4596 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Civil Rights Center; Enforcement of

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;

Policy Guidance on the Prohibition

Against National Origin Discrimination

As It Affects Persons With Limited

English Proficiency

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Labor.

ACTION: Notice of policy guidance with

request for comment.

SUMMARY: The United States Department

of Labor (DOL) is publishing policy

guidance on Title VI’s prohibition

against national origin discrimination as

it affects limited English proficient

persons.

DATES: This guidance is effective

immediately. Comments must be

submitted on or before March 19, 2001.

DOL will review all comments and will

determine what modifications to the

policy guidance, if any, are necessary.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons should

submit written comments to Ms.

Annabelle T. Lockhart, Director, Civil

Rights Center, U.S. Department of Labor,

200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room N–

4123, Washington, DC 20210;

Comments may also be submitted by email at: lockhart-annabelle@dol.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Annabelle Lockhart or Naomi Barry at

the Civil Rights Center, U.S. Department

of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW.,

Room N–4123, Washington, DC 20210.

Telephone 202–219–7026; TDD: 202–

693–6516. Arrangements to receive the

policy guidance in an alternative format

may be made by contacting the named

individuals.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

2000d, et seq. and its implementing

regulations provide that no person shall

be subjected to discrimination on the

basis of race, color, or national origin

under any program or activity that

receives federal financial assistance.

The purpose of this policy guidance is

to clarify the responsibilities of

recipients of federal financial assistance

(‘‘recipients’’) from the U.S. Department

of Labor (DOL), and assist them in

fulfilling their responsibilities to limited

English proficient (LEP) persons,

pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 and implementing

regulations. The policy guidance

reiterates DOL’s longstanding position

that in order to avoid discrimination

against LEP persons on the grounds of

national origin, recipients must take

reasonable steps to ensure that such

persons receive the language assistance

necessary to afford them meaningful

access to the programs, services, and

information those recipients provide,

free of charge. The text of the complete

guidance document appears below.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 11th of

January 2001.

Alexis M. Herman,

Secretary of Labor.

Equal Opportunity Guidance

Memorandum

January 3, 2001.

To: Recipients of Federal Financial

Assistance from the United States

Department of Labor

From: Annabelle T. Lockhart, Director,

Civil Rights Center, Department of Labor

Subject: Prohibition Against National

Origin Discrimination As It Affects

Persons With Limited English

Proficiency

Purpose

Pursuant to Executive Order 13166,

entitled ‘‘Improving Access to Services

for Persons with Limited English

Proficiency,’’ issued by President

Clinton on August 11, 2000, the U.S.

Department of Labor’s Civil Rights

Center (‘‘CRC’’) issues this

memorandum, which addresses

linguistic or language access, to offer

guidance with respect to the

responsibilities of recipients of federal

financial assistance (‘‘recipients’’) from

the Department of Labor (‘‘DOL’’) in

serving persons of limited English

proficiency (‘‘LEP’’), pursuant to the

requirements of Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 (‘‘Title VI’’) and

section 188 of the Workforce Investment

Act of 1998 (‘‘section 188’’). This policy

guidance does not create new

obligations but, rather, clarifies

standards consistent with case law and

well-established legal principles

developed under Title VI. The CRC

provides substantial technical assistance

to recipients, and will continue to be

available to provide such assistance to

any recipient seeking to ensure that it

operates an effective language assistance

program.

Background

English is the predominant language

of the United States. According to the

1990 Census (the most recent data

available), English is spoken by 95

percent of U.S. residents. Of those U.S.

residents who speak languages other

than English at home, the 1990 Census

reports that 57 percent above the age of

four speak English ‘‘well to very well.’’

The United States is also, however,

home to millions of national origin

minority individuals who are ‘‘limited

English proficient,’’ including

immigrants, some children of

immigrants born in the United States,

and other non-English speakers born in

the United States, including some

Native Americans. National statistics on

the LEP population demonstrate that

Spanish is the primary language for

which assistance may be needed. Many

recipients of DOL financial assistance

have already implemented processes to

improve services for Spanish speakers.

However, other nationally significant

language groups exist, including those

that speak Chinese, French, Italian,

German, Vietnamese, Laotian, and

Khmer (Cambodian). Moreover,

depending on the region of the country,

countless other language groups may

require assistance to access meaningful

government assistance. Because of

language differences and the inability to

speak or understand English, LEP

persons are often excluded from

programs and activities, experience

delays or denials of services, or receive

assistance and services based on

inaccurate or incomplete information.

Such exclusions, delays or denials may

constitute discrimination on the basis of

national origin, in violation of Title VI

and section 188.

In the course of its enforcement

activities, CRC has found that persons

who lack proficiency in English are

unable to obtain basic knowledge on

how to access various benefits and

services for which they may be eligible,

such as Unemployment Insurance, Job

Corps, or other DOL funded

employment programs and activities.

For example, many intake interviewers

and other front line employees who

interact with LEP individuals are

neither bilingual nor trained in how to

properly serve LEP persons. As a result,

LEP applicants are often either turned

away, forced to wait for substantial

periods of time, forced to find their own

interpreter who is not often qualified to

interpret, or forced to make repeated

visits to the recipient’s program offices

until interpreters are available to

provide assistance.

Some employment benefits, services,

and job training providers have sought

to bridge the language gap by

encouraging language minority clients

to provide their own interpreters as an

alternative to the recipient’s use of

qualified bilingual employees or

interpreters. Persons of limited English

proficiency must sometimes rely on

their minor children to interpret for

them during visits to an employment

services or job training facility.

Alternatively, these clients may be

required to call upon neighbors or even

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices 4597

1The DOJ LEP Guidance was issued August 11,

2000. (65 FR 50123, August 16, 2000.)

2The DOJ coordination regulations at 28 CFR

42.405(d)(1) provide that ‘‘[w]here a significant

number or proportion of the population eligible to

be served or likely to be directly affected by a

federally assisted program needs service or

information in a language other than English in

order effectively to be informed of or to participate

in the program, the recipient shall take reasonable

steps, considering the scope of the program and the

size and concentration of such population, to

provide information in appropriate languages to

such persons. This requirement applies with regard

to written materials of the type which is ordinarily

distributed to the public.’’

strangers they encounter at the

recipients’ program offices to act as

interpreters or translators.

These practices have severe

drawbacks and may violate Title VI and

Section 188. In each case, the

impediments to effective

communication and adequate service

are formidable. The LEP client’s

untrained ‘‘interpreter’’ is often unable

to understand the concepts or official

terminology s/he is being asked to

interpret or translate. Even if the

interpreter possesses the necessary

language and comprehension skills, his

or her mere presence may obstruct the

flow of confidential information to the

recipient. This is because the LEP client

would naturally be reluctant to disclose

or discuss intimate details of personal

and family life in front of his or her

child or a complete stranger who has no

formal training or obligation to observe

confidentiality.

When these types of circumstances

are encountered, the level and quality of

employment benefits, services, and job

training available to persons of limited

English proficiency stand in stark

conflict to Title VI and section 188’s

promise of equal access to federally

assisted programs and activities.

Services denied, delayed or provided

under adverse circumstances have

serious consequences for a LEP person

and may constitute discrimination on

the basis of national origin in violation

of Title VI and section 188.

Accommodation of these language

differences through the provision of

effective language assistance will

promote compliance with Title VI and

section 188.

Although CRC’s enforcement

authority derives from Title VI and

section 188, the duty of recipients to

ensure that LEP persons can

meaningfully access programs and

services flows from a host of additional

sources, including federal and state laws

and regulations. In addition, the duty to

provide appropriate language assistance

to LEP individuals is not limited to the

employment benefits, services, and job

training context. Numerous federal laws

require the provision of language

assistance to LEP individuals seeking to

access critical services and activities.

For instance, the Voting Rights Act bans

English-only elections in certain

circumstances and outlines specific

measures that must be taken to ensure

that language minorities can participate

in elections. See 42 U.S.C. 1973 b(f)(1).

Similarly, the Food Stamp Act of 1977

requires states to provide translation

and interpretation assistance to LEP

persons under certain circumstances.

See 42 U.S.C. 2020(e) (1) and (2). These

and other provisions reflect the sound

judgment that providers of critical

services and benefits bear the

responsibility for ensuring that LEP

individuals can meaningfully access

their programs and services.

This policy guidance is consistent

with the Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’)

LEP Guidance, which addresses the

application of Title VI’s prohibition

against national origin discrimination

when information is provided in

English to LEP persons.1 It is also

consistent with a government-wide Title

VI regulation issued by DOJ in 1976,

‘‘Coordination of Enforcement of

Nondiscrimination in Federally

Assisted Programs,’’ 28 CFR part 42,

subpart F, that addresses the

circumstances in which recipients must

provide translation assistance to LEP

persons.2

Legal Authority

Introduction

CRC has conducted investigations and

reviews involving language differences

that impede the access of LEP persons

to employment benefits, services, and

job training in programs and activities

that are financially assisted by DOL.

Where the failure to accommodate

language differences discriminates on

the basis of national origin, CRC has

required recipients to provide

appropriate language assistance to LEP

persons. For instance, CRC has entered

into voluntary compliance agreements

that require recipients who operate

employment benefits, services, and job

training programs or activities to ensure

that there are bilingual employees or

language interpreters to meet the needs

of LEP persons seeking services. CRC

has also required these recipients to

provide written materials and post

notices in languages other than English.

The legal authority for CRC’s

enforcement actions is Title VI and

Section 188, the implementing

regulations, and a consistent body of

case law.

Statute and Regulations

Section 601 of Title VI, 42 U.S.C.

2000d et seq. states: ‘‘No person in the

United States shall on the grounds of

race, color or national origin, be

excluded from participation in, be

denied the benefits of, or be subjected

to discrimination under any program or

activity receiving federal financial

assistance.’’

Department of Labor Regulations

implementing Title VI, provide in part

at 29 CFR 31.3 (b):

(1) A recipient under any program to

which this part applies may not, directly or

through contractual or other arrangements,

on the grounds of race, color or national

origin:

(i) Deny an individual any service,

financial aid, or other benefit provided under

the program;

(ii) Provide any service, financial aid, or

other benefit to an individual which is

different, or is provided in a different

manner, from that provided to others under

the program * * *;

(2) A recipient, in determining the types of

services, financial aid or other benefits, or

facilities that will be provided under any

such program, or the class of individuals to

whom, or the situations in which such

services, financial aid or other benefits, or

facilities will be provided * * * may not

directly, or through contractual or other

arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of

administration which have the effect of

subjecting individuals to discrimination,

because of their race, color or national origin,

or have the effect of defeating or substantially

impairing accomplishment of the objectives

of the program with respect to individuals of

a particular race, color or national origin

(emphasis added) * * *.

Section 188 of the Workforce

Investment Act adopts the same

prohibition against national origin

discrimination that is found in Title VI:

‘‘No individual shall be excluded from

participation in, denied the benefits of,

subjected to discrimination under, or

denied employment in the

administration of or in connection with

any such program because of race, color,

national origin, sex, religion, disability,

political affiliation or belief, citizenship,

or age.’’

Regulations implementing the

nondiscrimination and equal

opportunity provisions of section 188 of

the Workforce Investment Act of 1998,

speak specifically to national origin

discrimination and language access at

29 CFR 37.35:

(a) A significant number or proportion of

the population eligible to be served, or likely

to be directly affected, by a WIA Title Ifinancially assisted program or activity may

need services or information in a language

other than English in order to be effectively

informed about, or able to participate in, the

program or activity. Where such a significant

4598 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

number or proportion exists, a recipient must

take the following actions:

(1) Consider:

(i) The scope of the program or activity;

and

(ii) The size and concentration of the

population that needs services or information

in a language other than English; and

(2) Based on those considerations, take

reasonable steps to provide services and

information in appropriate languages. This

information must include the initial and

continuing notice required under §§ 37.29

and 37.30, and all information that is

communicated under § 37.34.

(b) In circumstances other than those

describe in paragraph (a) of this section, a

recipient should nonetheless make

reasonable efforts to meet the particularized

language needs of limited-English speaking

individuals who seek services or information

from the recipient.

Title VI and the Department of Labor

regulations implementing Title VI

published at 29 CFR part 31 apply to

any program or activity receiving federal

financial assistance from the

Department of Labor. Some programs

and activities receiving federal financial

assistance from the Department of Labor

are covered only under Title VI and the

Department of Labor’s Title VI

regulations (e.g., programs receiving

assistance through the Mine Safety and

Health Act and the Occupational Safety

and Health Act).

Some programs and activities

receiving Department of Labor financial

assistance, i.e., those that receive

financial assistance under Title I of

WIA, are covered under both the DOL

Title VI regulations and the section 188

implementing regulations. The

regulation at 29 CFR 37.3 states that

compliance with the regulations in 29

CFR part 37 will satisfy obligations of

the recipient to comply with 29 CFR

part 31.

The section 188 implementing

regulations found in 29 CFR part 37

apply to any program or activity

receiving financial assistance under

Title I of WIA. In addition, the section

188 implementing regulations apply to

programs and activities that are part of

the One-Stop delivery system and that

are operated by One-Stop partners listed

in section 121(b) of WIA, to the extent

that the programs and activities are

being conducted as part of the One-Stop

delivery system. Some One-Stop

programs and activities receive federal

financial assistance from other federal

agencies (e.g., Department of Education

and Department of Housing and Urban

Development). For purposes of the

regulations in 29 CFR Part 37, however,

‘‘One-Stop partners,’’ as defined in

section 121(b) of WIA, are treated as

‘‘recipients,’’ and are subject to the

nondiscrimination requirements to the

extent that they participate in the OneStop delivery system. Some programs

and activities that are part of the OneStop delivery system and that receive

financial assistance from a federal

grantmaking agency other than the

Department of Labor are covered under

the Section 188 implementing

regulations, but not under DOL’s Title

VI regulations. However, these programs

and activities are subject to the Title VI

regulations of a federal grantmaking

agency other than the Department of

Labor.

Although the regulatory language

differs, the obligations of recipients to

ensure accessibility by LEP persons to

DOL financially assisted programs and

activities are the same under Title VI

and section 188. Accordingly, the CRC

will apply the same standards in

determining compliance with these

obligations.

State and local laws may provide

additional obligations to serve LEP

individuals, but such laws cannot

compel recipients of federal financial

assistance to violate Title VI. For

instance, given our constitutional

structure, state or local ‘‘English-only’’

laws do not relieve an entity that

receives federal funding from its

responsibilities under federal antidiscrimination laws. Entities in states

and localities with ‘‘English-only’’ laws

are certainly not required to accept

federal funding—but if they do, they

have to comply with Title VI, including

its prohibition against national origin

discrimination by recipients of federal

assistance. Failing to make federally

assisted programs and activities

accessible to individuals who are LEP

will, in certain circumstances, violate

Title VI.

Case Law

Extensive case law affirms the

obligation of recipients of Federal

financial assistance to ensure that LEP

persons can meaningfully access

Federally-assisted programs and

activities.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Lau v.

Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), recognized

that recipients of federal financial

assistance have an affirmative

responsibility, pursuant to Title VI, to

provide LEP persons with meaningful

opportunities to participate in public

programs and activities. In Lau v.

Nichols, the Supreme Court ruled that a

public school system’s failure to provide

English language instruction to students

of Chinese ancestry who did not speak

English denied the students meaningful

opportunities to participate in a public

educational program in violation of

Title VI. In providing the same services

to the LEP students as it did for English

proficient students—an education

provided solely in English—the

Supreme Court observed that ‘‘it seems

obvious that the Chinese-speaking

minority received fewer benefits than

the English-speaking majority from

respondent’s school system which

denies them a meaningful opportunity

to participate in the educational

program. * * *’’ Courts have applied

the doctrine articulated in Lau both

inside and outside the education

context, including in cases involving

driver’s license tests and material

relating to unemployment benefits.

As early as 1926, the Supreme Court

recognized that language rules were

often discriminatory. In Yu Cong Eng et

al. v. Trinidad, Collector of Internal

Revenue, 271 U.S. 500 (1926), the

Supreme Court found that a Philippine

Bookkeeping Act that prohibited the

keeping of accounts in languages other

than English, Spanish and Philippine

dialects violated the Philippine Bill of

Rights that Congress had patterned after

the U.S. Constitution. The Court found

that the Act deprived Chinese

merchants, who were unable to read,

write or understand the required

languages, of liberty and property

without due process.

In Gutierrez v. Municipal Court of S.E.

Judicial District, 838 F.2d 1031,1039

(9th Cir. 1988), vacated as moot, 490

U.S. 1016 (1989), the court recognized

that requiring the use of English only is

often used to mask national origin

discrimination. Citing McArthur,

‘‘Worried About Something Else,’’ 60

Int’l J. Soc. Language, 87, 90–91 (1986),

the court stated that because language

and accents are identifying

characteristics, rules that have a

negative effect on bilingual persons,

individuals with accents, or non-English

speakers may be mere pretexts for

intentional national origin

discrimination.

Another case that noted the link

between language and national origin

discrimination is Garcia v. Gloor, 618

F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1980) cert. denied,

449 U.S. 1113 (1981). The court found

that on the facts before it a workplace

English-only rule did not discriminate

on the basis of national origin since the

complaining employees were bilingual.

However, the court stated that ‘‘to a

person who speaks only one tongue or

to a person who has difficulty using

another language other than the one

spoken in his home, language might

well be an immutable characteristic like

skin color, sex or place of birth.’’ Id. At

269.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices 4599

3One-Stop participants that receive financial

assistance from a federal grantmaking agency other

than the Department of Labor are subject to the Title

VI implementing regulations and guidance of that

grantmaking agency.

Again, in the employment context, the

Court in Pabon v. Levine, 70 FRD 674

(S.D.N.Y. 1976), found that the

plaintiffs, who challenged the state’s

failure to provide unemployment

insurance information in languages

other than English, properly raised a

claim under Title VI.

Most recently, the Eleventh Circuit in

Sandoval v. Hagan, 197 F. 3d 484 (11th

Cir. 1999), cert. granted sub. Nom.,

Alexander v. Sandoval, 147 L. Ed. 2d

1051 (U.S. Sept. 26, 2000) (No. 99–1908)

(accepting case to address whether or

not there is a private right of action

under Title VI), held that the State of

Alabama’s policy of administering a

driver’s license examination in English

only was a facially neutral practice that

had an adverse effect on the basis of

national origin, in violation of Title VI.

The court specifically noted the nexus

between language policies and potential

discrimination based on national origin.

That is, in Sandoval, the vast majority

of individuals who were adversely

affected by Alabama’s English-only

driver’s license examination policy were

national origin minorities.

In the employment benefits, services,

and job training context, a recipient’s

failure to provide appropriate language

assistance to LEP individuals parallels

many of the fact situations discussed in

the cases above and, as in those cases,

may have an adverse effect on the basis

of national origin, in violation of Title

VI.

The Title VI regulations prohibit both

intentional discrimination and policies

and practices that appear neutral but

have a discriminatory effect. Thus, a

recipient’s policies or practices

regarding the provision of benefits and

services to LEP persons need not be

intentional to be discriminatory, but

may constitute a violation of Title VI

and section 188 if they have an adverse

effect on the ability of national origin

minorities to meaningfully access

programs and services. Accordingly, it

is useful for recipients to examine their

policies and practices to determine

whether they adversely affect LEP

persons. This policy guidance provides

a legal framework to assist recipients in

conducting such assessments.

Policy Guidance

Who Is Covered

All entities that receive federal

financial assistance from the

Department of Labor, either directly or

indirectly, through a grant, contract or

subcontract, are covered by this policy

guidance. For purposes of section 188,

covered entities include, but are not

limited to: state-level agencies that

administer, or are financed in whole or

in part with, WIA Title I funds; State

Employment Security Agencies; State

and local Workforce Investment Boards;

local Workforce Investment Areas

(‘‘LWIA’’) grant recipients; One-Stop

operators; service providers, including

eligible training providers; On-the-Job

Training (OJT) employers; Job Corps

contractors and center operators; Job

Corps national training contractors;

outreach and admissions agencies,

including Job Corps contractors that

perform these functions; and other

national program recipients.3 Entities

may be receiving financial assistance

through one or more of a number of

DOL administered statutes, including,

but not limited to, the Wagner-Peyser

Act, the Workforce Investment Act,

Welfare-to-Work, the Older Americans

Act, the Social Security Act, the Mine

Safety and Health Act, and the

Occupational Safety and Health Act.

The term federal financial assistance

to which Title VI applies includes, but

is not limited to, grants and loans of

federal funds, grants or donations of

federal property, details of federal

personnel, or any agreement,

arrangement or other contract that has

as one of its purposes the provision of

assistance (see, 45 CFR 80.13(f);

Appendix A to the Title VI regulations,

and 29 CFR 37.4, for additional

discussion of what constitutes federal

financial assistance).

Title VI prohibits discrimination in

any program or activity that receives

federal financial assistance. What

constitutes a program or activity

covered by Title VI was clarified by

Congress in 1988, when the Civil Rights

Restoration Act of 1987 (‘‘CRRA’’) was

enacted. The CRRA provides that, in

most cases, when a recipient receives

federal financial assistance for a

particular program or activity, all

operations of the recipient are covered

by Title VI, not just the part of the

program or activity that uses the federal

assistance. Thus, all parts of the

recipient’s operations would be covered

by Title VI, even if the federal assistance

is used only by one part. The definition

of a WIA Title I-funded program or

activity can be found at 29 CFR 37.4.

Costs associated with providing

meaningful access to LEP persons are

considered allowable administrative

costs.

Basic Requirements Under Title VI and

Section 188

A recipient whose policies, practices

or procedures exclude, limit, or have the

effect of excluding or limiting, the

participation of any LEP person in a

federally assisted program or activity on

the basis of national origin may be

engaged in discrimination in violation

of Title VI and Section 188. In order to

ensure compliance with Title VI and

section 188, recipients must take steps

to ensure that LEP persons who are

eligible have meaningful access during

all hours of operation to the recipients’

programs and services. The most

important step in meeting this

obligation is for recipients of federal

financial assistance to provide the

language assistance necessary to ensure

such access, at no cost to the LEP

person.

On August 11, 2000, the President

issued Executive Order 13166 titled

‘‘Improving Access to Services by

Persons With Limited English

Proficiency .’’ 65 FR 50121 (August 16,

2000). On the same day, the Assistant

Attorney General for Civil Rights issued

a Policy Guidance Document titled

‘‘Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964—National Origin

Discrimination Against Persons With

Limited English Proficiency’’

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘DOJ LEP

Guidance’’), reprinted at 65 FR 50123

(August 16, 2000).

Executive Order 13166 requires

Federal departments and agencies

extending financial assistance to

develop and make available guidance on

how recipients should, consistent with

the DOJ LEP Guidance and Title VI of

the Civil Rights of 1964, as amended,

assess and address the needs of

otherwise eligible limited English

proficient persons seeking access to

federally assisted programs and

activities. The DOJ LEP Guidance, in

turn, provides general guidance on how

recipients can ensure compliance with

their Title VI obligation to ‘‘take

reasonable steps to ensure ’meaningful’

access to the information and services

they provide.’’ DOJ LEP Guidance, 65

FR at 50124. The DOJ LEP Guidance

goes on to provide that [w]hat

constitutes reasonable steps to ensure

meaningful access will be contingent on

a number of factors. Among the factors

to be considered are the size of the

recipient; the size of the eligible LEP

population to serve; the nature of the

program or service; the objectives of the

program or service; the total resources

available to the recipient; the frequency

with which particular languages other

than English are encountered; and, the

4600 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

frequency with which LEP persons

come into contact with the program or

service. Of these factors, the following

four are considered the most pivotal to

determining the nature of the language

assistance provided by a recipient: the

number or proportion of LEP

individuals eligible to participate or

likely to be directly or significantly

affected by the program or activity; the

frequency of contact a participant or

beneficiary is required to have with the

program or activity; the nature and

importance of the program or activity to

the participant or beneficiary; and, the

resources available to the recipient in

carrying out the program or activity.

These factors constitute what herein

after will be referred to as the elements

of the ‘‘four-factor analysis.’’ This

Guidance for DOL is consistent with the

compliance standards set out in the DOJ

LEP Guidance.

The type of language assistance a

recipient provides to ensure meaningful

access will depend on a variety of

factors, Programs and activities that

serve a few or even one LEP person are

still subject to the Title VI and section

188 obligation to take reasonable steps

to provide meaningful opportunities for

access. However, a factor in determining

the reasonableness of a recipient’s

efforts is the number or proportion of

people who will be excluded from the

program or activity absent efforts to

remove language barriers. The steps that

are reasonable for a recipient who serves

one LEP person a year will be different

than those expected from a recipient

who serves several LEP persons each

day.

The importance of the recipient’s

program or activity to participants or

beneficiaries will affect the

determination of what is ‘‘reasonable.’’

More affirmative steps must be taken in

programs and activities where the

denial of access may have serious

implications, such as the receipt of

Unemployment Insurance benefits. In

assessing the effect of denying access,

recipients must consider the importance

of the benefit to individuals both

immediately and in the long-term.

The resources available to a recipient

of federal financial assistance may have

an impact on the nature of the steps that

recipients must take. For example, a

small recipient with limited resources

may not have to take the same steps as

a larger recipient to provide LEP

assistance in programs and activities

that have a limited number of eligible

LEP individuals, where contact is

infrequent, and/or where the program or

activity is not crucial to an individual’s

day-to-day existence. Claims of limited

resources, especially from larger

entities, will need to be wellsubstantiated.

Frequency of contacts between the

program or activity and LEP individuals

is another factor to be considered. For

example, if a LEP individual must

access a program or service on a daily

basis, such as activities provided in a

job training program, a recipient has

greater duties than if program or activity

contact is unpredictable or infrequent.

LEP individuals must be able to access

and participate in job training activities

in a manner equally consistent and

effective to that offered to non-LEP

persons.

There is no ‘‘one size fits all’’ solution

for Title VI and section 188 compliance

with respect to LEP persons. CRC will

make its assessment of the language

assistance needed to ensure meaningful

access on a case by case basis, and a

recipient will have considerable

flexibility in determining precisely how

to fulfill this obligation. CRC will focus

on the end result—whether the recipient

has taken the necessary steps to ensure

that LEP persons have meaningful

access to programs and services.

The key to providing meaningful

access for LEP persons, including LEP

persons likely to be directly or

significantly affected (e.g., LEP parents

of non-LEP students) is to ensure that

the recipient and LEP person can

communicate effectively. The steps

taken by a recipient must ensure that

the LEP person is given adequate

information, is able to understand the

services and benefits available, and is

able to receive those for which he or she

is eligible, free-of-charge. The recipient

must also ensure that the LEP person

can effectively communicate the

relevant circumstances of his or her

situation to the service provider.

Effective language assistance

programs usually contain the four

elements described in the following

section. In reviewing complaints and

conducting compliance reviews, CRC

will consider a program or activity to be

in compliance when the recipient

effectively incorporates and implements

these four elements. The failure to

incorporate or implement one or more

of these elements does not necessarily

mean noncompliance with Title VI and

Section 188, and CRC will review the

totality of the circumstances to

determine whether LEP persons can

meaningfully access the services and

benefits of the recipient.

Ensuring Meaningful Access to LEP

Persons

Introduction—The Four Keys to Title VI

and Section 188 Compliance in the LEP

Context

The key to ensuring meaningful

access to services and benefits for LEP

persons is to guarantee that the language

assistance provided results in accurate

and effective communication between

the recipient and LEP applicant/client

about the types of services and/or

benefits available and about the

applicant’s or client’s circumstances.

Although DOL recipients have

considerable flexibility in fulfilling this

obligation, effective programs usually

consist of the following four elements:

I. Assessment. The recipient conducts

a thorough annual assessment of the

language needs of the population to be

served;

II. Development and Implementation

of a Written Policy on Language Access.

The recipient develops and implements

a comprehensive written policy that

will ensure meaningful communication.

This plan is amended on an annual

basis, as needed, depending on the local

service population;

III. Training of Staff. The recipient

takes steps to ensure that staff

understands the policy and is capable of

carrying it out; and

IV. Vigilant Monitoring. The recipient

conducts regular oversight of the

language assistance program to ensure

that LEP persons can meaningfully

access the program or activity.

The failure to implement one or more

of these measures does not necessarily

mean noncompliance with Title VI and

section 188, and CRC will review the

totality of the circumstances in each

case. If implementation of one or more

of these options would be so financially

burdensome as to defeat the legitimate

objectives of a recipient’s program or

activity, and if there are equally

effective alternatives for ensuring that

LEP persons have meaningful access to

programs and services, CRC will not

find the recipient in noncompliance.

However, in reviewing recipients’

compliance, the CRC will seek

documentation and evidence that the

recipient considered and, when

appropriate, incorporated these

elements into their language assistance

programs.

I. Assessment

The first key to ensuring meaningful

access is for the recipient to assess the

language needs of the affected

population. A recipient assesses

language needs by:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices 4601

4Both the Americans with Disabilities Act and

section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability

and require entities to provide language assistance

such as sign language interpreters for hearing

impaired individuals or alternative formats such as

braille, large print or tape for vision impaired

individuals. In developing a comprehensive

language assistance program, recipients should be

mindful of their responsibilities under the ADA and

section 504 to ensure access to programs and

activities for persons with disabilities.

• Identifying the languages other than

English that are likely to be encountered

in its program or activity and by

estimating the number of LEP persons

that are eligible for services and/or

benefits and that are likely to be directly

affected by its program or activity. This

can be done by reviewing data from a

combination of sources, including the

census and state labor market

information systems, client utilization

data from client files, and statistics from

school systems and community agencies

and organizations. When a recipient

believes that the provision of aid,

services, benefits, or training to LEP

persons has not been effective in the

past, the primary source of data from

which estimates of the eligible LEP

population is made should not stem

from client utilization data from client

files;

• Determining the language needs of

LEP clients, keeping in mind that some

LEP individuals will not self-identify as

LEP out of fear that their level of

participation will be curtailed by their

inability to communicate in the English

language;

• Recording LEP status in clients’

files to ensure that LEP individuals are

consistently communicated with in the

appropriate language as they navigate

all stages of the recipient’s program;

• Locating the points of contact of all

stages of the program or activity where

language assistance is likely to be

needed;

• Reviewing delivery systems to

determine whether any program system

denies or limits participation by LEP

individuals. For example, many states

have implemented telephone

certification systems for Unemployment

Insurance programs. Telephone systems

often only provide instructions in

English, or in some cases, Spanish.

Some states require UI applicants to

request a waiver from participation in

this system even if they are LEP.

Programs offering computer-based

technologies may encounter

circumstances that similarly limit

meaningful participation;

• Understanding circumstances in

which, although the participant and/or

beneficiary can communicate effectively

in English, assistance may be needed

when interacting with other pertinent

individuals. For example, if a student

under the age of eighteen needs his/her

parents’ signature to participate in a

summer employment program, both

written and oral language assistance

may be necessary to provide

information and obtain the necessary

permission;

• Assessing the resources that will be

needed to provide effective language

assistance and the location and

availability of these resources; and,

II. Development and Implementation of

a Written Policy on Language Access

All recipients are required to ensure

effective communication by developing

and implementing a comprehensive

written language assistance program

that includes policies and procedures

for identifying and assessing the

language needs of its LEP applicants/

clients and that provides for a range of

interpreter assistance, notification to

LEP persons in appropriate languages of

the right to free language assistance,

periodic training of staff, monitoring of

the program, and translation of written

materials in certain circumstances.4

Certain recipients of DOL financial

assistance are required, per 29 CFR

37.54, to establish and adhere to a

Methods of Administration (‘‘MOA’’).

Per the regulations, MOAs must be in

writing, reviewed and updated every

two years as required by Section 37.55,

and, at a minimum, describe how the

state programs and recipients have

satisfied the requirements of

regulations, including those found at

Sections 37.35 and 37.42 (Section 37.35

can be found on pages 5–6 of this

document).

Oral Language Interpretation

In designing an effective language

assistance program, a recipient should

develop procedures for obtaining and

providing trained and competent

interpreters and other interpretation

services, in a timely manner, by taking

some or all of the following steps:

• Hiring bilingual staff who are

trained and competent in the skill of

interpreting;

• Hiring staff interpreters who are

trained and competent in the skill of

interpreting;

• Contracting with an outside

interpreter service for qualified

interpreters;

• Arranging formally for the services

of volunteers who are qualified

interpreters;

• Arranging/contracting for the use of

a telephone language interpreter service.

The following provides guidance to

recipients in determining which

language assistance options will be of

sufficient quantity and quality to meet

the needs of their LEP beneficiaries:

Bilingual Staff: Hiring bilingual staff

for applicant and client contact

positions facilitates participation by LEP

persons. The ability of staff members to

communicate directly with LEP clients,

without third-party interpretation and

translation assistance, maximizes

agency resources and permits LEP

clients to more fully engage in programs

and services. However, where there are

a variety of LEP language groups in a

recipient’s service area, this option may

be insufficient to meet the needs of all

LEP applicants and clients. Where this

option is insufficient to meet the needs,

the recipient must provide additional

and timely language assistance. The

qualifications of both current and future

bilingual staff must be reviewed to

ensure demonstrated proficiency in

English and the second language,

orientation and training on the skills

and ethics of interpretation, and

fundamental knowledge in both

languages of any specialized terms or

concepts.

Staff Interpreters: Paid staff

interpreters are especially appropriate

where there is a frequent and/or regular

need for interpreting services. The

qualifications of both current and future

staff interpreters must be reviewed to

ensure demonstrated proficiency in

English and the second language,

orientation and training on the skills

and ethics of interpretation, and

fundamental knowledge in both

languages of any specialized terms or

concepts. Staff interpreters must be

readily available.

Contract Interpreters: The use of

contract interpreters may be an option

for recipients that have infrequent needs

for interpreting services, have less

common LEP language groups in their

service areas, or need to supplement

their in-house capabilities on an asneeded basis. Where non-staff

interpreters are used, appropriate

training must be provided. Training

should include orientation and training

on the skills and ethics of interpretation

and fundamental knowledge in both

languages of any specialized terms or

concepts. Contract interpreters must

also be readily available.

Community Volunteers: Use of

community volunteers may provide

recipients with a cost-effective method

for providing interpreter services.

However, experience has shown that to

use community volunteers effectively,

recipients must ensure that formal

arrangements for interpreting services

are made with community organizations

so that these organizations are not

4602 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

5The requirements outlined in this guidance

memorandum also apply to materials posted on

web sites. However, the placement of materials on

a web site need not change the recipients’ original

assessment regarding the number or proportion of

LEP persons that comprise the intended audience

for that document. The four-factor analysis applies

to each individual ‘‘document’’ on a web site.

Generally, entire web sites need not be translated;

usually only the vital documents or vital

information posted would require translation. If, in

applying the four-factor analysis, the recipient

determines that a particular document or piece of

information should be translated, then, provided

that the English version can be found on the web

site, translations into appropriate languages other

than English should also be posted. If documents

are translated on a web site, the web site homepage

should direct browsers to such information.

subjected to ad hoc requests for

assistance. In addition, recipients must

ensure that these volunteers are

qualified to interpret and understand

their obligation to maintain client

confidentiality. Where community

volunteers are used, appropriate

training must be provided. Training

should include orientation and training

on the skills and ethics of interpretation

and fundamental knowledge in both

languages of any specialized terms or

concepts. Additional language

assistance must be provided where

competent volunteers are not readily

available during all hours of service.

Telephone Interpreter Lines: A

telephone interpreter service line may

be a useful option as a supplemental

system, or may be useful when a

recipient encounters a language that it

cannot otherwise accommodate. Such a

service often offers interpreting

assistance in many different languages

and usually can provide the service in

quick response to a request. However,

recipients should be aware that such

services may not always have readily

available interpreters who are familiar

with the terminology peculiar to the

particular program or service. This

method may also be inadequate if and

when documents need to be reviewed.

It is important that a recipient not offer

this as the only language assistance

option except where other language

assistance options are unavailable.

Three recurring issues in the area of

interpreter services involve (a) the use

of friends, family, or minor children as

interpreters; (b) the level of language

ability; and, (c) the need to ensure that

interpreters are qualified.

(a) Use of Friends, Family, or Minor

Children as Interpreters: A recipient

may expose itself to liability under Title

VI and section 188 if it requires,

suggests, or encourages a LEP person to

use friends, family members, or minor

children, as interpreters, as this could

compromise the effectiveness of the

service. Use of such persons could

result in a breach of confidentiality or

reluctance on the part of individuals to

reveal personal information critical to

their situations. In addition, family and

friends usually are not competent to act

as interpreters, since they are often

insufficiently proficient in both

languages, unskilled in interpretation,

and unfamiliar with specialized

terminology.

If after a recipient informs a LEP

person of the right to free interpreter

services, the person declines such

services and requests the use of a family

member or friend, the recipient may use

the family member or friend, if the use

of such a person would not compromise

the effectiveness of services or violate

the LEP person’s confidentiality. The

recipient should make efforts to

document the offer and declination in

the LEP person’s file. Even if a LEP

person elects to use a family member or

friend, the recipient should suggest that

a trained interpreter sit in on the

encounter to ensure accurate

interpretation.

(b) Level of Language Ability: As with

English speakers, the ability of LEP

individuals to read and comprehend

written materials even in their native

languages will vary. If persons are

illiterate even in their native languages,

oral interpretation of written materials

may be necessary. As a general rule,

interpreters should be aware of

variances within a language, i.e.

different words are used throughout the

Spanish-speaking world to describe the

same thing. Interpreters should be able

to communicate with LEP individuals

utilizing the appropriate colloquial

speech.

(c) Qualified Interpreters: In order to

provide effective services to LEP

persons, a recipient must ensure that it

uses persons who are qualified to

provide interpreter services. Being

qualified does not necessarily mean

formal certification as an interpreter,

though certification is helpful. On the

other hand, being qualified requires

more than self-identification as

bilingual. The requirement to be

qualified contemplates:

• Demonstrated proficiency in both

English and the other language;

• Orientation and training that

includes the skills and ethics of

interpreting (e.g., issues of

confidentiality);

• Fundamental knowledge in both

languages of any specialized terms or

concepts peculiar to the recipient’s

program or activity;

• Sensitivity to the LEP person’s

culture; and,

• A demonstrated ability to convey

information in both languages,

accurately.

A recipient must ensure that those

persons it provides as interpreters are

trained and qualified to act in this role.

Translation of Written Materials

An effective language assistance

program ensures that written materials

that are routinely provided in English to

applicants, clients and the public are

available in regularly encountered

languages other than English. It is

particularly important to ensure that

vital documents, such as applications;

consent forms; letters containing

important information regarding

participation in a program or activity;

notices pertaining to the reduction,

denial or termination of services or

benefits and of the right to appeal such

actions; notices that require a response

from beneficiaries; information on the

right to file complaints of

discrimination; notices advising LEP

persons of the availability of free

language assistance; and, other outreach

materials be translated into the

languages other than English of each

regularly encountered LEP group

eligible to be served or likely to be

directly or significantly affected by the

recipient’s program or activity.5 Further,

in some instances, translation of written

materials is required as a reasonable

step to ensure that LEP persons are

effectively informed about, or able to

participate in, a DOL financially

assisted program or activity.

The CRC acknowledges the concern

that translating documents may delay

communication between the program or

activity and the LEP client. It is

expected that all vital documents, or all

portions of documents that utilize

‘‘vital’’ language, be translated in

preparation for assisting persons in

language groups that are significantly

represented in the service delivery area.

Translation of non-vital language must

occur on a timely basis so as not to

delay the participation in and/or receipt

of benefits to LEP clients.

As part of its overall language

assistance program, a recipient should

assess annually its local service

population and develop and implement

a plan to provide written materials in

languages other than English where a

significant number or percentage of the

population eligible to be served or likely

to be directly or significantly affected by

the program or activity needs services or

information in a language other than

English to communicate effectively.

One way for a recipient to know with

greater certainty that it will be found in

compliance with its obligation to

provide written translations in

languages other than English is for the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices 4603

6The ‘‘safe harbor’’ provisions are not intended

to establish numerical thresholds for when a

recipient must translate documents. Because the

numbers and percentages included in these

provisions are based on the balancing of a number

of factors, the Civil Rights Center will undertake

additional assessment of the numerical thresholds,

which may be revised as a result.

7The Civil Rights Center will undertake

additional assessment of the numerical thresholds,

which may be revised as a result.

recipient to meet the guidelines

outlined in paragraphs (A), (B) and (C)

below.

Paragraphs (A) and (B) outline the

circumstances that provide a ‘‘safe

harbor’’ for recipients. A recipient that

provides written translations under

these circumstances will most likely be

found in compliance with its obligation

under Title VI and section 188 regarding

written translations.6 However, the

failure to provide written translations

under circumstances outlined in

paragraphs (A), (B) and (C) will not

necessarily mean noncompliance with

Title VI and section 188.

In such circumstances, CRC will

review the totality of the circumstances

to determine the precise nature of a

recipient’s obligation to provide written

materials in languages other than

English. If written translation of a

certain document or set of documents

would be so financially burdensome as

to defeat the legitimate objectives of its

program or activity, and if there is an

alternative means of ensuring that LEP

persons have meaningful access to the

information provided in the document

(such as timely, effective oral

interpretation of vital documents), CRC

will not find the translation of written

materials necessary for compliance with

Title VI and section 188.

CRC will consider a recipient to be in

compliance with the Title VI and

section 188 obligation to provide

written materials in languages other

than English if: 7

(A) The recipient provides translated

written materials for each LEP language

group that constitutes ten percent or

3,000, whichever is less, of the

population of persons eligible to be

served or likely to be directly or

significantly affected by the recipient’s

program or activity;

(B) Regarding LEP language groups

that constitute five percent or 1,000,

whichever is less, of the population of

persons eligible to be served or likely to

be directly or significantly affected by

the recipient’s program or activity, the

recipient ensures that, at a minimum,

vital documents are translated into the

appropriate languages other than

English of such LEP persons.

Translation of other documents, if

needed, can be provided orally; and,

(C) Notwithstanding paragraphs (A)

and (B) above, a recipient with fewer

than five percent or 1,000 persons in a

language group eligible to be served or

likely to be directly or significantly

affected by the recipient’s program or

activity, need not translate written

materials but rather may provide written

notice in the primary language of the

LEP language group of the right to

receive competent oral interpretation of

written materials.

The term ‘‘persons eligible to be

served or likely to be directly or

significantly affected’’ relates to the

issue of what is the recipient’s service

area for purposes of meeting the Title VI

and section 188 obligation. There is no

‘‘one size fits all’’ definition of what

constitutes ‘‘persons eligible to be

served or likely to be directly or

significantly affected.’’

Ordinarily, persons eligible to be

served or likely to be directly or

significantly affected by a recipient’s

program or activity are those persons

who are in the geographic area that has

been approved by a federal grant agency

as the recipient’s service area, and who

are either eligible for the recipient’s

services or benefits, or otherwise might

be directly or significantly affected by

such a recipient’s conduct. CRC may

also determine the service area to be the

geographic areas from which the

recipient draws, or can be expected to

draw, clients. This, for example, could

occur in a local workforce investment

area (LWIA) that manages more than a

single One-Stop Center. Instead of being

guided by a population survey for the

LWIA, each One-Stop Center should

assess its own local service population.

States operating programs, such as the

Unemployment Insurance program,

should assess both statewide language

groups that are represented significantly

and require all local offices to conduct

surveys of local service populations.

Small entities, such as Vermont,

Delaware, and the District of Columbia,

that operate only a single One-Stop

Center, should assess their overall

populations and also be aware of

‘‘pockets’’ of LEP persons that may exist

in certain areas (e.g., the Chinatown or

Adams Morgan (largely Spanishspeaking) areas of Washington, D.C.).

As this guidance notes, Title VI and

section 188 provide that no person may

be denied meaningful access to a

recipient’s services and benefits, on the

basis of national origin. To comply with

Title VI and section 188, a recipient

must ensure that LEP persons have

meaningful access to and can

understand information contained in

program/activity-related written

documents. Thus, for language groups

that do not fall within paragraphs (A)

and (B) above, a recipient can ensure

such access by, at a minimum,

providing notice, in writing, in the LEP

person’s primary language, of the right

to receive free language assistance,

including the right to competent oral

interpretation of written materials, free

of cost.

Recent technological advances have

made it easier for recipients to store

translated documents readily. At the

same time, CRC recognizes that

recipients in a number of areas, such as

many large cities, regularly serve

populations of people in which dozens

and sometimes hundreds of different

languages are spoken. It would be

unduly burdensome to demand that

recipients in these circumstances

translate all written materials into all

languages.

It is also important to ensure that the

person translating the materials is wellqualified. In addition, it is important to

note that in some circumstances

verbatim translation of materials may

not accurately or appropriately convey

the substance of what is contained in

the written materials. Moreover, written

materials should be translated to serve

the average reading level of the LEP

community to be served. An effective

way to address this potential problem is

to reach out to community-based

organizations to review translated

materials to ensure that they are

accurate and easily understood by LEP

persons.

The ‘‘safe harbor’’ provisions apply to

the translation of written documents

only. They do not change the

requirement to provide meaningful

access to LEP individuals through

competent oral interpreters.

Methods for Providing Notice to LEP

Persons

A vital part of a well-functioning

compliance program includes having

effective methods for notifying LEP

persons of their rights to receive or

participate in the employment benefits,

services, and job training programs to

which they may be eligible. Outreach

materials should notify LEP persons of

their rights to language assistance and

the availability of such assistance free of

charge. These methods include but are

not limited to:

• Advertising and outreach to

communicate the rights of individuals

to employment benefits, services, and

job training programs to which they may

be eligible, which could include public

service announcements in appropriate

languages on television or radio,

newspaper advertisements, or

4604 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

distributing materials to organizations

that serve LEP persons;

• Use of language identification cards

that allow LEP beneficiaries to identify

their language needs to staff and for staff

to identify the language needs of

applicants and clients. To be effective,

the cards (e.g., ‘‘I speak cards’’) must

invite the LEP person to identify the

language s/he speaks. This

identification must be recorded in the

LEP person’s file;

• Posting and maintaining signs in

regularly encountered languages in

waiting rooms, reception areas and

other initial points of entry. In order to

be effective, these signs must inform

LEP applicants/clients of their right to

free language assistance services and

invite them to identify themselves as

persons needing such services;

• Translation of application forms

and instructional, informational and

other written materials into appropriate

languages other than English by

competent translators. Oral

interpretation of documents for persons

who speak languages not regularly

encountered.

• Uniform procedures for timely and

effective telephone communication

between staff and LEP persons. This

must include instructions for Englishspeaking employees to obtain assistance

from interpreters or bilingual staff when

receiving calls from or initiating calls to

LEP persons.

III. Training of Staff

Another vital element in ensuring that

its policies are followed is a recipient’s

dissemination of its policy to all

employees likely to have contact with

LEP persons and periodic training of

these employees. Effective training

ensures that employees are

knowledgeable and aware of LEP

policies and procedures; are trained to

work effectively with in-person and

telephone interpreters; and, understand

the dynamics of interpretation between

LEP clients, the recipient’s staff and

interpreters. It is important that this

training be part of the orientation for

new employees and that all employees

in client contact positions be properly

trained. Given the high turnover rate

among some employees, recipients may

find it useful to maintain a training

registry that records the names and

dates of employees’ training. Over the

years, CRC has observed that recipients

often develop effective language

assistance policies and procedures but

that employees are unaware of the

policies, or do not know how to, or

otherwise fail to, provide available

assistance. Effective training is one

means of ensuring that there is not a gap

between a recipient’s written policies

and procedures, and that the actual

practices of employees who are in the

front lines interacting with LEP persons

are being followed.

IV. Monitoring

It is also crucial for a recipient to

monitor its language assistance program

at least biennially to assess the current

LEP makeup of its service area, the

current communication needs of LEP

applicants and clients, whether existing

assistance is meeting the needs of such

persons, whether staff is knowledgeable

about policies and procedures and how

to implement them, and whether

sources of and arrangements for

assistance are still current and viable.

One element of such an assessment is

for a recipient to seek feedback from

clients and advocates. Recipients should

consider involving community groups

in their monitoring processes, which

can aid in assessing local demographics,

as well as obtaining feedback on the

effectiveness of policies and practices to

serve LEP individuals. CRC believes that

compliance with the Title VI and

Section 188 language assistance

obligation is most likely when a

recipient continuously monitors its

program, makes modifications where

necessary, and periodically trains

employees in implementation of the

policies and procedures.

CRC’s Assessment of Meaningful Access

The failure to take all of the steps

outlined will not necessarily mean that

a recipient has failed to provide

meaningful access to LEP clients. As

noted above, CRC will make

assessments on a case by case basis and

will consider several factors in assessing

whether the steps taken by a recipient

provide meaningful access. Those

factors include the number or

proportion of LEP individuals eligible to

participate or likely to be directly or

significantly affected by the program or

activity; the frequency of contact a

participant or beneficiary is required to

have with the program or activity; the

nature and importance of the program or

activity to the participant or beneficiary;

and, the resources available to the

recipient in carrying out the program or

activity.

Promising Practices

In meeting the needs of their LEP

applicants and clients, some recipients

have found unique ways of providing

translation and interpretation services

and reaching out to the LEP community.

As part of its technical assistance, CRC

has frequently assisted, and will

continue to assist, recipients who are

interested in learning about promising

practices in the area of service to LEP

populations. Examples of promising

practices include the following:

Language Banks. In several parts of

the country, both urban and rural,

community organizations have created

community language banks that train,

hire and dispatch qualified interpreters,

reducing the need to have on-staff

interpreters for low demand languages.

These language banks are frequently

nonprofit and charge reasonable rates.

This approach is particularly

appropriate where there is a scarcity of

language services, or where there is a

large variety of language needs.

Language Support Office. An ‘‘Office

for Language Assistance Services’’ could

be created to test and certify all in-house

and contract interpreters and to provide

agency-wide support for translation of

forms, client mailings, publications and

other written materials into languages

other than English.

Use of Technology. Some recipients

use their internet and/or intranet

capabilities to store translated

documents online. These documents

can be retrieved as needed. Translation

software may also be useful.

Telephone Information Lines.

Recipients have established telephone

information lines in languages spoken

by frequently encountered language

groups to instruct callers, in the

languages other than English, on how to

leave a recorded message that will be

answered by someone who speaks the

caller’s language.

Signage and Other Outreach.

Recipients could provide information

about services, benefits, eligibility

requirements, and the availability of free

language assistance, in appropriate

languages by (a) posting signs and

placards with this information in public

places such as grocery stores, bus

shelters and subway stations; (b) putting

notices in newspapers and on radio and

television stations that serve LEP

groups; (c) placing flyers and signs in

the offices of community-based

organizations that serve large

populations of LEP persons; and, (d)

establishing information lines in

appropriate languages.

Model Plan

The following is an example of a

model language assistance program that

is potentially useful for all recipients,

but is particularly appropriate for

recipients that serve a significant and

diverse LEP population. This model

plan incorporates a variety of options

and methods for providing meaningful

access to LEP beneficiaries:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices 4605

• A formal written language

assistance program, reviewed annually;

• Identification and biennial

assessment of the languages that are

likely to be encountered and estimating

the number of LEP persons that are

eligible for services and that are likely

to be affected by its program or activity

through a review of census, client

utilization data and statistics from

school systems, community agencies

and organizations;

• Outreach to LEP communities,

advertising program eligibility and the

availability of free language assistance;

• Posting of signs in lobbies and in

other waiting areas, in several

languages, informing applicants and

clients of their right to free interpreter

services and inviting them to identify

themselves as persons needing language

assistance;

• Use of ‘‘I speak cards’’ by intake

workers and other client contact

personnel so that applicants/clients can

identify their primary languages;

• Requiring intake workers to note

the language of the LEP person in his/

her record so that all subsequent

interaction will be conducted in the

appropriate language;

• Employment of a sufficient number

of staff, bilingual in appropriate

languages, in applicant and client

contact positions. These persons must

be qualified interpreters;

• Contracts with interpreting services

that can provide qualified interpreters

in a wide variety of languages, in a

timely manner;

• Formal arrangements with

community groups for qualified and

timely interpreter services by

community volunteers;

• An arrangement with a telephone

language interpreter line;

• Translation of application forms,

instructional, informational and other

key documents into appropriate

languages other than English. Oral

interpretation of documents for persons

who speak languages not regularly

encountered;

• Procedures for effective telephone

communication between staff and LEP

persons, including instructions for

English-speaking employees to obtain

assistance from bilingual staff or

interpreters when initiating or receiving

calls from LEP persons;

• Notice to and training of all staff,

particularly applicant and client contact

staff, with respect to the recipient’s Title

VI and Section 188 obligation to provide

language assistance to LEP persons, and

on the language assistance policies and

procedures to be followed in securing

such assistance in a timely manner;

• Insertion of notices, in appropriate

languages, about the right of LEP

applicants and clients to free

interpreters and other language

assistance, in brochures, pamphlets,

manuals, and other materials

disseminated to the public and to staff;

• Notice to the public regarding the

language assistance policies and

procedures, plus notice to and

consultation with community

organizations that serve LEP persons

regarding problems and solutions,

including standards and procedures for

using their members as volunteer

interpreters;

• Adoption of a procedure for the

resolution of complaints regarding the

provision of language assistance, and for

notifying and educating clients of the

right to file a complaint of

discrimination under Title VI and

Section 188 with DOL; and,

• Appointment of a senior level

employee to coordinate the language

assistance program and ensure that

there is regular monitoring of the

program.

• Consideration of LEP needs when

implementing new programs or

activities, publishing new forms or

notices, etc.

Compliance and Enforcement

The recommendations outlined above

are not intended to be exhaustive.

Recipients have considerable flexibility

in determining how to meet their legal

obligations in the LEP setting, and are

not required to use all of the suggested

methods and options listed. However,

recipients must establish and

implement policies and procedures to

provide language assistance sufficient to

fulfill their Title VI and section 188

responsibilities and that give LEP

persons meaningful access to services.

CRC will enforce Title VI and section

188 as they apply to recipients’

responsibilities to LEP persons through

the procedures provided for in 29 CFR

Parts 31 and 37. These procedures

include complaint investigations,

compliance reviews, efforts to secure

voluntary compliance, and technical

assistance.

CRC regulations state that CRC will

investigate any complaint, report or

other information that alleges or

indicates possible noncompliance with

Title VI and section 188. If the

investigation results in a finding of

compliance, CRC will inform the

recipient in writing of this

determination, including the basis for

the determination. If the investigation

results in a finding of noncompliance,

CRC will inform the recipient of the

noncompliance in a Letter of Findings

that sets out the areas of noncompliance

and the steps that must be taken to

correct the noncompliance. At this

stage, the CRC will attempt to secure

voluntary compliance through informal

means. If the matter cannot be resolved

informally, CRC must secure

compliance through (a) the termination

of federal assistance after the recipient

has been given an opportunity for an

administrative hearing, (b) referral to

DOJ for injunctive relief or other

enforcement proceedings; or, (c) any

other means authorized by law.

As the regulations set forth above

indicate, CRC has a legal obligation to

seek voluntary compliance in resolving

cases and cannot seek the termination of

funds until it has engaged in voluntary

compliance efforts and has determined

that compliance cannot be secured

voluntarily. CRC will engage in

voluntary compliance efforts, and will

provide technical assistance to

recipients at all stages of its

investigation. During these efforts to

secure voluntary compliance, CRC will

propose reasonable timetables for

achieving compliance and will consult

with and assist recipients in exploring

cost effective ways of coming into

compliance, by increasing awareness of

emerging technologies, and by sharing

information on how other recipients

have addressed the language needs of

diverse populations.

In determining a recipient’s

compliance with Title VI and section

188, CRC’s primary concern is to ensure

that the recipient’s policies and

procedures overcome barriers resulting

from language differences that would

deny LEP persons meaningful

opportunities to participate in and

access programs, services and benefits.

A recipient’s appropriate use of the

methods and options discussed in this

policy guidance will be viewed by CRC

as evidence of a recipient’s willingness

to comply with its Title VI and section

188 obligations.

Technical Assistance

CRC will continue to provide

substantial technical assistance to

recipients, and will continue to be

available to provide such assistance to

any recipient seeking to ensure that it

operates an effective language assistance

program. In addition, during its

investigative process, CRC is available

to provide technical assistance to enable

recipients to come into voluntary

compliance.

[FR Doc. 01–1336 Filed 1–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–23–P