000) directs each federal agency to improve access to federal programs and services for persons with limited English proficiency (LEP). Using guidance issued by DOJ, agencies are generally required to develop recipient guidance and/or an LEP plan outlining steps for ensuring that LEP persons can access federal services and programs. As requested, GAO (1) determined which agencies have completed their recipient guidance and LEP plan, (2) assessed the extent to which the selected agencies have implemented the Executive Order consistent with DOJ's guidance, and (3) examined DOJ's and the three selected agencies' efforts to enhance collaboration. GAO analyzed the Executive Order and agencies' recipient guidance and plans posted on LEP.gov; selected the IRS, FEMA, and SBA for this review because of the amount and significance of their interaction with LEP persons; and reviewed documentation of agencies' collaborative efforts to provide access to federal services.
As of February 2010, 22 agencies have completed their recipient guidance. Additionally, DOJ has reported receiving LEP plans from 58 federal agencies. However, the total number of agencies required to complete recipient guidance and an LEP plan cannot be determined because the Executive Order makes agencies responsible for determining the need for guidance and a plan based on their interaction with LEP persons and does not require agencies to report on the results of their determination. Consequently, some agencies may determine that drafting a recipient guidance or an LEP plan is not necessary. Further, although the Executive Order requires agencies to make recipient guidance public, the same requirement does not exist for plans. DOJ's guidance contains four elements for improving access to federal programs and services by LEP persons. IRS has fully addressed each of these elements, while FEMA and SBA have made less progress, as shown in the table below. IRS has centralized its language access services within one office, overseen by an agencywide executive council. Additionally, IRS regularly identifies the LEP populations it serves, administers a variety of targeted language access services, and monitors these services for potential improvements. FEMA has demonstrated agency commitment, identified LEP populations, and delivered services during disasters, but it lacks a structured approach to monitor these services. While SBA is continuing to draft its LEP plan, the agency does not conduct a needs assessment, and provides limited monitoring of services to LEP populations. Among the three agencies GAO reviewed, FEMA collaborates with SBA and IRS to provide LEP persons a centralized location for receiving assistance during a declared disaster. Additionally, these agencies (along with 21 other federal agencies), participate in an Interagency Working Group on LEP issues. GAO identified a potential shared services approach agencies could use for translation and interpretive services.
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: Robert N. Goldenkoff Team: Government Accountability Office: Strategic Issues Phone: (202) 512-2757GAO-10-91, Language Access: Selected Agencies Can Improve Services to Limited English Proficient Persons
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-91
entitled 'Language Access: Selected Agencies Can Improve Services to
Limited English Proficient Persons' which was released on April 27,
2010.
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 Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
April 2010:
Language Access:
Selected Agencies Can Improve Services to Limited English Proficient
Persons:
GAO-10-91:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-91, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Executive Order 13166 (August 11, 2000) directs each federal agency to
improve access to federal programs and services for persons with
limited English proficiency (LEP). Using guidance issued by DOJ,
agencies are generally required to develop recipient guidance and/or
an LEP plan outlining steps for ensuring that LEP persons can access
federal services and programs. As requested, GAO (1) determined which
agencies have completed their recipient guidance and LEP plan, (2)
assessed the extent to which the selected agencies have implemented
the Executive Order consistent with DOJ‘s guidance, and (3) examined
DOJ‘s and the three selected agencies‘ efforts to enhance
collaboration. GAO analyzed the Executive Order and agencies‘
recipient guidance and plans posted on LEP.gov; selected the IRS,
FEMA, and SBA for this review because of the amount and significance
of their interaction with LEP persons; and reviewed documentation of
agencies‘ collaborative efforts to provide access to federal services.
What GAO Found:
As of February 2010, 22 agencies have completed their recipient
guidance. Additionally, DOJ has reported receiving LEP plans from 58
federal agencies. However, the total number of agencies required to
complete recipient guidance and an LEP plan cannot be determined
because the Executive Order makes agencies responsible for determining
the need for guidance and a plan based on their interaction with LEP
persons and does not require agencies to report on the results of
their determination. Consequently, some agencies may determine that
drafting a recipient guidance or an LEP plan is not necessary.
Further, although the Executive Order requires agencies to make
recipient guidance public, the same requirement does not exist for
plans. DOJ‘s guidance contains four elements for improving access to
federal programs and services by LEP persons. IRS has fully addressed
each of these elements, while FEMA and SBA have made less progress, as
shown in the table below.
Table: Elements for Improving LEP Access Addressed by the Selected
Agencies:
Element: 1. Agency commitment;
Description: Issuance and implementation of agencywide LEP plan and
issuance of guidance to funding recipients, as well as integrating
services into strategic planning, processes, and resource allocation;
IRS: Fully implemented.
FEMA: Partially implemented.
SBA: Partially implemented.
Element: 2. Needs assessment;
Description: Collection of data on size of LEP customer base,
frequency of contact, and the level of service provision needed; IRS:
Fully implemented.
FEMA: Fully implemented.
SBA: Not implemented.
Element: 3. Service delivery;
Description: Systematic and strategic provision of services and
outreach provided through internal resources, technology, and partner
organizations;
IRS: Fully implemented.
FEMA: Fully implemented.
SBA: Fully implemented.
Element: 4. Monitoring;
Description: Stakeholder feedback, ongoing measurement of resources
used and program outputs and outcomes, and compliance with civil
rights requirements;
IRS: Fully implemented.
FEMA: Partially implemented.
SBA: Partially implemented.
Source: GAO analysis of Executive Order 13166 and DOJ guidance.
[End of table]
IRS has centralized its language access services within one office,
overseen by an agencywide executive council. Additionally, IRS
regularly identifies the LEP populations it serves, administers a
variety of targeted language access services, and monitors these
services for potential improvements. FEMA has demonstrated agency
commitment, identified LEP populations, and delivered services during
disasters, but it lacks a structured approach to monitor these
services. While SBA is continuing to draft its LEP plan, the agency
does not conduct a needs assessment, and provides limited monitoring
of services to LEP populations.
Among the three agencies GAO reviewed, FEMA collaborates with SBA and
IRS to provide LEP persons a centralized location for receiving
assistance during a declared disaster. Additionally, these agencies
(along with 21 other federal agencies), participate in an Interagency
Working Group on LEP issues. GAO identified a potential shared
services approach agencies could use for translation and interpretive
services.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that DOJ, DHS, FEMA, IRS, and SBA take a variety of
steps to ensure that LEP persons can access federal services and
programs. All five agencies agreed with our recommendations and
provided technical changes that have been incorporated into this
report, as appropriate.
To view the Spanish translation of this highlights page, please see
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d10685high.pdf].
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-91] or key
components. For more information, contact Robert Goldenkoff at (202)
512-6806 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
While Many Agencies Have Completed Guidance and Plans, the Extent of
Compliance across the Executive Branch Cannot Be Determined:
IRS, FEMA, and SBA Are Implementing the Executive Order to Varying
Extents:
Opportunities Exist for Additional Collaboration and Leveraging
Resources:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Small Business Administration:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Agencies with Recipient Guidance Listed on LEP.gov:
Table 2: Agencies That Have Made Their LEP Plans Publicly Available on
LEP.gov:
Table 3: Elements for Improving LEP Access:
Table 4: Elements for Improving LEP Access:
Table 5: Elements for Improving LEP Access:
Table 6: Elements for Improving LEP Access:
Figures:
Figure 1: Elements for Improving LEP Access Addressed by Agencies:
Figure 2: IRS LEP Strategic Needs Assessment Model:
Figure 3: IRS Bilingual Tax Processing Flowchart:
Figure 4: IRS Form 433-A: Collection Information Statement for Wage
Earners and Self-Employed Individuals:
Figure 5: FEMA Tele-registration Flyers and Instructions Translated
into Farsi:
Figure 6: FEMA Tele-registration Flyers and Instructions Translated
into Bosnian:
Figure 7: FEMA Spanish Website:
Figure 8: SBA's Web Site Links to the Introduction to SBA Document in
Other Languages:
Abbreviations:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
DRC: Disaster Recovery Center:
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:
GIS: Geographic Information System:
IRS: Internal Revenue Service:
LEP: Limited English Proficiency:
LITC: Low Income Taxpayer Clinic:
MLISO: Multilingual Initiative Strategic Operations:
NVTC: National Virtual Translation Center:
SBA: Small Business Administration:
SBDC: Small Business Development Center:
TAC: Taxpayer Assistance Center:
TAS: Taxpayer Advocate Service:
VITA: Volunteer Income Tax Assistance:
WBC: Women's Business Center:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 26, 2010:
The Honorable Daniel Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable George Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Michael M. Honda:
Chairman:
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus:
According to 2007 U. S. Census Bureau data, 21.7 million adults in
America, or 9.5 percent of the population, were defined as adults that
speak English less than "very well," an increase of 21.8 percent from
2000.[Footnote 1] Persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) may
be unable to access federal programs and services that they are
otherwise eligible to receive, which in turn could affect individual
LEP persons or entire LEP communities.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person in
the United States shall be discriminated against on the basis of race,
color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal
financial assistance.[Footnote 2] On August 11, 2000, President
Clinton issued Executive Order 13166, which extended the principles of
meaningful access for limited English proficient persons embodied in
Title VI to federal agencies' programs and services. Executive Order
13166 required federal agencies to examine how to improve access for
LEP persons to programs, services, and activities conducted by both
federal agencies as well as state, local, and regional entities that
receive federal financial assistance (a group referred to in the
Executive Order as "recipients"). While the Executive Order does not
prescribe specific approaches for improving access for LEP persons, it
does require federal agencies that provide federal assistance to
state, local, or regional programs and services to develop guidelines
(referred to as recipient guidance) that clarifies their Title VI
obligations. It also requires agencies to prepare LEP plans outlining
the steps they will take to ensure that eligible LEP persons can
access their programs and activities. The Executive Order gives the
Department of Justice (DOJ) responsibility for approving agencies'
recipient guidance and serving as a central repository of agencies'
plans.
In light of the growing size and diversity of the nation's LEP
communities, you asked us to examine aspects of the implementation of
the Executive Order governmentwide, and to provide illustrative
examples of how specific agencies were meeting the Executive Order's
requirements. As agreed with your offices, we (1) determined which
executive branch agencies have completed recipient guidance and plans;
(2) assessed the extent to which three selected agencies have
implemented the Executive Order consistent with DOJ's guidance; and
(3) examined DOJ's and the selected agencies' efforts to enhance
collaboration to improve access to federal programs and services for
LEP populations, as well as other potential opportunities for
collaboration.
To determine which executive branch agencies have completed recipient
guidance and LEP plans, we reviewed the recipient guidance and LEP
plans published on LEP.gov, a Web site created and maintained by DOJ
to implement the Executive Order. We also reviewed the requirements of
the Executive Order and DOJ's guidance that was issued to assist
agencies in developing their recipient guidance. Additionally, we
interviewed DOJ officials regarding the technical advice they provided
to federal agencies on preparing recipient guidance and LEP plans. We
assessed whether the selected agencies implemented four elements
discussed in the DOJ guidance, specifically (1) agency commitment, (2)
needs assessment, (3) service delivery, and (4) monitoring. These
elements were assessed to determine whether they were fully
implemented, partially implemented, or not implemented. For example,
an agency would be assessed as having implemented the "agency
commitment" element if it had completed its recipient guidance and/or
LEP plan and had incorporated into its agency mission, strategic
plans, processes, and resource allocation. Additionally, if its
recipient guidance and/or LEP plan had not been formalized and/or it
had not integrated its language access efforts into all aspects of its
plans, processes, or resources, the agency would be assessed as having
partially implemented the agency commitment element. An agency would
be assessed as minimally implementing this element if it had taken no
actions or minimal actions to address the element.
To review the extent to which selected agencies have implemented the
Executive Order consistent with DOJ guidance, we selected three
agencies to obtain a range of different types of interactions with,
and services provided to LEP populations, as well as a mix of agencies
with diverse missions and size. Specifically, we reviewed the
following agencies:
* Internal Revenue Service (IRS), with 90,647 full-time equivalents
and a budget of $11 billion as of fiscal year 2008, which interacts
with all taxpayers nationwide. All persons earning an income are
subject to paying taxes regardless of citizenship, immigrant status,
or level of English proficiency.[Footnote 3]
* Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), with 2,765 permanent
full-time equivalents and several thousand part time disaster
assistance employees and a budget of $20 billion as of fiscal year
2008, which leads federal efforts to prepare for, prevent, respond to,
and recover from all hazards. It provides life-sustaining and life-
saving services and information to LEP and non-LEP persons affected by
presidentially declared disasters.
* Small Business Administration (SBA), with 3,636 full-time
equivalents and a budget of $1.6 billion as of fiscal year 2008, which
provides services and grants to LEP and non-LEP persons seeking
assistance to start and build upon their small businesses.
Additionally, it assists small businesses in recovery from disasters
through its disaster assistance program.
Because these agencies were a nonrandom selection, the results cannot
be generalized to other federal agencies. For each of the three
agencies, we analyzed the selected agencies' recipient guidance for
their funding recipients, their LEP plans and language access
policies, and their strategic and human capital plans, and interviewed
agency officials responsible for implementing the Executive Order.
To review DOJ's and the three selected agencies' collaborative
efforts, we reviewed DOJ, IRS, FEMA, and SBA documentation of these
efforts and compared those programs with practices that we have
identified that enhance collaboration.[Footnote 4] Additionally, we
interviewed officials who participate in interagency language groups
and programs as well as officials from the selected agencies that
collaborate with other agencies. To examine additional opportunities
for collaboration, we interviewed officials from the National Virtual
Translation Center (NVTC), created by statute and housed by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, which makes translation services
available to 15 federal intelligence agencies on an as needed basis.
To observe the agencies' language access services and collaborative
efforts and to obtain views of agency officials who interact directly
with LEP persons, we interviewed IRS, FEMA, and SBA officials in
California, Georgia, Louisiana, North Dakota, Texas, Washington, and
Washington, D.C. We selected these states because of the nature and
significance of agencies' field office interaction with LEP persons
and the diversity of the LEP populations in these locations.
In addition to this report, we have recently issued other reports
addressing the federal government's foreign language capabilities.
These reports cover several federal agencies' efforts, including the
Department of Transportation's efforts to serve their LEP customers;
Health and Human Services's (HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services translation of documents and HHS's Child Care Bureau process
for sharing information to improve access to LEP families; services
for English language learners administered by the Departments of
Education, Labor, HHS, and National Institute for Literacy; and the
foreign language capabilities of the Department of Defense and the
Department of State. A list of these related GAO products is provided
at the end of this report. Together, these reports provide a broad
perspective on the extent to which the federal government is
developing the necessary foreign language capabilities and cultural
sensitivities to face the nation's emerging foreign language challenges.
Because these reports broadly cover federal agencies capabilities and
recipient issues, we excluded these agencies from this review. We also
excluded the U.S. Census Bureau from this review due to the numerous
reports we have issued on the Census Bureau's efforts to increase
participation of LEP persons in the decennial Census.[Footnote 5]
We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to February
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Additional
details on the scope and methodology for this review are provided in
appendix I.
Background:
Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, state, local, or
regional entities that receive federal funding to provide programs and
services may not discriminate based on race, color, or national
origin. Executive Order 13166 extends the language access requirements
of Title VI to federal agencies that provide programs and services
themselves and specifically addresses persons who, as a result of
their national origin, are LEP persons. While the Executive Order does
not prescribe specific approaches to language access services, it does
require federal agencies to prepare plans (referred to as LEP plans)
outlining the steps they will take to ensure that eligible LEP persons
can access their programs and activities. According to DOJ, these LEP
plans are important because they outline the steps agencies will take
to ensure that eligible LEP persons can access federal programs and
activities.
Federal agencies that provide financial assistance to state, local, or
regional programs and services are also required to develop guidance
(referred to as recipient guidance) that clarifies the funding
recipients' obligations under Title VI. Rather than express uniform
rules of compliance, DOJ's guidance incorporates "reasonableness" as
its guiding principle by suggesting agencies assess their programs,
services, or activities using four factors: (1) the number or
proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be
encountered by the program or recipient; (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 recipient; and (4) the resources available to the
recipient and the costs of language access services. By instructing
agencies to use this four-factor analysis, DOJ's guidance intends to
create a balance between ensuring meaningful access to critical
services for LEP persons and not imposing undue burdens on federal
agencies or the small businesses, local governments, or nonprofits
that may be receiving federal assistance.
The Executive Order required agencies to develop and implement their
LEP plans by December 11, 2000. Agencies were required to send copies
of their LEP plans to the Coordination and Review Section (COR) of
DOJ's Civil Rights Division, which is responsible for serving as a
central repository for agencies' plans.[Footnote 6] Additionally, COR
is responsible for providing technical assistance to federal agencies
in developing LEP plans and recipient guidance. Agencies' recipient
guidance was to be submitted to DOJ for review and approval by
December 11, 2000. Following DOJ's approval, each agency was required
to publish its recipient guidance in the Federal Register for public
comment. Agencies also placed their recipient guidance on LEP.gov, a
Web site created by the Federal Interagency Working Group on LEP
formed by DOJ in 2002 to share information on efforts to implement the
Executive Order. COR maintains the Web site.
While Many Agencies Have Completed Guidance and Plans, the Extent of
Compliance across the Executive Branch Cannot Be Determined:
As of December 1, 2009, 22 federal departments and independent
agencies, including 13 of the 16 executive-level departments, had
posted completed guidance for funding recipients on LEP.gov. Of these
cabinet-level departments, recipient guidance for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense, and Department of
Agriculture are listed as "pending." Table 1 lists the agencies that
have posted their recipient guidance.
Table 1: Agencies with Recipient Guidance Listed on LEP.gov:
Executive-level agencies:
* Department of Commerce;
* Department of Education;
* Department of Energy;
* Department of Health and Human Services;
* Department of Housing and Urban Development;
* Department of Interior;
* Department of Justice;
* Department of Labor;
* Department of State;
* Department of Transportation;
* Department of the Treasury;
* Department of Veterans Affairs;
* Environmental Protection Agency.
Independent agencies:
* Corporation for National and Community Service;
* General Services Administration;
* Institute of Museum and Library Sciences;
* National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
* National Archives and Records Administration;
* National Endowment for the Arts;
* National Endowment for the Humanities;
* National Science Foundation;
* Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Source: www.LEP.gov as December 2009.
[End of table]
The number of federal agencies that still must complete recipient
guidance or LEP plans could not be determined. The Executive Order
does not assign DOJ the responsibility for ensuring agencies complete
recipient guidance or LEP plans. Rather, under the Executive Order,
executive branch agencies are responsible for determining the need to
develop recipient guidance based on whether they provide financial
assistance to entities that provide federal services to LEP
populations. Likewise, agencies are responsible for determining if
they must draft LEP plans by assessing whether they have frequent or
significant contact with LEP persons. If an agency determines that it
is not required to draft recipient guidance, an LEP plan, or both, the
agency is not required to report that determination to DOJ. DOJ has,
however, provided technical assistance in many of these determinations
and issued numerous reminders to agencies regarding their
responsibilities under the Executive Order. For example, on November
12, 2002, the Civil Rights Division issued a memorandum to heads of
federal agencies, general counsels, and civil rights directors.
Section II of that memorandum asks that each federal agency draft or
update LEP plans and urged each agency to place a copy of that plan on
its Web site and provide COR with the link so that it could be placed
on LEP.gov. Other DOJ letters, speeches, and memoranda have encouraged
agencies to publish recipient guidance and to issue or update LEP plans.
Although the Executive Order requires agencies' recipient guidance to
be placed in the Federal Register for public comment, there is no
similar requirement that agencies make their LEP plans publicly
available. Rather, DOJ officials stated that, while it has encouraged
agencies to post LEP plans and provide links to those plans on
LEP.gov, agencies are given the discretion to make their LEP plans
public. Of the 58 agencies that had submitted LEP plans to DOJ as of
December 2009, 17 agencies have posted their LEP plans on LEP.gov,
these are listed in table 2.
Table 2: Agencies That Have Made Their LEP Plans Publicly Available on
LEP.gov:
Executive-level agencies:
* Department of Education;
* Department of Energy;
* Department of Housing and Urban Development;
* Department of Justice.
Independent agencies:
* Consumer Product Safety Commission;
* Equal Opportunity Employment Commission;
* Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
* Federal Trade Commission;
* National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
* National Council on Disability;
* National Credit Union Administration;
* National Endowment for the Arts;
* Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
* Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation;
* Railroad Retirement Board;
* Social Security Administration;
* U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Source: www.LEP.gov as of December 2009.
[End of table]
Our prior work has noted that high-performing organizations focus on
the needs of their external stakeholders. Additionally, on December 8,
2009, OMB issued a memo directing agency heads to promote transparency
and accountability by providing the public timely access to
information on the activities of federal agencies.[Footnote 7] As
such, publicly available LEP plans could help ensure that federal
agencies appropriately focus on the needs of LEP communities by
enhancing the transparency of agencies' efforts and allowing for
stakeholder scrutiny. Stakeholder review of LEP plans is especially
important given the consequences that may occur if LEP communities do
not have the appropriate level of access to federal programs and
activities.
Of our three selected agencies, only IRS has posted its completed
recipient guidance.[Footnote 8] FEMA and SBA have their recipient
guidance listed as "pending." In regard to LEP plans, only IRS has
issued an LEP plan, while FEMA and SBA have not.[Footnote 9]
IRS, FEMA, and SBA Are Implementing the Executive Order to Varying
Extents:
The elements of an effective LEP plan, which involve agency
commitment, a comprehensive needs assessment, systematic provision of
services, and ongoing monitoring are included in DOJ's
guidance.[Footnote 10] We used these elements as criteria to assess
the selected agencies' progress in implementing aspects of the
Executive Order. As shown in figure 1, IRS has addressed all the
elements of an effective LEP Plan while FEMA has addressed half the
elements, and SBA has met one element.
Figure 1: Elements for Improving LEP Access Addressed by Agencies:
[Refer to PDF for image: table]
Element: 1. Agency commitment;
Description: Issuance and implementation of agencywide LEP plan and
issuance of guidance to funding recipients, as well as integrating
services into strategic planning, processes, and resource allocation;
IRS: Fully implemented.
FEMA: Partially implemented.
SBA: Partially implemented.
Element: 2. Needs assessment;
Description: Collection of data on size of LEP customer base,
frequency of contact, and the level of service provision needed; IRS:
Fully implemented.
FEMA: Fully implemented.
SBA: Not implemented.
Element: 3. Service delivery;
Description: Systematic and strategic provision of services and
outreach provided through internal resources, technology, and partner
organizations;
IRS: Fully implemented.
FEMA: Fully implemented.
SBA: Fully implemented.
Element: 4. Monitoring;
Description: Stakeholder feedback, ongoing measurement of resources
used and program outputs and outcomes, and compliance with civil
rights requirements;
IRS: Fully implemented.
FEMA: Partially implemented.
SBA: Partially implemented.
Source: GAO analysis of Executive Order 13166 and DOJ guidance.
Note: Language access services that are a part of service delivery
include oral interpretation and written translation.
[End of figure]
IRS, FEMA, and SBA Show Varying Levels of Commitment to Providing
Language Services:
Table 3: Elements for Improving LEP Access:
[Highlighted: 1. Agency Commitment:
Implementation of agencywide LEP plan and issuance of guidance to
funding recipients, as well as integrating services into strategic
planning, processes, and resource allocation. End Highlight]
2. Needs Assessment:
Collection of data on size of LEP customer base, frequency of contact,
and the level of service provision needed.
3. Service Delivery:
Systematic and strategic provision of services and outreach provided
through internal resources, technology, and partner organizations.
4. Monitoring:
Stakeholder feedback, ongoing measurement of resources used and
program outputs and outcomes, and compliance with civil rights
requirements.
Source: GAO analysis of Executive Order and DOJ guidance.
[End of table]
Agencies can articulate their commitment to serving LEP populations by
issuing an LEP plan and recipient guidance, integrating language
access services into strategic plans, and aligning those services with
core processes, activities, and resource allocations. Of the three
agencies we reviewed, only IRS had fully implemented this element,
while FEMA and SBA had partially implemented this element.
Specifically, IRS has issued an LEP plan and recipient guidance.
[Footnote 11] Additionally, based on its prior multilingual policy
from 1999 and the requirements of the Executive Order, IRS's LEP plan
notes that it's Multilingual Initiative, originally implemented in
2000, would expand and integrate products and services to improve
service for LEP taxpayers.
IRS has further demonstrated its commitment to serving LEP populations
by establishing a Language Services Executive Council to oversee its
Multilingual Initiative. The council, which includes senior executives
and stakeholders from all of IRS's major business operating divisions,
sets agency policy, objectives, and strategy for serving LEP persons.
To implement the decisions of the council, IRS created the
Multilingual Initiative Strategic Operations unit, a central office
that has the responsibility for facilitating the delivery of language
assistance to LEP taxpayers by the agency's different divisions.
IRS and Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) recognize that LEP individuals
face challenges in meeting their tax obligations and, consequently,
have integrated improvements for delivering services to LEP
populations into their strategic planning. IRS's Strategic Plan for
2005-2009, the Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint (the agency's strategic
plan for taxpayer service), the agency's workforce plan, pilot
programs, and grant applications all emphasize the importance of
communicating with and serving LEP populations, demonstrating its
commitment to improving LEP persons' access to IRS's programs and
services.
According to DHS officials, DHS submitted its draft recipient guidance
to DOJ in April 2009 and received approval in March 2010, pending
incorporation of several comments from DOJ into the draft. DHS expects
to send the recipient guidance to the Office of Management and Budget
for publication in the Federal Register in April 2010. DHS informed us
that the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will lead the
Department in finalizing the LEP plan. FEMA officials stated that,
prior to its merger with DHS, FEMA developed an LEP plan and recipient
guidance in 2002, which they have used in the absence of an LEP plan
issued by DHS. FEMA officials stated that they were instructed to not
publish their recipient guidance and LEP plan in the Federal Register
until a DHS-wide LEP plan and recipient guidance was developed.
FEMA disperses the authority and responsibility of improving LEP
access among its disaster directorates. FEMA officials stated that, as
a result, providing the information and services for LEP persons is
not the responsibility of a particular FEMA office, rather these
efforts are integrated into various agency programs and activities.
After Hurricane Katrina and the passage of the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006, the agency took steps to improve
services to LEP persons within all of its directorates, including,
updating standard operating procedures, translating necessary
materials, training staff on communicating with LEP persons, and
including LEP persons in planning and preparedness activities.
[Footnote 12]
Similar to FEMA, SBA had not issued its recipient guidance or LEP plan
by December 1, 2009, however, SBA officials provided us with their
draft recipient guidance. They attributed the delay in completing
their LEP plan and recipient guidance to several factors, including
staff turnover in key positions that are responsible for developing
and approving their LEP plan and recipient guidance as well as a major
transformation effort involving SBA's business operations, goals, and
staffing arrangements. SBA officials did not provide a specific date
for the completion of their LEP plan and recipient guidance.
At SBA, language access services are decentralized in that they are
not coordinated by any central office. Furthermore, SBA's strategic
plan, and program announcements for the Small Business Development
Centers (SBDC), and Women's Business Centers (WBC) do not mention
services in non-English languages and do not emphasize identifying and
serving LEP populations. Because SBA provides both business
development services as well as disaster-recovery assistance that
require different language access services, SBA should use DOJ's
guidance to help it complete its LEP plan and recipient guidance
consistent with SBA's specific requirements.
Rigor of Agencies' Needs Assessments Varies:
Table 4: Elements for Improving LEP Access:
1. Agency Commitment:
Implementation of agencywide LEP plan and issuance of guidance to
funding recipients, as well as integrating services into strategic
planning, processes, and resource allocation.
[Highlighted: 2. Needs Assessment:
Collection of data on size of LEP customer base, frequency of contact,
and the level of service provision needed. End Highlight]
3. Service Delivery:
Systematic and strategic provision of services and outreach provided
through internal resources, technology, and partner organizations.
4. Monitoring:
Stakeholder feedback, ongoing measurement of resources used and
program outputs and outcomes, and compliance with civil rights
requirements.
Source: GAO analysis of Executive Order and DOJ guidance.
[End of table]
Of the three selected agencies, IRS and FEMA have implemented a needs
assessment process, while SBA has not. Specifically, IRS and FEMA
conduct national and local needs assessments of LEP populations, but
SBA does not. To help ensure optimal use of resources, DOJ's guidance
states that agencies should conduct a needs assessment to identify
their LEP customer base and how frequently they interact with LEP
persons. Although DOJ's guidance states that such an assessment helps
agencies identify appropriate and cost-effective language assistance
services, the guidance does not specify how frequently agencies should
conduct this assessment. Instead, the guidance gives agencies
considerable flexibility in conducting these assessments and only
suggests that LEP plans be updated periodically.
IRS uses a comprehensive approach to determine the needs of LEP
persons and communities. For example, at the national level, IRS
completes three types of assessments to create a profile of LEP
taxpayers, including (1) a demographic assessment of LEP persons
eligible to be served or encountered, (2) an internal assessment of
the multilingual products and services across the agency available to
LEP persons, and (3) an external assessment of the effectiveness of
language access services from the perspectives of internal and
external stakeholders. IRS integrates data from these assessments and
produces a Customer Base Report every 3 years. Figure 1 presents IRS's
LEP strategic needs assessment model that consists of these three
assessments.
Figure 2: IRS LEP Strategic Needs Assessment Model:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Strategic Assessment (MLI Strategy Office):
1) Demographic Assessment:
Research:
* Census Bureau;
* Department of Labor;
* Department of Education.
- Top languages;
- Top locations;
- Profiles of LEP demographics:
Who are the LEP?
Where are they?
What are their characteristics?
2) Internal Assessment:
* Performance data;
* Focus groups.
- Existing products/services;
- Current demand;
- Current cost for providing services;
- Available employee tools;
- Employee training:
Current level of language assistance;
Available employee tools and training.
3) External Assessment:
* Market Segment Survey;
* Focus groups at Tax Forum;
* Surveys from Tax Forum;
* Earned Income Tax Credit data;
* Low Income Tax Clinic data.
- Effectiveness of existing products/services;
- Need for additional products/services.
Vital documents;
Improvement projects.
Information from the three assessments combine to help formulate:
LEP Customer Base Report, which leads to:
Strategic Planning.
Source: IRS.
[End of figure]
IRS officials use the Customer Base Report to assist in all major
strategic decision making regarding multilingual services provided by
IRS and its recipients. Following the four-factor analysis described
in DOJ's guidance, IRS has used the data from the Customer Base Report
to identify Spanish as the "regularly encountered language," and
Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian, and Korean as other predominant
languages. Moreover, IRS uses data from the Customer Base Report and
elsewhere to determine program priorities, budgetary and training
needs, and changes needed in service provision, as well as to choose
new initiatives and the geographic areas into which IRS should direct
funding for recipients. As an example, IRS's Low Income Taxpayer
Clinic (LITC) program considers an area's language needs when
analyzing grant proposals by relating the placement of clinics to
population density of homes where Spanish is spoken.
FEMA officials stated that they rely on census data to develop the
agency's national needs assessment, which is conducted by FEMA's
Office of External Affairs, Multilingual Function within the Disaster
Operations Directorate. Additionally, data from FEMA's National
Processing Service Center is aggregated to identify the most commonly
encountered languages used by individuals applying for disaster
assistance. FEMA combines these data sources with literacy and poverty
rates and FEMA's historical data on the geographic areas most prone to
disasters. Furthermore, practices identified by other federal and
state agencies as well as practitioners in the translation industry
are reviewed and used in preparing this assessment. Through its needs
assessment, FEMA officials reported that FEMA has identified 13 of the
most frequently encountered languages spoken by LEP communities.
SBA does not conduct a national needs assessment. SBA officials
reported researching the number and characteristics of immigrant
business owners; however the agency does not perform a similar
analysis for LEP business owners. Additionally, SBA does not
systematically collect data on the number of interactions it has with
LEP persons from its programs or those conducted by its funding
recipients. Although the intake forms for clients participating in
funding recipients' programs sometimes will include a field for the
LEP business owner's primary language, SBA does not require this
information to be collected or included in quarterly reports prepared
by funding recipients. Without being able to identify the size and
characteristics of its LEP client base, and without tracking
information on the number of LEP clients it serves, SBA may find it
difficult to estimate the size, location, and specific needs of the
eligible LEP populations, a necessary step to ensure that LEP persons
are given equal access to its programs and activities.
At the local level, IRS and TAS funding recipients that we interviewed
have strong ties to LEP communities, and use networks of social
service organizations to locate and target isolated communities. For
example, the Legal Aid Society of San Diego, an LITC, partners with a
social service provider within the LEP community, and interacts with
local coalitions of community-based organizations, enabling it to draw
on successful outreach strategies and learn about new or isolated LEP
communities.[Footnote 13] Although IRS and TAS collect data from
recipients on the overall number of LEP customers served, reports from
funding recipients that we reviewed do not include details on the
specific language group served or their particular service needs. TAS
officials may want to assess whether it would be beneficial to collect
this data from its funding recipients to identify potential
improvements to the services provided to LEP persons.
TAS's local taxpayer advocate offices lack a formal procedure to
conduct needs assessments of LEP populations at the local level. TAS
uses national data from IRS's Customer Base Report and contracts with
a firm to conduct market research on Spanish-speaking customers.
Interviews at selected IRS local taxpayer advocate offices indicated
that they did not have systematic procedures for identifying the LEP
communities in their jurisdictions but instead relied on staff
familiarity with the area or information from other organizations,
rather than established data sources. Although the staff's information
might be useful, it may not be comprehensive. Indeed, by using more
comprehensive and verifiable data sources, TAS will more likely be
able to ensure that the local taxpayer advocate offices are not
missing LEP populations in their jurisdictions or inadequately
addressing the needs of existing LEP populations.
Locally, in response to a disaster, FEMA conducts a needs assessment
by following its standard operating procedures, which describe actions
to be taken from the date of notice of a disaster until four days
following the disaster's occurrence. FEMA's Multilingual Function
staff use information from the U.S. Census Bureau, data from local
school districts, and information from foreign language media outlets
in the area to help FEMA determine the amount of funding required to
ensure proper communication with affected LEP communities. In addition
to this research, FEMA staff conduct an on-the-ground assessment to
evaluate damages and locate victims. Together with staff from other
federal, state, and local agencies, FEMA staff go door to door in
areas affected by a disaster to assess damages, identify victims,
provide assistance, and communicate disaster information. Data from on-
the-ground assessments are included in a jurisdictional profile, a
record providing a brief snapshot of the disaster area's demographics,
government jurisdictions, and damages sustained. Demographic
information contained in jurisdictional profiles, which are meant to
be updated regularly throughout FEMA's disaster response, help FEMA
identify LEP populations and tailor disaster assistance information
for specific language needs. In addition to jurisdictional profiles,
FEMA uses analytical techniques to identify LEP victims of potential
disasters, specifically, geographic information systems technology,
demographic data, models of natural disasters, and estimates of the
disaster's effects.
In addition to these standard operating procedures for disaster
response, in the spring of 2009, FEMA has recently formalized new
procedures to identify LEP communities at the local level. While the
agency's national needs assessment provides a starting point to
identify LEP communities across the country, the assessment does not
fully ensure that FEMA identifies the existence and location of LEP
populations in small communities within states and counties. To that
end, officials from FEMA's Multilingual Function developed a common
set of procedures for identifying the location and size of LEP
populations at the local level. The new procedures include collecting
data from national, state, and local sources, and creating a profile
of community language needs, local support organizations, and local
media outlets. FEMA initiated this pilot program while responding to a
flood affecting North Dakota and Minnesota in the spring of 2009; the
program enabled FEMA officials to develop communication strategies
targeted to Arabic, Bosnian, Chinese Simplified, Dinka, Farsi,
Kirundi, Kurdish, Nepali, Somali, Spanish, Swahili, and Vietnamese LEP
communities. FEMA officials stated that they have formalized these
procedures for use in responding to future presidentially declared
disasters.
SBA does not request or systematically receive information on the
number and characteristics of LEP persons served by funding recipients
that provide grants and other services to LEP business owners at the
local level. District-level officials we interviewed did not have
systematic, data-driven means for assessing their LEP populations.
During a disaster recovery operation, SBA mainly relies on FEMA's
resources to identify language needs for interpretation and
translation services, and the effectiveness of SBA's efforts is
dependent on the accuracy of FEMA's assessment. In addition to working
with FEMA to identify language needs, SBA's Customer Service
Representatives in the Office of Disaster Assistance perform outreach
in each community where a disaster occurs and alert management when
they determine a language need. The Office of Disaster Assistance
regularly attends community meetings and continually collaborates with
FEMA to ensure all language needs are met.
Each Selected Agency Provides Services Using Internal Resources,
Technology, and Partner Organizations to Varying Degrees:
Table 5: Elements for Improving LEP Access:
1. Agency Commitment:
Implementation of agencywide LEP plan and issuance of LEP guidance to
funding recipients, as well as integrating services into strategic
planning, processes, and resource allocation.
2. Needs Assessment:
Collection of data on size of LEP customer base, frequency of contact,
and the level of service provision needed.
[Highlighted: 3. Service Delivery:
Systematic and strategic provision of services and outreach provided
through internal resources, technology, and partner organizations. End
Highlight]
4. Monitoring:
Stakeholder feedback, ongoing measurement of program outputs and
outcomes, resources used, and compliance with civil rights
requirements.
Source: GAO analysis of Executive Order and DOJ guidance.
[End of table]
IRS, FEMA, and SBA all have implemented services for LEP persons,
specifically translation and interpretation services that are provided
either through internal resources or contracted services. While IRS
provides some services in several different languages that have been
identified through its needs assessment, the majority of its
translation and interpretation services are in Spanish. For example,
IRS translates numerous publications and some selected tax forms into
Spanish. Figure 3 and 4 provide an example of a bilingual publication
describing the process for filing an income tax return and a tax form
translated into Spanish used for collecting information from wage
earners and self-employed individuals.
Figure 3: IRS Bilingual Tax Processing Flowchart:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration in both English and Spanish]
Tax Processing Flowchart:
Prepare and Complete Return:
Paper:
6-8 weeks: If you don't have a Social Security Number, attach Form W-
7, ITIN Application.
e-file:
1-2 weeks: You have online access to information about your refund 72
hours after IRS acknowledges receipt of your e-filed return, or three
to four weeks after mailing a paper return.
If you owe taxes, make your payment: Submit Return.
Processing:
Check status of tax return by:
* Calling: 1-800-829-1040;
* Tele Tax: 1-800-829-4477;
* Refund Hotline: 1-800-829-1954;
* Access Internet: www.irs.gov.
Refund sent, or:
If balance due and no payment, notice sent. Return to processing.
Common Problems that Delay Processing:
* Incorrect information (SSN, ITIN, birthdate);
* Math errors;
* Tax law;
* Filing status;
* Exemptions;
* Deductions;
* Dependents;
* Credits.
Provide corrected information; return to processing.
Source: IRS.
[End of figure]
Figure 4: IRS Form 433-A: Collection Information Statement for Wage
Earners and Self-Employed Individuals:
[Refer to PDF for image: copy of IRS Form 433-A]
Source: IRS.
[End of figure]
According to the DOJ Guidance, whether a document (or the information
it solicits) is considered "vital" depends upon the importance of the
program, information, or service involved, and the potential
consequence to the LEP person if the information in question is not
provided accurately or in a timely manner. Although the DOJ Guidance
acknowledges the difficulty of classifying documents as vital or
nonvital, it still encourages agencies to create a plan for
consistently determining, over time and across its various activities,
what documents are ''vital'' to provide meaningful access for the LEP
populations they serve. Additionally, our prior work has identified
the importance of classifying documents as vital and has recommended
that agencies develop policies to ensure that vital documents are
translated, as appropriate.[Footnote 14] To guide the agency's efforts
to provide translation services, IRS has developed criteria for
determining whether a document is vital (required by law or containing
critical information for taxpayers to receive a benefit or service),
or nonvital (for education and outreach). IRS's Virtual Translation
Office has identified 97 vital documents of which 89 have been
translated.[Footnote 15] Based on the results of prior assessments,
IRS has decided that its vital documents should only be translated
into the regularly encountered language (i.e., Spanish), while
nonvital documents may be translated into any language where that
language is highly concentrated. An IRS official explained that
translating vital documents into other languages would pose additional
challenges on the agency, due to the complexity of ensuring high
quality translation of legal documents, and the large impact it would
have on IRS offices responsible for processing tax forms and other
documents submitted by LEP persons. In addition to these translation
services, the agency has 2,990 bilingual staff members who directly
assist taxpayers, handle telephone inquiries from Spanish speaking
persons, address taxpayer correspondence in Spanish, and conduct
outreach to LEP communities.
FEMA also translates materials and makes them available to disaster
victims based on the languages identified at that disaster. However,
FEMA does not necessarily provide the public with general disaster
information uniformly in all of the 13 frequently encountered
languages it identified. While FEMA officials cited resource
limitations as the reason for this, FEMA's lack of criteria for
determining vital documents, and the large number of identified
languages, are likely contributing factors for not providing disaster
information uniformly in different languages. Between October 2006 and
August 2009, FEMA's External Affairs Multilingual Function translated
approximately 3,400 written documents, covering issues related to
community relations, media outreach, disaster preparedness, and
recovery activities. FEMA officials determine which languages to
translate documents based on the language needs of LEP populations in
a specific disaster area. For example, during the floods in North
Dakota, to better serve residents who originally hailed from the
Middle East, central Asia, and the Balkans, FEMA's translated flyers
promoting its teleregistration process for disaster assistance were
translated into Farsi and Bosnian, as shown in figures 5 and 6 below.
Figure 5: FEMA Tele-registration Flyers and Instructions Translated
into Farsi:
[Refer to PDF for image: FEMA Tele-registration Flyer in Farsi]
Source: FEMA.
[End of figure]
Figure 6: FEMA Tele-registration Flyers and Instructions Translated
into Bosnian:
[Refer to PDF for image: FEMA Tele-registration Flyer in Bosnian]
Source: FEMA.
[End of figure]
DOJ guidance states that an LEP person's awareness of their rights or
the services available to them contributes to meaningful access.
Unlike IRS and SBA, FEMA translates incoming documents from LEP
persons. FEMA's Disaster Assistance cadre, which manages the National
Processing Service Centers, translates applications for individual
assistance that LEP disaster victims submitted in foreign languages.
During its recovery operations, FEMA has several staffing options to
augment its permanent staff. FEMA officials explained that staff from
FEMA's reserve corps, whose language capabilities are recorded in an
automated deployment database, can be temporarily assigned to recovery
operations. When FEMA lacks enough permanent and temporary staff with
the appropriate foreign language skills, it hires individuals from
within the affected area to fill unmet multilingual needs. For
example, in 2008, FEMA used local hires who spoke Vietnamese in the
recovery operations for Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in Galveston and
Austin, Texas. FEMA officials stated that these local hires are
especially useful during recovery efforts because they have relevant
language capabilities as well as knowledge of the disaster area and
established relationships with the affected communities.
Additionally, when disaster assistance employees and local hires are
unavailable, FEMA can use contractors to provide translation and
interpretation services. To ensure that the agency has the capacity to
handle different levels of disasters, an official stated that FEMA is
awarding a 4-year contract of up to $9.9 million, to support language
access and related activities. During nondisaster periods, staff and
funding are significantly reduced, which may contribute to the limited
services for disaster preparedness targeted toward LEP communities.
Like FEMA, SBA's Office of Disaster Assistance has multilingual staff
to provide services in foreign languages and, additionally, can
incorporate multilingual individuals from the area affected by a
disaster into recovery efforts, either as temporary employees or as
volunteers. However, SBA does not have guidelines for what documents
require translation or into which languages the documents should be
translated.
Each agency uses technology to leverage services and resources
operationally across its divisions and geographically across the
nation, such as using contractors to provide over-the-phone
interpretation services in more than 170 languages. IRS's Virtual
Translation Office and FEMA's External Affairs Multilingual Function
maintain central repositories of translated documents, accessible to
their employees in their duties serving LEP persons. In addition, each
agency operates national call centers. Each agency has a Spanish Web
site: IRS (http://www.irs.gov/espanol/index.html?navmenu=menu3), FEMA
(http://www.fema.gov/media/resources/spanish.shtm), and SBA
(http://www.sba.gov/espanol/). In addition, FEMA maintains various
multilingual Web sites, including a page offering translated documents
(http://www.fema.gov/media/resources/languages.shtm), a site for
emergency preparedness (www.listo.gov, the Spanish version of
Ready.gov), and a site to register for disaster assistance
(www.disasterassistance.gov/daip_es.portal). See figure 7 for FEMA's
Website containing information on emergency preparedness translated
into Spanish. SBA's Web site also contains links to its Introduction
to SBA document in various languages. See Figure 8 for SBA's web link
to its document (http://www.sba.gov/aboutsba/overview/index.html).
Figure 7: FEMA Spanish Website:
[Refer to PDF for image: screen capture of FEMA Spanish Website]
Source: FEMA.
[End of figure]
Figure 8: SBA's Web Site Links to the Introduction to SBA Document in
Other Languages:
[Refer to PDF for image: screen capture of SBA's Web Site Links to the
Introduction to SBA Document in Other Languages]
Source: SBA.
[End of figure]
IRS has within some of its field offices self-service kiosks in
Spanish, Chinese, Russian, and Korean--kiosks provide a quick means
for LEP taxpayers without Internet access to get forms and basic tax
information. In contrast to IRS and FEMA, SBA does not use technology
to service LEP persons, apart from its over-the-phone interpretation
service.
All three agencies use either local government or nonprofits to
provide LEP persons access to their services. IRS and TAS leverage
partnerships among community-based and faith-based organizations,
nonprofits, businesses, state and local governments, and foreign
language media, to reach out and provide services to LEP populations.
For instances, IRS provides funds to 1,543 organizations through its
Volunteer Income Tax Assistance sites, Tax Counseling for the Elderly,
and American Association for Retired Persons Tax-Aide grants that may
provide services in other languages. The Taxpayer Advocate Service
provides funds to 162 Low Income Tax Clinics to reach LEP communities,
which provide their own language access services through multilingual
staff. Subject to their organizational capacity and customer base,
these partners provide services in more languages than the five
languages identified in IRS's national needs assessment. For example,
the Chinese Newcomers, an LITC in San Francisco, has bilingual and
multilingual staff who speak Cantonese, Mandarin, and Shanghei. Local
taxpayer advocate offices, administered by TAS, are additionally
required to conduct external outreach in their jurisdictions, which
promotes their services to LEP customers. IRS and TAS actively promote
collaboration across IRS's business units to serve LEP populations
through national conferences and an e-mail listing, both of which
serve as forums for participants to share best practices.
FEMA also leverages its partnerships with foreign language media,
state and local governments, and volunteer nonprofit organizations to
meet LEP needs. To rapidly disseminate information to affected
communities, FEMA uses a database of foreign language media outlets
based on information from state and local officials and organizations,
as well as a contracted public relations service. Voluntary nonprofit,
local governments, and community organizations assist in identifying
LEP communities and providing language access for disaster assistance
services. These partnerships are integral in facilitating
communication with linguistically isolated populations, particularly
where skepticism of government exacerbates isolation. For instance,
this occurred during FEMA's response to Hurricane Ike in September
2008 when FEMA staff reached out to groups known as "colonias," which
are communities along the Texas-Mexico border of mostly Mexicans who
often do not have legal immigration status. According to FEMA
officials, residents of the colonias did not trust FEMA staff,
confusing them with officers from Customs and Border Patrol or
Immigration and Customs Enforcement leading to the circulation of
misinformation and residents' refusal to accept FEMA's services.
Officials stated that FEMA was able to clarify this situation by
forming partnerships with local governments and community
organizations that had well-developed relationships with residents of
the colonias.
Like IRS, SBA provides services to LEP populations through funding
recipients who may be positioned to serve targeted LEP communities
through well-established relationships. For example, the Asian Pacific
Islander Small Business Program in Los Angeles, California, a Women's
Business Center grant recipient, targets five Asian ethnic groups
(Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, and Thai) through relationships
with organizations with strong historical ties to each community. SBA
relies on funding recipients to serve LEP populations and the agency
provides limited support to recipients for their language access
services.
IRS Systematically Monitors the Effects of Service Provision:
Table 6: Elements for Improving LEP Access:
1. Agency Commitment:
Implementation of agencywide LEP plan and issuance of LEP guidance to
funding recipients, as well as integrating services into strategic
planning, processes, and resource allocation.
2. Needs Assessment:
Collection of data on size of LEP customer base, frequency of contact,
and the level of service provision needed.
3. Service Delivery:
Systematic and strategic provision of services and outreach provided
through internal resources, technology, and partner organizations.
[Highlighted: 4. Monitoring; Stakeholder feedback, ongoing measurement
of resources used and program outputs and outcomes, and compliance
with civil rights requirements. End of Highlight]
Source: GAO analysis of Executive Order and DOJ guidance.
[End of table]
Of the three selected agencies, IRS has fully implemented a monitoring
process, while FEMA and SBA have made partial progress to implement
this element, specifically through their efforts to monitor compliance
with civil rights requirements. As noted in our February 2004 report
on improving organizations' performance, high-performing organizations
recognize the fundamental importance of monitoring and measuring
outcomes and how these outcomes can help organizations accomplish
their missions and programmatic goals.[Footnote 16] Periodic
monitoring of an agency's progress toward increasing access to
programs and services provides information for effective oversight by
identifying performance shortfalls and appropriate improvement
actions. Based on our review of the DOJ guidance, we identified three
types of monitoring activities:
* Measurement of resources used and program outputs and outcomes:
Performance information that measures or assesses the relevant
outputs, service levels, and outcomes of each program activity.
* Stakeholder feedback: Feedback from internal and external
stakeholders, either systematic (through formal surveys, focus groups,
and reports) or informal (solicited or unsolicited comments from
individuals).
* Civil rights compliance: Oversight by an agencies' equal opportunity
or civil rights offices.
At present, IRS, including TAS, is the only agency we reviewed that
gathers information to measure performance outputs and outcomes. IRS
collects data for its performance metrics (including the agency's
foreign language capacity, the number of LEP taxpayers served, and
customer satisfaction) and for budgetary expenditures for IRS's
language access services, enabling IRS to measure the quality of
services provided to LEP persons. Additionally, TAS monitors IRS's
service delivery. The National Taxpayer Advocate, the head of TAS, has
reported on systematic gaps in IRS's services for LEP populations and
has recommended that IRS provide publications in foreign languages
other than Spanish, expand language access service during the audit
process, and require that contracted debt collectors have plans for
dealing with LEP taxpayers.
IRS also gathers data on the quality of its language access services
by conducting surveys and focus groups with IRS employees, tax
practitioners, and LEP persons. IRS uses the feedback to identify
improvements to service delivery for LEP populations. For example,
according to an IRS official, based on survey responses from LEP
taxpayers, IRS expanded the interactive applications on its Spanish
Web site that can be used to estimate an individual's tax credits.
Since that change was made, the official noted that the number of hits
on the Web site increased by 300 percent.
To ensure civil rights compliance, IRS's External Civil Rights unit
oversees funding recipients' compliance with Title VI and the
Executive Order. The unit requires plans for compliance, conducts
audits to ensure equal access, and handles complaints from LEP
customers.
FEMA obtains feedback from its staff that provide response and rescue
services. According to officials we interviewed, FEMA's Joint Field
Offices periodically identify critical issues and problems emerging in
disaster operations, and create after-action reports, describing how
FEMA served disaster-affected communities. FEMA officials stated that
their reports identify what actions worked and improvements in
effectiveness, efficiency, coordination, and interoperability.
According to FEMA officials, they use informal feedback from voluntary
organizations and community groups following disasters to evaluate
FEMA's efforts to meet the needs of LEP persons. Although FEMA has
received feedback from these organizations and groups, it does not
obtain this information in a structured and consistent manner. Without
a structured feedback process, which could be conducted after the
completion of initial rescue and recovery activities, an opportunity
is being missed to collect data that could be used by FEMA management
to assess and improve services, as needed.
As in the case with FEMA, SBA does not analyze data on the services it
provides to LEP persons or those provided by funding recipients.
Without systematically and consistently collecting program information
on language access services, both FEMA and SBA may have difficulty
identifying areas in need of improvement as well as processes and
practices which can lead to more effective implementation. Moreover,
SBA does not use a feedback process to systematically monitor its
language access services or those services provided by its funding
recipients. SBA requires funding recipients to evaluate their programs
regularly; however, these evaluations do not use a uniform tool to
collect the information. Furthermore, while this information is used
by the funding recipient to improve their program and language access
services, SBA does not use the information to identify potential
service improvements. SBA's only consistent effort to collect
information and conduct oversight of its funding recipients is done by
SBA's Office of Civil Rights Compliance, which investigates possible
nondiscriminatory practices relative to Title VI compliance.
Opportunities Exist for Additional Collaboration and Leveraging
Resources:
Collaboration among agencies to improve LEP access through planning
and providing language access services is ongoing, but could be
enhanced. Our prior work has found that by collaborating on
crosscutting issues, federal agencies are able to deliver results more
efficiently than when acting alone. As part of that effort, we have
identified practices that agencies can employ to improve their
collaboration.[Footnote 17] Of these practices, we found the following
four practices applicable to agencies' efforts to improve language
access services:
* Define and articulate a common outcome through identifying a
compelling rationale for agencies to collaborate;
* Establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies by aligning
agencies' activities, core processes, and resources to accomplish the
common outcome;
* Agree on roles and responsibilities, including how the collaborative
effort will be led, clarifying who will do what, organizing their
joint and individual efforts, and facilitating decision making; and:
* Identify and address needs by leveraging each others' resources,
thus obtaining additional benefits that would not be available if
agencies were working separately.[Footnote 18]
Our work found that these collaboration practices are employed by the
Federal Interagency Working Group on LEP, a network of federal
agencies established in 2002 by DOJ to help foster governmentwide
collaboration for serving LEP communities. The working group's
invitation list includes 46 different federal agencies. DOJ estimates
that approximately 24 federal agencies participate actively. The group
includes the three selected agencies, several cabinet level
departments, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, and
several smaller agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board.
The group's mission is to build awareness of the needs and methods for
ensuring that LEP persons have meaningful access to federal and
federally funded programs and activities.
The working group meets approximately twice a year to discuss topics
such as language access services in emergency preparedness, promising
practices in a variety of contexts, enforcement, and other cross-
cutting language access issues. The working group also consists of
committees that meet on a more frequent basis to work on various
implementation issues. The working group's Federally Conducted
Committee, for example, developed a guide of suggested practices for
implementing language access services based on a survey it
administered to federal agencies. In addition, the working group
convenes larger conferences covering a broader range of issues, such
as stakeholder partnerships, dealing with limited budgetary resources,
and leveraging technology. COR coordinates these meetings, committees,
and conferences.
The working group and its committees have sought to improve access for
LEP populations by promoting collaboration among federal agencies and
state and local government entities. These efforts include sharing
information through the production and distribution of informational
brochures and videos as well as surveying federal agencies about their
initiatives to improve access for LEP persons. Additionally, the
working group has sought to increase understanding and dissemination
of language data from the U.S. Census Bureau and to strengthen
enforcement efforts. According to DOJ officials, the working group
reports that their efforts have improved inter-agency understanding of
LEP issues, and in some cases, have helped to keep the implementation
of the Executive Order and language access services a priority within
agencies.
The working group's Web site, www.LEP.gov, which is maintained by COR,
shares the information it has collected and the practices it has
developed. The Web site includes information on Executive Order 13166,
a list of links to agency recipient guidance, as well as some of the
published LEP plans that agencies have sent to DOJ's Civil Rights
Division. Agencies are able to share and learn from the information
available on the LEP Web site and the site can be used as a resource
by other agencies or organizations when creating their own LEP plans
and recipient guidance. Moreover, the Web site posts best practices,
planning and technical assistance tools, other tools and samples, and
links to resources on topics such as interpretation, translation, and
civil rights. For example, the general planning and technical
assistance tools include information on how to access census data, a
selection of census data on LEP populations by state, and an
introduction to choosing language service providers, among other
information. These efforts to share information have assisted agencies
in addressing the executive order and in providing meaningful access
to LEP populations. The Federally Conducted Committee has considered
building upon these efforts by exploring the possibility of sharing
resources among agencies, which is not currently done by the members
of the working group. According to an official from the working group,
the committee has discussed the possible benefits of creating an
entity that would allow federal agencies to share translation and
interpretation services as well as services for training translators
and interpreters.
In addition to these efforts to share information, the working group
has begun exploring how agencies might share resources to improve
access to federal programs and services by LEP persons. Our prior work
has examined how federal agencies have shared resources for various
support services, such as human resource management, financial
management, and other administrative services.[Footnote 19] A shared
services approach enables agencies to leverage their resources by
allowing multiple agencies to use the same service provider to meet a
common need rather than each agency individually identifying and
managing those services. Moreover, we have also found that this
approach holds promise for enhancing the economy and efficiency of
federal operations in an environment of increasingly constrained
federal resources.
Selected Agencies Have Collaborated on LEP Access During Disaster
Recovery:
Efforts at the Disaster Recovery Centers (DRC) demonstrate the four
applicable collaboration practices. The National Response Framework,
developed by the Department of Homeland Security, directs FEMA to
coordinate disaster recovery activities, including IRS and SBA
disaster assistance programs. FEMA partners with IRS's Office of
Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief and SBA's Office of Disaster
Assistance, among others, to operate DRCs, which are readily
accessible facilities or mobile offices during the recovery from a
disaster where applicants may obtain information about disaster
assistance programs. FEMA shares information on affected LEP
communities with IRS and SBA, and the agencies share oral and written
language access services for LEP persons. For example, an IRS official
stated that while at a DRC, FEMA personnel assess the English-language
ability of taxpayers seeking assistance and are responsible for
providing interpreter services as needed.
FEMA and SBA staff have collaborated on providing language access
services at the DRCs in Austin, Texas for Hurricanes Ike and Gustav as
well as in Bismarck, North Dakota for the Midwest floods. For example,
according to a senior SBA official, during Hurricane Ike and Gustov,
SBA worked very closely with officials from FEMA's Individual
Assistance and Public Assistance programs to prepare the preliminary
damage assessment when the disasters first occurred. In addition, in
Bismarck, North Dakota, FEMA and SBA provided interpretation and
translation services in multiple languages to LEP disaster victims
that applied for federal assistance. Collaboration among the selected
agencies facilitated LEP persons applying for federal aid after the
disasters.
Shared Services Approach May Enable Agencies to Leverage Foreign
Language Capabilities:
The approaches used by DOJ and the selected agencies are two examples
of how agencies can leverage resources to provide LEP persons access
to programs and services. A third example is the use of a shared
services approach, which is used to leverage foreign language
capabilities among the federal intelligence community. The National
Virtual Translation Center (NVTC), created by statute and housed by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, makes translation services
available to 15 federal intelligence agencies on an as needed basis.
[Footnote 20] Intelligence agencies requiring linguists in critical
foreign language skills, such as Arabic or Somali, may use NVTC's
services through reimbursable agreements or military payment
arrangements. NVTC uses independent contractor linguists with security
clearances to provide these translation services. To reduce costs,
these contractors work from locations across the country, either from
their homes or nearby government offices. Documents needing
translation are distributed to the contractors via secure channels.
Rather than each agency expanding its own workforce to include
additional translators with critical foreign language capabilities,
this collaborative effort enables the intelligence community to share
these capabilities more efficiently while meeting the demands of their
missions. Although the NVTC illustrates a possible shared services
approach for providing translation services among domestic agencies,
this approach may be limited due to the technical nature of some of
the documents needing translation, such as IRS's tax forms and
instructions. Despite this potential limitation, the shared services
approach still provides domestic agencies an example for translating
basic information on agency programs and services more efficiently.
Conclusions:
Governmentwide, 22 federal departments and agencies have completed
their recipient guidance for their funding recipients, which are used
to clarify the funding recipients' obligations under Title VI.
Regarding the Executive Order's requirement that agencies prepare LEP
plans, DOJ officials reported receiving LEP plans from 58 federal
agencies, with 17 of these plans listed on LEP.gov, as of December
2009. Because the Executive Order makes agencies responsible for
determining their need to complete recipient guidance and an LEP plan,
we could not determine which agencies still needed to complete either
the recipient guidance or the LEP plan; if an agency decides it is not
required to complete a recipient guidance or LEP plan, they do not
need to report this decision to DOJ.
Moving forward, it will be important for DOJ to continue to encourage
federal agencies to complete and submit their recipient guidance to
DOJ for review and approval as mandated by the Executive Order.
Furthermore, although not required by the Executive Order, publicly
available LEP plans could provide LEP communities and other
stakeholders the opportunity to review agencies' strategies for
improving access to federal programs and activities by LEP persons. By
increasing the transparency of these LEP plans, agencies could obtain
additional feedback from stakeholders on potential improvements to
their efforts for serving LEP persons.
Aside from the preparation of their LEP plans and recipient guidance,
we identified other opportunities to improve how the three selected
agencies implement the Executive Order. For example, assessing the
needs of LEP persons is integral to understanding the demand for
services, and can be effective when needs assessment incorporates
diverse strategies. Both IRS and FEMA conduct needs assessments that
profile LEP persons at a national and local level. In regard to SBA,
because it does not conduct a systematic needs assessment, the agency
cannot determine if offices and funding recipients are fully meeting
the needs of LEP persons.
Unlike IRS, FEMA has not developed criteria for determining which of
its documents are vital. Translating vital documents would ensure that
LEP persons can have meaningful access to federal programs and
services. Implementing a policy for classifying documents considered
vital might include criteria for translating documents, including
regularly assessing the language needs of the populations frequently
encountered or potentially affected by the program or activity.
Additionally, the policy could include a process for ensuring that the
FEMA office responsible for managing language access services has
complete and accurate information about the agency's efforts to
translate documents classified as vital.
With respect to monitoring their efforts, while TAS collects limited
information on its service provisions, it could take additional steps
to collect more comprehensive and verifiable data to identify
opportunities to improve service delivery. By collecting and using
more comprehensive data as part of the existing data collection
efforts, TAS will be better positioned to ensure that the local
taxpayer advocate offices are not missing LEP populations in their
jurisdictions or inadequately addressing the needs of existing LEP
populations. TAS may want to assess whether it would be beneficial to
collect this data from its funding recipients to identify potential
improvements to the services provided to LEP persons. The limited
information that FEMA collects from internal and external stakeholders
after completing disaster response and recovery activities is not
systematic enough to substantively improve current activities. SBA
does not monitor or evaluate its services to LEP populations. With
more systematic monitoring, FEMA and SBA would be able to determine
whether LEP persons were able to access programs and services and
whether those services met their needs or identify any potential
improvements to those services.
Collaboration among federal agencies participating in the Federal
Interagency Working Group on LEP provides an opportunity to enhance
collaborative efforts across the selected agencies and governmentwide.
Building on its past and current efforts, DOJ could encourage the
Federal Interagency Working Group on LEP to share additional practices
and resources for use across federal agencies, such as exploring a
shared services approach for leveraging translation and interpretation
services.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We are making nine recommendations to the Attorney General, Secretary
of Homeland Security, and the Administrators of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the Small Business Administration.
Department of Justice:
To help ensure access to federal programs and services for LEP
populations, as well as to promote greater transparency for LEP
stakeholders, we recommend that the Attorney General direct the
appropriate DOJ officials to issue a letter to the heads of all
federal agencies reminding them of their obligations under the
Executive Order. Specifically, the letter's content should encourage
federal agencies to:
* Complete and submit their LEP plans and recipient guidance to DOJ
for review and approval, and:
* Make their completed LEP plans available to the public.
Additionally, in cases when an agency has determined that it is not
required to draft recipient guidance or an LEP plan, the Assistant
Attorney General should request agencies to report the results of this
determination to DOJ.
To promote more efficient improvements to LEP persons' access across
the government, we also recommend that the Attorney General direct the
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights to work with members of
the Federal Interagency Working Group on LEP to explore possible
sharing of resources and foreign language capabilities. For example,
members of the working group may consider leveraging their shared
resources to produce routine and frequently used documents needing to
be translated in less common foreign languages.
Internal Revenue Service, Taxpayer Advocate Service:
To improve service to LEP populations, we recommend that the National
Taxpayer Advocate determine whether any potential service improvements
could be derived from requiring Low Income Tax Clinics to collect more
detailed data on LEP populations they serve.
Department of Homeland Security:
To comply with the Executive Order and provide recipient guidance for
DHS's components such as FEMA to follow when assessing the need to
provide language access services for their programs, services, and
activities, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security
finalize and issue the department's LEP plan and recipient guidance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency:
To provide more meaningful access for LEP communities, we recommend
that the Administrator of FEMA take the following actions:
* Develop criteria for determining vital documents needed for
translation, and make available general disaster information in the
regularly encountered languages.
* Develop mechanisms to monitor and evaluate services provided to LEP
persons.
Small Business Administration:
To provide more meaningful access to LEP populations, we recommend
that the Administrator take the following actions:
* Finalize and issue its LEP plan and recipient guidance.
* Complete a comprehensive national needs assessment which should
include data from its existing funding recipients on the number of LEP
persons served and how they are served.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a copy of the draft report to the Secretaries of the
Department of Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
Justice; the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service; and the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration for their review
and comment. We received written comments on the draft report from
DHS, IRS, and SBA, which are summarized below and reprinted in
Appendices II, III, and IV. DOJ provided written technical comments,
which we incorporated as appropriate. DOJ, DHS, IRS, and SBA concurred
with all our recommendations.
Specifically, the DOJ Civil Rights Division concurred with our
recommendations that DOJ issue a letter to all heads of all federal
agencies reminding them of their obligation under the Executive Order
and work with members of the Federal Interagency Working Group on LEP
to explore the possibility of sharing resources. DOJ Civil Rights
Division stated that this report would help to further federal
initiatives to ensure meaningful access to federally conducted and
assisted activities for persons with limited English proficiency and
would take steps to address the recommendation.
DHS agreed with our recommendation that DHS finalize and issue its
recipient guidance and LEP plan and stated that it is taking steps to
finalize and publish its recipient guidance in the Federal Register
for comment. Furthermore, the DHS stated that its Office of Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties has assumed responsibility for completing
the agency's LEP plan and will collaborate with FEMA to develop
criteria for determining what documents should be translated and the
mechanism to be used for monitoring and evaluating services to LEP
populations.
Although the IRS/Taxpayer Advocate Service agreed with our
recommendation that the Taxpayer Advocate Service determine whether
any potential service improvements could be derived from requiring Low
Income Taxpayer Clinics collect more detail data on LEP populations
they serve, the IRS/Taxpayer Advocate Service stated that the Low
Income Taxpayer Clinics lack resources to collect detailed data on the
LEP populations that they serve.
SBA agrees with our recommendations to finalize and issue its
recipient guidance and LEP plan and conduct a national needs
assessment. SBA stated that it is initiating actions to implement the
recommendations and provide more meaningful access to SBA's LEP
populations.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of the
Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, the Commissioner of the
Internal Revenue Service, Administrators of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the Small Business Administration and other
interested parties. This report will also be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your
staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-9110 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report.
Signed by:
Robert Goldenkoff, Director:
Strategic Issues Team:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To review agencies' progress in improving access to federal programs
and services and how specific federal agencies were meeting the
Executive Order's requirements, we (1) determined which executive
branch agencies have completed their recipient guidance and Limited
English Proficiency (LEP) plans; (2) assessed the extent to which
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), and Small Business Administration (SBA) have implemented the
Executive Order consistent with Department of Justice's (DOJ)
guidance, and (3) reviewed DOJ's and the selected agencies' efforts to
enhance collaboration to improve access to federal programs and
services for LEP populations, as well as other potential collaboration
opportunities.
To determine which executive branch agencies have completed recipient
guidance and LEP plans, we identified which agencies and departments
had posted completed recipient guidance on LEP.gov as of December 1,
2009. We also reviewed the requirements of the Executive Order and
DOJ's guidance and interviewed DOJ officials regarding the technical
advice they provided to federal agencies on preparing recipient
guidance and LEP plans. We assessed whether the selected agencies
implemented four elements discussed in the DOJ guidance, specifically
(1) agency commitment, (2) needs assessment, (3) service delivery, and
(4) monitoring. These elements were assessed as to whether they were
implemented, partially implemented, or not implemented. For example,
an agency would be assessed as having implemented the "agency
commitment" element if it had completed its recipient guidance and/or
LEP plan and had incorporated services to LEP populations into its
agency mission, strategic plans, processes, and resource allocation.
Additionally, if its recipient guidance and/or LEP plan had not been
formalized and/or it had not integrated its language access efforts
into all aspects of its plans, processes, or resources, the agency
would be assessed as having partially implemented the agency
commitment element. An agency would be assessed as not implementing
this element if it had taken no actions or minimal actions to address
the element.
To assess how specific federal agencies have implemented the Executive
Order, this review, we considered federal agencies based on the amount
and significance of agency interaction with LEP populations, the types
of services provided, agency size, agency mission, the status of each
agency's LEP plan and/or recipient guidance, and the diversity of LEP
populations served. To avoid duplication, we also coordinated our
selection of agencies with work being conducted by other GAO teams in
this area. Based on these criteria, we selected the IRS, FEMA, and
SBA, as agencies that would provide a broad perspective on how a
diverse group of agencies are addressing the Executive Order.
To review the extent to which these three agencies implemented
Executive Order 13166 consistent with DOJ's guidance, we reviewed and
analyzed the Executive Order, DOJ's guidance, the agencies' LEP plans
and recipient guidance, and agencies' language access plans. The
information contained in these documents explained the agencies'
strategies for providing access to their programs and services. To
better understand the agencywide language access policies and standard
operating procedures for providing language assistance services to LEP
populations, we also interviewed headquarters officials to obtain an
understanding of the process used to develop recipient guidance and
LEP plans for agencies and their components.
To determine how the selected agencies provide services to LEP
populations, we interviewed senior officials at the three agencies'
headquarters who were responsible for implementation of LEP plans and
recipient guidance, such as civil rights officers, disaster assistance
staff, and individuals responsible for providing language access
services. We also conducted field visits at agency locations described
below to observe the agencies' language assistance services and to
obtain views of agency officials who interact directly with LEP
persons. In consultation with senior agency officials responsible for
language assistance services, we chose our field site visits based on
opportunity to see direct service being provided to LEP persons.
To examine how IRS provides direct service to LEP populations, we
visited IRS Call Centers, Taxpayer Assistance Centers, Low Income Tax
Clinics and Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Centers in Atlanta,
Georgia; Austin, Texas; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Los Angeles,
California. We also visited Taxpayer Advocate Service locations in
Atlanta and New Orleans. We interviewed staff in the Los Angeles local
taxpayer advocate service office on the phone.
To examine how FEMA serves LEP populations in disasters, how that
process has changed, and what lessons could be applied to future
disasters, we included past and current disasters in different phases
of recovery. We visited the Louisiana Transitional Recovery Office in
New Orleans, Louisiana (for information regarding Hurricane Katrina in
2005); and Joint Field Offices in Austin, Texas (for information
regarding Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008); and Bismarck, North
Dakota (for information regarding the North Dakota floods of 2009).
To examine how SBA provides access to its programs and services for
LEP populations, we visited Women's Business Centers and Small
Business Development Centers in Atlanta, Georgia, and New Orleans. We
spoke to Pacific Asian Consortium Employment (PACE) in Los Angeles,
California on the phone. In addition, we visited SBA's Office of
Disaster Assistance, which is co-located with FEMA's joint field
offices in Austin and Bismarck.
To assess ongoing collaborative efforts to support and improve
agencies' language access services, we reviewed selected agency
documentation of these efforts and compared the efforts with GAO-
identified practices that help sustain and enhance
collaboration.[Footnote 21] In short, GAO's practices that enhance and
sustain collaboration are:
* define and articulate common outcomes;
* establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies;
* identify and address needs by leveraging resources; agree on roles
and responsibilities;
* establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to
operate across agency boundaries;
* develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results;
* reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts; and:
* reinforce individual accountability for collaborative efforts.
For the purpose of this review, we focused on the practices that were
most applicable to federal agencies seeking to collaborate on
providing language access services to LEP persons and communities. As
such, we selected the following four of the eight collaboration
practices as criteria for this review:
* Define and articulate a common outcome through identifying a
compelling rationale for agencies to collaborate;
* Establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies by aligning
agencies' activities, core processes, and resources to accomplish the
common outcome;
* Agree on roles and responsibilities, including how the collaborative
effort will be led, clarifying who will do what, organizing their
joint and individual efforts, and facilitating decision making; and:
* Identify and address needs by leveraging each others' resources,
thus obtaining additional benefits that would not be available if
agencies were working separately.
Additionally, we interviewed officials who convene interagency
language groups and officials from the selected agencies that
participate in those efforts, specifically senior officials of the
Federal Interagency Working Group. During interviews with officials
from DOJ's Coordination and Review Section, we sought suggestions for
other federal entities involved with acquiring and maintaining foreign
language capabilities. DOJ officials suggested that we interview the
Director of the National Virtual Translation Center to gain an
understanding of how the intelligence agencies collaborate and
leverage foreign language capabilities for a common goal.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
April 8, 2010:
Mr. Robert Goldenkoff:
Director:
Strategic Issues Team:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Subject: GAO 10-91, Language Access: Selected Agencies Can Improve
Services to Limited English Proficient Persons:
Dear Mr. Goldenkoff:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the opportunity
to review and comment on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's
(GAO) draft report referenced above. GAO provided several conclusions
and made two recommendations for Executive Action relevant to the
Department of Homeland Security. The Department concurs with the
recommendations as referenced below.
Recommendation: To comply with the Executive Order and provide
recipient guidance for DHS's components such as FEMA to follow when
assessing the need to provide language access services for their
programs, services, and activities, we recommend that the Secretary of
Homeland Security finalize and issue the department's LEP plan and
recipient guidance.
Response: Concur. The report states: "As of December 1, 2009, DHS had
not completed its recipient guidance or LEP plan, although FEMA
officials stated that DHS has a preliminary draft of their LEP plan.
Despite multiple requests, DHS officials did not provide us with a
copy of either their draft LEP plan or recipient guidance."
DHS submitted its draft recipient guidance to the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) in April, 2009 and was awaiting approval of the
recipient guidance from DOJ as of December 1, 2009. DHS recently
received DOJ's approval of the guidance provided incorporation of
several comments in the final draft. The revised guidance is attached
and will be sent to OMB for publication in the Federal Register this
month.
Furthermore, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will lead
the Department in finalizing the Department's LEP plan for improving
access to its federally conducted programs and activities by eligible
LEP person.
Also, in this context, it is important to point out that in 2009, FEMA
initiated a pilot program to develop communication mechanisms that
expanded the ability to reach several LEP communities impacted by the
Midwest floods; this program has been expanded and currently includes
availability of communication strategies targeted to Arabic, Bosnian,
Chinese Simplified, Dinka, Farsi, Kirundi, Kurdish, Nepali, Somali,
Spanish, Swahili and Vietnamese LEP communities. In addition,
following the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA),
guidelines were developed and implemented pursuant to section 689 of
PKEMRA and which include LEP communities (Section 689 (e)).
Recommendation: To provide more meaningful access for LEP communities,
we recommend that the Administrator of FEMA take the following actions:
* Develop criteria for determining vital documents needed for
translation, and make available general disaster information in the
regularly encountered languages.
* Develop mechanisms to monitor and evaluate services provided to LEP
persons.
Response: Concur. The report states: "FEMA has demonstrated agency
commitment, identified LEP populations, and delivered services during
disasters, but it lacks a structured approach to monitor these
services." The Department's Office for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties, which has delegated authority from the Secretary of
Homeland Security to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended and to assure compliance with Executive Order 13166, will
collaborate with FEMA on the development of criteria for determining
which vital documents should he translated and mechanisms for
monitoring and evaluating services for LEP persons.
In addition to the above responses I request that you correct a
particular reference to communities FEMA assisted in 2009. The
language currently contained on page 21 currently reads:
"FEMA initiated this pilot program while responding to a flood
affecting North Dakota and Minnesota in the spring of 2009; the
program enabled FEMA officials to develop communication strategies
targeted to Farsi, Nepali, Bosnian, and Vietnamese LEP communities.
FEMA officials stated that they have formalized these procedures for
use in responding to future presidentially declared disasters."
Given that FEMA currently has processes in place to reach multiple LEP
communities, we request that the above language be revised to reflect
this as follows:
"FEMA initiated this pilot program while responding to a flood
affecting North Dakota and Minnesota in the spring of 2009; the
program enabled FEMA officials to develop communication strategies
targeted to Arabic, Bosnian, Chinese Simpliffe4 Dinka, Farsi, Kirundi;
Kurdish, Nepali, Somali, Spanish, Swahili and Vietnamese LEP
communities FEMA officials stated that they have formalized these
procedures for use in responding to future presidentially declared
disasters."
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Draft Report and we
look forward to working with you on future homeland security issues.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jerald E. Levine:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Small Business Administration:
U.S. Small Business Administration:
Washington, DC 20416:
April 2, 2010:
Mr. Robert Goldenkoff:
Director:
Strategic Issues Team:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Goldenkoff:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report, "Language Access: Selected
Agencies Can Improve Services to Limited English Proficient Persons."
In the report, you present the GAO's recommendations for agencies,
including the Small Business Administration, to provide more
meaningful access to Limited English Proficient (LEP) populations.
During the audit, the GAO found that SBA had fully implemented the
"service delivery" element of LEP access by systematically and
strategically providing services and outreach to LEP populations
through internal resources, technology, and partner organizations. The
GAO also identified areas where SBA could improve LEP access,
particularly with respect to collecting data on the size of SBA's
customer base, the frequency of SBA's contact with the LEP
populations, and the level of service needed to provide access to
SBA's LEP populations. The GAO recommends that SBA finalize and issue
its LEP plan and recipient guidance and complete a comprehensive needs
assessment. SBA agrees with the GAO's recommendations and is
initiating actions to implement the recommendations and provide more
meaningful access to SBA's LEP populations.
After reviewing the draft report, SBA has identified several areas
that require clarification as set forth in detail below:
1. GAO Comment: Page 15, Second Paragraph ” "Disaster Recovery Plan
does not mention services in non-English languages..."
SBA Response: The SBA Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP), dated November 15,
2009, states that SBA's national call center, the "Customer Service
Center" (CSC), utilizes Interpretalk, a technology-based translation
service. Interpretalk is the single point of contact for disaster
victims, and it is responsible for, among other things, coordinating
the provision of Spanish applications to the CSC. (See Attachment 1).
2. GAO Comment: Page 22, First Paragraph ” "During a disaster recovery
operation, SBA mainly relies on FEMA's resources to identify language
needs for interpretation and translation services, and the
effectiveness of SBA's efforts is dependent on the accuracy of FEMA's
assessment."
SBA Response: In addition to working with FEMA to identify language
needs, the SBA conducts its own rigorous outreach efforts during a
disaster recovery operation to ensure the needs of LEP populations are
fully met. Specifically, Customer Service Representatives in the SBA's
Office of Disaster Assistance's (ODA) perform outreach in each
community where a disaster occurs and alert management when they
determine there is a language need. ODA regularly attends community
meetings and continually collaborates with FEMA regarding particular
language needs for interpreters in specific areas. In addition, SBA
provides interpretation services to anyone that visits a Disaster
Recovery Center (DRC) by utilizing 1) the SBA staff on site, 2) FEMA
personnel (where applicable), 3) SBA staff from other centers who
provide language interpretation via phone, and 4) the Translation
Services line. In the past, ODA has hired translators to work at DRCs
and has had informational materials translated into different
languages. Finally, SBA also tracks data regarding language needs to
determine how long a specific language skill may be required at a
temporary disaster location or if there is a specialized outreach
need. The SBA communicates this information to the Public Information
Officer who then coordinates with field operations and/or FEMA
regarding the specific interpreter needs and duration.
3. GAO Comment: Page 30, First Paragraph ” "In contrast to IRS and
FEMA, SBA does not use technology to service LEP persons, apart from
its over-the-phone interpretation service."
SBA Response: SBA uses technology in a variety of ways to service LEP
persons. In addition to providing interpretation services by phone,
SBA operates a national call center (CSC) through its Office of
Disaster Assistance (1-800-U-ASK-SBA), which provides information in
both English and Spanish (see Attachment 2). The CSC is a single point
of contact for disaster victims who have questions about SBA disaster
loans. Moreover, SBA maintains a Spanish website (see Attachment 3)
that provides information on all of SBA's programs, on disaster
preparedness, and on what assistance is available for home and
business owners who have been affected by a disaster
(http.//www.sba.gov/espanoi/Asistencimn_Cams_de_Desastre/). The SBA
website also provides information in Other Languages (see Attachment
4). SBA utilizes a variety of technologies to provide services and
resources to LEP persons and will continue to develop such services
going forward.
SBA is committed to improving services to LEP persons. Thank you again
for the opportunity to comment on the draft report, and we look
forward to reporting back to GAO on our continued progress.
Respectfully,
Signed by:
Margaret J. Bennett:
Assistant Administrator:
Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights Compliance:
Attachments - 4:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Steven Lozano and Kisha Clark managed this engagement. Scott
Doubleday, Robin Ghertner, and Pamela Harris made key contributions to
all aspects of the report. In addition, Virginia Chanley provided
design methodology support, Andrea Levine provided legal support, and
Melanie Papasian and Robert Gebhart provided communications support.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Department of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent
Foreign Language Shortfalls. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-955]. Washington, D.C.: September
17, 2009.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: CMS Should Develop an
Agencywide Policy for Translating Medicare Documents into Languages
Other Than English. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-752R]. Washington, D.C.: July 30,
2009.
English Language Learning: Diverse Federal and State Efforts to
Support Adult English Language Learning Could Benefit from More
Coordination. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-575].
Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2009.
Military Training: DOD Needs a Strategic Plan and Better Inventory and
Requirements Data to Guide Development of Language Skills and Regional
Proficiency. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-568].
Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2009.
Medicare: Callers Can Access 1-800-MEDICARE Services, but
Responsibility within CMS for Limited English Proficiency Plan
Unclear. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-104].
Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2008.
Child Care and Early Childhood Education: More Information Sharing and
Program Review by HHS Could Enhance Access for Families with Limited
English Proficiency. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-807]. Washington, D.C.: August 17,
2006.
Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT's
Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English Proficient
Population. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-52].
Washington, D.C.: November 6, 2005.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] 2007 American Community Survey (ACS). The total number of adults
that speak English less than "very well" was determined in the ACS
from the number of adults ages 18 and over, who indicated that they
speak a language other than English at home and also report speaking
limited English.
[2] 42 U.S.C. § 200d.
[3] Full-time equivalent (FTE) employment means the total number of
regular straight-time hours (i.e., not including overtime or holiday
hours) worked by employees divided, by the number of compensable hours
applicable to each fiscal year. Annual leave, sick leave, compensatory
time off and other approved leave categories are considered "hours
worked" for purposes of defining full-time equivalent employment that
is reported in the employment summary (see section 85.6). This
definition is consistent with guidance provided by the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) in connection with reporting FTE data as
part of the SF 113G reporting system. A list of compensable days (with
associated hours) is provided in section 85.5(b). Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-11.
[4] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration Among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: October 21,
2005).
[5] See GAO, 2010 Census: Communications Campaign Has Potential to
Boost Participation, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-525T] (Washington, D.C.: March 23,
2009); 2010 Census: Diversity in Human Capital, Outreach Efforts Can
Benefit the 2010 Census, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1132T] (Washington, D.C.: July 26,
2007); and Decennial Census: Lessons Learned for Locating and Counting
Migrant and Seasonal Workers, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-605] (Washington, D.C.: July 3,
2003).
[6] The Executive Order does not specifically identify which agencies
have activities or services that may impact LEP persons.
[7] Office Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum for the Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies on the Open Government Directive, M-
10-06.
[8] IRS is a component of the Department of the Treasury, which issued
the departmentwide LEP guidance in 2005.
[9] FEMA is a component of the Department of Homeland Security, which
is responsible for issuing LEP guidance for the entire department.
[10] The DOJ guidance list five elements of an effective plan on
language assistance for LEP persons: (1) Identifying LEP individuals
who need Language Assistance; (2) Language Assistance Measures; (3)
Training Staff; (4) Providing Notice to LEP Persons; and (5)
Monitoring and Updating the LEP plan. The criterion used for this
review was based on our review and synthesis of the five elements
outlined in the DOJ guidance.
[11] IRS's LEP plan and recipient guidance also cover the activities
of the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS), an independent office within
IRS created to assist taxpayers in resolving individual and systemic
problems dealing with IRS.
[12] 42 U.S.C. § 5196f(3). Section (a)(3) requires that FEMA shall
"develop and maintain an informational clearinghouse of model language
assistance programs and best practices for State and local governments
in providing services related to a major disaster or emergency."
[13] IRS funds LITCs through a grant program established in the IRS
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, 26 U.S.C § 7526. LITCs are
independent from the IRS and usually are operated by nonprofit
organizations or law, business, or accounting schools.
[14] GAO, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: CMS Should
Develop an Agencywide Policy for Translating Medicare Documents into
Languages Other Than English, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-752R] (Washington, D.C.: July 30,
2009).
[15] The remaining eight documents have text in Spanish that refers to
an IRS toll-free number to obtain assistance in Spanish.
[16] GAO, High Performing Organizations: Metrics, Measurement, and
Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance in the 21st Century Public
Management Environment, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-343SP] (Washington, D.C.: February
13, 2004).
[17] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: October 21,
2005).
[18] The remaining four collaboration practices were not applicable to
agencies' efforts to improve access to federal programs and services
for LEP persons.
[19] GAO, Financial Management Systems: OMB's Financial Management
Line of Business Initiative Continues but Future Success Remains
Uncertain, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-328]
(Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2009); GAO, Human Resource Lines of
Business, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1163R]
(Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2008); GAO, Homeland Security:
Management Challenges Remain in Transforming Immigration Programs,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-81] (Washington, D.C.:
October 4, 2004).
[20] Section 313 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003.
[21] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: October 21,
2005).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
