National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Headquarters
 

Washington, DC 20546-0001
 

November 7,2007 

Reply to Attn of: Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity 

TO:	 NASA Center EO Directors 

FROM:	 Assistant Administrator for Diversity and Equal Opportunity 

SUBJECT:	 Guidance on Providing Language Assistance Services m NASA 

Conducted Programs and Activities 

The Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity (ODEO) provides the enclosed Guidance 

to assist the Agency in meeting the requirements of Executive Order Jl3166, Improving 

Access to Persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). 

The Guidance provides specific instructions for implementing Executi ve Order 13166 as 

it pertains to programs and activities conducted by the Agency. ODEO requests that you 

carefully review the Guidance and share it with your staff. 

We ask that you brief your Center Director and Center senior leadership on the Guidance, 

particularly the heads of organizations engaged in communications, recruitment, or 

training events involving members of the public. To assist you in communicating 

information regarding Executive Order 13166 and this Guidance, we ;,'.1so provide 

additional copies of the brochure, "Affirming Access to LEP Persons :in Programs 

Assisted and Conducted by NASA." We also ask that you develop an appropriate means 

of disseminating the Guidance to all Center employees, e.g., web site posting, other 

electronic or hard copy availability. 

Should you have questions relating to this Guidance, please contact Mr. Miguel A. 

Torres, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator and Director, Program Planning and 

Evaluation Division, at (202) 358-0937. 

Thank you very much for your assistance in these important efforts. 

~~~~0tnwL~
Guidance on Providing
 

Language Assistance
 

Services in NASjl~
 

Conducted Programs
 

OFFICE OF DIVERSITY AND EQUAL OPPORTllNY 

November 2007 
Table of Contents 

1. Purpose and Scope ,.., 3 

2. Who is a Limited English Proficient (LEP) Person? 4 

3. What is a Conducted Program? ,.., 4 

4. Receiving Requests for Language Assistance 4·5 

5. Taking Reasonable Steps: The Four Factor Analysis ,....•...5·8 

6. Providing Oral Language Assistance Services 8·13 

7. Providing Written Language Assistance Services..•..........••.........•13·15
 

8. Developing an Effective Language Assistance Plan 15·18 

9. Resources "" 19 

2 
Guidance on Providing Language Assistance Servie,es in NASA
 

Conducted Programs
 

1. Purpose and Scope 

1.1.	 This guidance is intended to assist NASA in fulfilling its obligations pursuant to 

Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited 

English Proficiency (August 11, 2000).1 

1.1.1.	 Under the Executive Order, NASA is required to provide language assistance as 

appropriate to limited English proficient (LEP) persons who request such 

assistance in order to gain knowledge of, participate in, or obtain the benefits of 

NASA-conducted programs and activities. Assistance is to bt: provided in a 

prompt, fair and efficient manner, free of charge, and within du~ shortest time 

possible. The Executive Order covers members of the general public, e.g., 

visitors to NASA, participants in NASA outreach and training events, as well as 

applicants for employment. 

1.1.2.	 The Executive Order requires NASA to prepare a plan to improve access to its 

federally conducted programs and activities by LEP persons. This guidance lays 

out the steps the Agency must take to meet this requirement. rhis guidance also 

provides criteria, consistent with the Executive Order 13166, f~)r collecting and 

annually reporting data on the numbers and types of languagelssistance requests 

received and processed at NASA Headquarters and NASA Centers, including 

component facilities. 

1.2.	 The guidance provides information on appropriate implementation of the 

Executive Order for NASA staff who: 

1.2.1.	 Develop and implement plans for the provision of language assistance to limited 

English proficient (LEP) persons participating in NASA-condt,ded programs and 

activities; and 

1.2.2.	 Receive, coordinate, review, and approve requests for languag,;: assistance to LEP 

persons participating in NASA-conducted programs and activities. 

1 NASA published policy guidance to recipients of Agency financial assistance in D4:cember 2003, 

pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 13166. Sel~ NASA, Policy 

Guidance on the Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination as it Affects Persons with Limited 

English Proficiency, 68 Fed. Reg. 70039 (Dec. 16,2003). The present guidance is bHsed on the December 

2003, guidance regarding compliance in the assisted program context, but adapted to apply to the 

conducted program context. 

3 
2. Who is a LEP Person? 

2.1 Individuals who do not speak English as their primary languag,e and who have a 

limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English anc. may require 

language assistance with respect to a particular type of servicl:, benefit, or 

encounter. 

3. What is a NASA-conducted Program? 

3.1. Department ofJustice guidance on Executive Order 13166 Statl~S that the 

definition of federally conducted programs is the same under Executive Order 

13166 as the definition used under the regulations for applicaton of Section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to federally conducted progrlms? The DOJ 

Section 504 regulations provide the following definition: 

"A federally conducted program or activity is, in simple terms, anything a Federal 

agency does. Aside from employment, there are two major cat~gories offederally 

conducted programs or activities covered by the regulation: those involving 

general public contact as part of ongoing agency operations and those directly 

administered by the department for program beneficiaries and participants. 

Activities in the first part include communication with the public (telephone 

contacts, office walk-ins, or interviews) and the public's use ofthe Agency's 

facilities (cafeteria, library). Activities in the second category include programs 

that provide Federal services or benefits.,,3 

3.2. Examples ofpopulations encountered by NASA likely to include LEP persons 

and must be considered when planning for the provision of1anguage services 

include, but are not limited to: 

• Students enrolled in NASA-conducted science, mathematics, and technology 

activities. 

• Parents or family members ofthe above. 

• Individuals participating in NASA programs and activities sU<:h as orientations, 

briefings, and exhibits. 

4. Receiving Requests for Language Assistance 

4.1.	 A request for language assistance is a statement that an individual needs oral 

interpretation and/or translation of printed materials in order to gain knowledge 

of, participate, and/or obtain the benefits of a NASA conducted program or 

activity. The request can be initiated orally or in writing, or in my other format or 

medium that is convenient and practical for the individual. 

2 U.S. Department of Justice, "Commonly Asked Questions Regarding Executive Orcil~r 13166," accessible 

at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/Pubs/lepqa.htm. 

328 C.F.R. § 39.102 (2006). 

4 
4.2.	 The person(s) who decides whether or not to grant the requesl for language 

assistance shall be designated by the respective Center, including Headquarters. 

These individuals shall be referred to as the "Language Assistance Official 

(LAO)." In cases where the request is made to someone other than the LAO, the 

request should be referred to the LAO for review and processing. The LAO or 

hislher designee shall contact the relevant program/activity official as soon as 

possible to alert himlher of the receipt of a request for langua~:e assistance. The 

person designated by the LAO shall continue to process the n:quest until a 

determination to grant or deny the request is made by the Cen:er's LAO. 

4.3.	 When a request for language assistance is made, the NASA representative 

receiving the request shall immediately notify the installation"s LAO, who will 

coordinate with appropriate NASA officials to consider and re spond to the 

request. NASA encourages supervisors, managers, employee~:, or applicants to 

consult with the designated LAO at their respective installatiol for further 

information or assistance in connection with processing a request for language 

assistance. 

5.	 Taking Reasonable Steps: The Four-Factor Analysis 

5.1	 NASA must take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful acces~: to its conducted 

programs and activities by LEP persons, whether responding tl) a request for 

language assistance services, or taking proactive measures consistent with the 

requirements of the Executive Order,. The starting point is an individualized 

assessment that balances the following four factors: 

•	 The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be ser'lI~d or likely to be 

encountered by the program or activity; 

•	 The frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with the program 

or activity; 

•	 The nature and importance of the program or activity to people's lives; and 

•	 The resources available and costs. . 

5.2.	 The four factor analysis is to be used to balance the need to emure meaningful 

access for LEP persons to NASA conducted programs and acti vities against the 

Agency's available resources and costs. The four factors shoul d be applied to the 

various kinds of contacts with the public to assess language needs and decide 

what reasonable steps should be taken to ensure meaningful aCI;ess for LEP 

persons. 

5.3.	 The flexibility that NASA has in addressing the needs ofthe LEP populations 

does not diminish, and should not be used to minimize, the obligation that those 

needs be addressed. The correct balance should be based on what is both 

necessary and reasonable in light of the four-factor analysis. For instance, a visit 

by the NASA Administrator to a largely Hispanic neighborhood may need 

immediate oral interpreters be made available. 

5 
5.4.	 In contrast, there may be circumstances where the importance: ,md nature ofthe 

activity and number or proportion, and frequency of contact v,ith LEP persons 

may be low and the costs and resources needed to provide lanJ~uage services may 

be high, such as in the case of a voluntary general public tour Jf a NASA program 

site in which pre-arranged language services for the particular service may not be 

necessary. In brief, there is substantial flexibility in determining the appropriate 

mix relative to the four factors. Each factor is addressed in more detail below. 

5.5.	 Factor 1: Number or Proportion ofLEP Persons 

5.5.1.	 The first factor is a calculus involving the number ofLEP perwns from a 

particular language group encountered in the eligible population, to be used in 

determining what, and the extent to which, language services :~ hould be provided. 

The greater the number or proportion ofthese LEP persons, th~ more likely 

language services are needed. 

5.5.2.	 When considering the number or proportion ofLEP individuals in a language 

service area, NASA must consider the LEP parent(s) when their 

English-proficient or LEP minor children and dependents are ]:,otential or actual 

participants or beneficiaries ofNASA-conducted programs and activities. 

5.5.3.	 Ordinarily, persons eligible, or likely to be directly affected, by a NASA 

conducted program or activity are those who are encountered i1 the eligible 

population. However, where, for instance, a school district ho~:ting a NASA 

conducted program or activity, or participating in a NASA conducted program or 

activity at a NASA installation, serves a large LEP population, 1he appropriate 

language service area is most likely the school district, and not the entire state. 

5.5.4.	 NASA LAOs should first examine their prior experiences with LEP encounters 

and determine the breadth and scope oflanguage services that were needed. In 

conducting this analysis, it is important to include language minority populations 

that are part oftarget audiences for NASA-conducted program~: and/or activities 

but may be underserved because of existing language barriers. 

5.5.5.	 Other data should be consulted to refine or validate a specific prior experience, 

including the latest census data for the relevant area, data from school systems 

and from community organizations, and data from state and lo<:al governments. l 

Community agencies, school systems, and others can often assist in identifying 

1 The focus of the analysis is on lack of English proficiency, not the ability to speak more than one 

language. Note that demographic data may indicate the most frequently spoken langwlges other than 

English and the percentage of people who speak that language or understand English [,ess than well. Some 

of the most commonly spoken languages other than English may be spoken by people: who are also 

overwhelmingly proficient in English. Thus. they may not be languages spoken mosl frequently by limited 

English proficient individuals. When using demographic data, it is important to focu:. in on the languages 

spoken by those who are not proficient in English. 

6 
populations for whom outreach is needed and who would benefit from NASA 

conducted programs and activities were language services provided. 

5.6.	 Factor 2: Frequency with Which LEP Individuals Come in Contact with NASAconducted Programs or Activities. 

5.6.1.	 LAOs should assess, as accurately as possible, the frequency of contact with LEP 

persons from different language groups seeking assistance. Tht: more frequent the 

contact with a particular language group, the more likely that mmanced language 

services in that language are needed. 

5.6.2.	 The language assistance steps that are reasonable on a one-tilIIt: basis contact will 

be very different than those expected from daily needs. It is al so advisable to 

consider the frequency of different types of language contacts. For example, 

frequent contacts with Spanish-speaking people who are LEP may require certain 

assistance in Spanish. Less frequent contact with different language groups may 

suggest a different and less intensified solution. If a LEP person accesses a 

program or activity on a daily basis, there are greater duties thatl if the same 

individual's program or activity contact is unpredictable or inftt:quent. 

5.6.3.	 Even when LEP persons are served on an unpredictable or inth:quent basis, a 

LAO should use this balancing analysis to determine what to do if a LEP 

individual seeks services under the program in question. This plan need not be 

intricate. It may be as simple as being prepared to use one oftbe 

commercially-available telephonic interpretation services to obtain immediate 

interpreter services. In applying this standard, NASA should take care to consider 

whether appropriate outreach to LEP persons could increase the frequency of 

contact with LEP language groups. 

5.7.	 Factor 3: Nature and Importance of the Program or Activity. 

5.7.1.	 The more important the activity, information, or program, the more likely 

language services are needed. The obligations to communicatl; information on 

short and long-term weather patterns to rural communities via ~.atellite pictures 

and computer modeling differ, for example, from those to provide curriculum 

enhancement in science and mathematics to middle school students. 

5.7.2.	 Program and activity officials need to determine whether denial or delay of access 

to information could have serious implications for the LEP individual. Decisions 

to make an activity compulsory, such as instruction on safety and security 

requirements before touring a NASA facility, can serve as strorlg evidence of the 

program's importance. 

5.8.	 Factor 4: Determination ofthe Resources Available and the Pot'ential Cost(s) 

7 
5.8.1.	 The level of resources and the costs that would be incurred may have an impact 

on the nature of the steps that can be taken to address the neec for language 

services. In addition, reasonable steps may cease to be reasonable where the costs 

imposed substantially exceed the benefits. 

5.8.2.	 Resource and cost issues can often be reduced by technological advances; the 

sharing of language assistance materials and services among and between 

organizations/Centers, advocacy groups, other federal agencies; and reasonable 

business practices. Where appropriate, training bilingual staff 1:0 act as 

interpreters and translators, information sharing through profe: ;;sional groups, 

telephonic and video conferencing interpretation services, pooling resources and 

standardizing documents to reduce translation needs, using qul1ified translators 

and interpreters to ensure that documents need not be fixed later and that 

inaccurate interpretations do not cause delay or other costs, utilizing centralized 

interpreter and translator services to achieve economies of sca (~, or the formalized 

use of qualified community volunteers, for example, may help reduce costs. 

5.8.3.	 The most cost-effective means of delivering competent and aCGurate language 

services should be explored before limiting services due to reSI)urce concerns. 

Programs and activities to be conducted in areas with a signifi,:ant number or 

proportion of LEP persons should ensure that their resource linitations are 

well-substantiated before using this factor as a reason to limit language assistance. 

Program and activity officials may find it useful to be able to articulate, through 

documentation or in some other reasonable manner, their procl~:ss for determining 

that language services would be limited based on resources or I;OStS. 

6. Providing Oral Language Services (Interpretation) 

6.1.	 Interpretation is the act of listening to something in one langua. ~e (source 

language) and orally translating it into another language (targel language). Oral 

interpretation can range from on-site interpreters for critical services provided to a 

high volume ofLEP persons to access through commercially-a.vailable telephonic 

interpretation services. Where interpretation is needed and is n~asonable, the 

following considerations should be taken into account. 

6.2.	 Interpreting Competency 

6.2.1.	 When providing oral assistance, competency of the language snvice provider 

should be ensured, no matter which of the strategies outlined bdow are used. 

Competency requires more than self-identification as bilingual. Some bilingual 

staff and community volunteers, for instance, may be able to communicate 

effectively in a different language when communicating information directly in 

that language, but not be competent to interpret in and out of English. Likewise, 

they may not be able to do written translations. 

8 
6.2.2.	 Competency to interpret, however, does not necessarily mean formal certification 

as an interpreter, although certification is helpful. When using interpreters, NASA 

should ensure that they: 

(a) Demonstrate proficiency in and ability to communicate in:brmation 

accurately in both English and in the other language and ic.entify and employ 

the appropriate mode of interpreting (e.g., consecutive, simultaneous, 

summarization, or sight translation); 

(b) Have knowledge in both languages of any specialized terms or concepts 

peculiar to the program or activity, and of any particulariz~~d vocabulary and 

phraseology used by the LEP person? 

(c) Understand and adhere to their role as interpreters without deviating into 

other roles. 

6.2.3.	 Technical or scientific programs and/or activities may have additional 

self-imposed requirements for interpreters. Where the technical integrity of the 

information depends on precise, complete, and accurate interpn:tation or 

translations, particularly in the contexts of communicating technology innovations 

to the public, the use of certified interpreters is strongly encoUl aged. Where such 

activities are lengthy, the interpreter willlike1y need breaks and team interpreting 

may be appropriate. 

6.2.4.	 The quality and accuracy oflanguage services is part of the appropriate mix of 

LEP services required. The quality and accuracy of language st:rvices during a 

safety and security briefing, for example, must be extraordinari ly high, while the 

quality and accuracy of language services in responding to tele:phonic inquiries 

for general information need not meet the same exacting standards. 

6.2.5.	 Finally, when interpretation is needed and is reasonable, it shoulld be provided in a 

timely manner. To be meaningfully effective, language assista:lce should be 

timely. While there is no single definition for timely applicablt: to all types of 

interactions at all times, one clear guide is that the language as:~ istance should be 

provided at a time and place that avoids the effective denial of the benefit, and/or 

access to the LEP person. 

6.2.6.	 For example, when the timeliness of services is important, such as with certain 

NASA programs and/or activities which involve the provision of enrollment 

information to parents of potential student participants in NASA summer 

2 Many languages have regionalisms, or differences in usage. For instance, a word tlhat may be understood 

to mean something in Spanish for someone from Cuba may not be so understood by omeone from Mexico. 

In addition, because there may be languages that do not have an appropriate direct interpretation of some 

technical terms, the interpreter should be so aware of the issue. The interpreter and NASA can then work to 

develop a consistent and appropriate set of descriptions of these terms in that language so that they can be 

used again, when appropriate. 

9 
educational and/or employment programs, enrichment activities in science, 

mathematics, and/or technology, NASA would likely not be providing meaningful 

access if it had one bilingual member ofthe staff available one day a week to 

provide the service. Such conduct would likely result in delays for LEP persons 

that would be significantly greater than those for English profcient persons. 

Conversely, where access to benefits is not effectively preclu<:(~d by a reasonable 

delay, language assistance can likely be delayed for a reasonable period. 

6.3.	 Hiring Bilingual Staff 

6.3.1.	 When particular languages are encountered often, hiring bilingual staff offers one 

ofthe best, and often most economical, options. For example, public contact 

positions, such as public information specialists, guards, or program directors, can 

be staffed with qualified persons that are bilingual and compete:nt to communicate 

directly with LEP persons in their language. If bilingual staff is also used to 

interpret between English speakers and LEP persons, or to ora.lly interpret written 

documents from English into another language, they should be competent in the 

skill of interpreting. 

6.3.2.	 Being bilingual does not necessarily mean that a person has the ability to 

interpret. In addition, there may be times when the role of the bilingual employee 

may conflict with the role of an interpreter (for instance, a bilingual security guard 

would probably not be able to perform effectively the role of a. planetary science 

interpreter and security guard at the same time, even ifthe security guard were a 

qualified interpreter). 

6.3.3.	 Effective management strategies, including any appropriate ad: llstments in 

assignments and protocols for using bilingual staff, can ensure that bilingual staff 

is fully and appropriately utilized. When bilingual staff cannot meet all ofthe 

Agency's language service obligations, other options should bl;: considered. 

6.4.	 Hiring Staff Interpreters 

6.4.1.	 Hiring interpreters may be most helpful where there is a freque:nt need for 

interpreting services in one or more languages. Depending on rhe facts, 

sometimes it may be necessary and reasonable to provide on-si:e interpreters to 

ensure accurate and meaningful communication with an LEP person. 

6.5.	 Contracting for Interpreters 

6.5.1.	 Contract interpreters may be a cost-effective option when there is no regular need 

for a particular language skill. In addition to commercial and o:her private 

providers, many community-based organizations and mutual as ~istance

associations provide interpretation services for particular languages. Contracting 

with and providing training regarding NASA programs and prol;esses to these 

10 
organizations can be a cost-effective option for providing language services to 

LEP persons from those language groups. 

6.6.	 Using Telephone Interpreter Lines 

6.6.1.	 Telephone interpreter service lines often offer speedy interpreting assistance in 

many different languages. They may be particularly appropriate where the mode 

of communicating with an English proficient person would ah) be over the 

phone. Although telephonic interpretation services are useful in many situations, 

it is important to ensure that, when using such services, the intt:rpreters used are 

competent to interpret any technical or legal terms specific to a particular program 

that may be important parts of the conversation. Nuances in language and 

non-verbal communication can often assist an interpreter and eannot be 

recognized over the phone. Video teleconferencing may somt:times help to 

resolve this issue where necessary. In addition, where docum~~nts are being 

discussed, it is important to give telephonic interpreters adequate opportunity to 

review the document prior to the discussion and any logistical problems should be 

addressed. 

6.7.	 Using Community Volunteers 

6.7.1.	 In addition to consideration of bilingual staff, staff interpreters, or contract 

interpreters (either in-person or by telephone) as options to emure meaningful 

access by LEP persons, use of Agency-coordinated community volunteers, 

working with, for instance, community-based organizations may provide a 

cost-effective supplemental language assistance strategy under appropriate 

circumstances. They may be particularly useful in providing language access for 

less critical programs and activities. 

6.7.2	 To the extent that NASA relies on community volunteers, it is ;)ften best to use 

volunteers who are trained in the information or services of th~: program and can 

communicate directly with LEP persons in their language. Jus~: as with all 

interpreters, community volunteers used to interpret between English speakers 

and LEP persons, or to orally translate documents, should be competent in the 

skill of interpreting and knowledgeable about applicable confi,: ~mtiality and 

impartiality rules. NASA program and/or activity officials should consider 

formal arrangements with community-based organizations that provide volunteers 

to address these concerns and to help ensure that services are a'"ailable more 

regularly. 

6.8.	 Use of Family Members or Friends as Interpreters 

6.8.1.	 Although a LEP person's family members, friends, or other infcmnal interpreters 

should not be relied upon to provide meaningful access to NASA-conducted 

programs and activities, where LEP persons so desire, they should be permitted to 

use, at their own expense, an interpreter of their own choosing {whether a 

11 
professional interpreter, family member, or friend) in place of or as a supplement 

to the free language services expressly offered by NASA. LEP persons may feel 

more comfortable when a trusted family member, or friend, acts as an interpreter. 

In addition, in exigent circumstances that are not reasonably fc)reseeable, 

temporary use of non-NASA provided interpreters may be nel:(~ssary. However, 

with proper planning and implementation such situations can he avoided. 

6.8.2.	 Steps should be taken to ensure that family, legal guardians, caretakers, and other 

informal interpreters are appropriate in light ofthe circumstan;es and subject 

matter ofthe program or activity, including NASA's interest in accurate 

interpretation. In many circumstances, family members (espedally children), or 

friends, persons are not competent to provide quality and accu~ate interpretations. 

In addition, such informal interpreters may have a personal connection to the LEP 

person or an undisclosed conflict of interest, such as the desin: to protect 

themselves or another person in certain matters. For these reaSJns, competent 

interpreter services free of cost to the LEP person should be offered when oral 

language services are necessary. For NASA-conducted programs and activities, 

this is particularly true in situations in which health, safety, or 5ecurity is at stake. 

6.8.3.	 An example of such a case is when, during a facilities tour, a vi;;itor becomes ill. 

In such a case, use offamily members or neighbors to interprel for LEP persons 

requiring medical assistance may raise serious issues of comp~:t,encyand/or 

confidentiality, and is thus inappropriate. While issues of com:Jetency and 

confidentiality in the use of family members (especially childnm), or friends, 

often make their use inappropriate, the use ofthese individuals as interpreters may 

be an appropriate option where proper application ofthe four f;H)tors would lead 

to a conclusion that NASA-provided services are not necessary. An example of 

this is a voluntary, unescorted tour of artwork in a NASA VisitJrs Center open to 

the general public. There, the importance and nature ofthe activity may be 

relatively low and unlikely to implicate issues of confidentialit~l,conflict of 

interest, or the need for accuracy. In addition, the resources nel~ded and costs of 

providing language services may be high. In such a setting, an LEP person's use 

of family members, friends, or others may be appropriate. 

6.8.4.	 Ifthe LEP person voluntarily chooses to provide his or her oWl] interpreter, 

program or activity officials should consider whether a record <:fthat choice and 

ofthe NASA offer oflanguage assistance is appropriate. When: precise, 

complete, and accurate interpretations or translations ofinformw:ion are critical, 

or where the competency ofthe LEP person's interpreter is not established, the 

LAO may decide to provide an independent interpreter, even if a LEP person 

wants to use his or her own interpreter as well. Extra caution should be exercised 

when the LEP person chooses to use a minor as the interpreter. While the LEP 

person's decision should be respected, there may be additional i:;sues of 

competency and/or confidentiality when the choice involves USiClg children as 

interpreters. Steps should be taken to ensure that the LEP person's choice is 

voluntary, that the LEP person is aware ofthe possible problem; if the preferred 

12 
interpreter is a minor child, and that the LEP person knows thlt a competent 

interpreter could be provided at no cost. 

7.	 Providing Written Language Services (Translation) 

7.1.	 Translation is the replacement of a written text from one language (source 

language) into an equivalent written text in another language {target language). 

Written translation can range from translation of an entire doc:ument to translation 

of a short description ofthe document. In some cases, languag ~~ services should be 

made available on an expedited basis while in others the LEP individual may be 

referred to Agency or Center component for language assistarlce. 

7.2.	 What Documents Should Be Translated? 

7.2.1.	 After applying the four-factor analysis, a determination should be made that an 

effective LAP includes the translation of vital written material into the language 

of each LEP group likely to be encountered in the program an(Vor activity. 

7.2.2.	 Such written materials could include, for example: 

(a) Consent forms 

(b) Written notices of discontinuation of programs and/or activities 

(c) Notices advising LEP persons of free language assistanc,~

(d) Security or safety brochures for visitors to NASA facilitie:s 

(e) Applications to participate in a program or activity 

7.2.3. Whether or not a document (or the information it solicits) is vital may depend 

upon the importance of the program, information, or encounter" lmd the 

consequence to the LEP person if the information in question is not provided 

accurately or in a timely manner. For instance, applications for participation in an 

NASA-conducted after-school science and mathematics enrichnent program could 

be considered vital. The development of a plan for consistently determining, over 

time and across its various programs and activities, what docum~::nts are vital to the 

meaningful access ofthe LEP populations is encouraged. 

7.2.4. Classifying a document as vital or non-vital is sometimes difficuh, especially in 

the case of outreach materials like brochures or other information. Awareness of 

NASA-conducted programs and/or activities is an important part of meaningful 

access. Lack of awareness of a particular NASA-conducted pro ~ram and/or 

activity effectively denies LEP individuals meaningful access. ':~hus, where 

community outreach activities are implemented in furtherance of NASAconducted programs and activities, an assessment ofthe needs 0 f the populations 

frequently encountered or affected by the program or activity sh)uld be frequently 

conducted in order to determine whether certain critical outreach materials should 

be translated. Community organizations may be helpful in determining what 

outreach materials may be most helpful to translate. In addition, an LAO should 

consider whether translations of outreach material may be made more effective 

13 
when done in tandem with other outreach methods, including utilizing the ethnic 

media, schools, religious, and community organizations to spn~ad a message. 

7.2.5. Sometimes a document includes both vital and non-vital infonlation. This may be 

the case when the document is very large. It may also be the else when the title 

and a phone number for obtaining more information on the cortents of the 

document in frequently- encountered languages other than English is critical, but 

the document is sent out to the general public and cannot reasoDably be translated 

into many languages. Thus, vital information may include, for instance, the 

provision of information in appropriate languages other than English regarding 

where a LEP person might obtain an interpretation or translatic n ofthe document. 

7.3.	 Into What Languages Should Documents be Translated? 

7.3.1.	 The languages spoken by the LEP individuals with whom NA:,A has contact 

determine the languages into which vital documents should bt: translated. A 

distinction should be made, however, between languages that are frequently 

encountered and less commonly encountered languages. Man:r times, NASA 

interacts with communities in large cities or across the country. They may serve 

LEP persons who speak many different languages. To translak all written 

materials into all of those languages is unrealistic. Although m:;ent technological 

advances have made it easier to store and share translated docunents, such an 

undertaking would incur substantial costs and require substanti al resources. 

7.3.2.	 Nevertheless, well-substantiated claims oflack ofresources to translate all vital 

documents into dozens of languages do not necessarily relieve NASA from the 

obligation to translate those documents into at least several of the more 

frequently-encountered languages and to set benchmarks for c(lutinued 

translations into the remaining languages over time. As a result, the extent ofthe 

obligation to provide written translations of documents should be determined on a 

case-by-case basis, looking at the totality ofthe circumstances in light ofthe 

four-factor analysis. Because translation is a one-time expense, consideration 

should be given to whether the upfront cost oftranslating a document (as opposed 

to oral interpretation) should be amortized over the likely lifesj:'cm ofthe 

document when applying this four-factor analysis. 

7.4. Competence of Translators 

7.4.1. As with oral interpreters, translators of written documents shouU be competent. 

Many of the same considerations apply. However, the skill ofttanslating is very 

different from the skill of interpreting, and a person who is a competent interpreter 

mayor may not be competent to translate. 

7.4.2. Particularly where scientific and other technical documents are being translated, 

competence can often be achieved by use of certified translators, Certification or 

14 
accreditation may not always be possible or necessary.3 Compl~tence can often be 

ensured by having a second independent translator check the work ofthe primary 

translator. Alternatively, one translator can translate the docun~ent, and a second, 

independent translator could translate it back into English to check that the 

appropriate meaning has been conveyed. This is called Aback rranslation. 

7.4.3. Translators should understand the expected reading level ofth;: audience and, 

where appropriate, have fundamental knowledge about the tar!~ et language group's 

vocabulary and phraseology. Sometimes direct translation of naterials results in a 

translation that is written at a much more difficult level than th,~ English language 

version or has no relevant equivalent meaning.4 Community oqanizations may be 

able to help consider whether a document is written at a good l,~vel for the 

audience. Likewise, consistency in the words and phrases used to translate terms 

of art, legal, or other technical concepts helps avoid confusion by LEP individuals 

and may reduce costs. Creating or using already-created glossaries of commonly 

used terms may be useful for LEP persons and translators, and llso be very cost 

effective. Providing translators with examples of previous aCClirate translations of 

similar material may also be very helpful. 

7.4.4. While quality and accuracy oftranslation services is critical, th~ quality and 

accuracy oftranslation services is nonetheless part ofthe appropriate mix ofLEP 

services required. For instance, less skilled translators may be l;~;ed for documents 

that are simple, as opposed to more important documents upon which reliance has 

important consequences (including, e.g., information or documents ofNASA 

recipients regarding certain security, health, and safety requirements.). The 

permanent nature ofwritten translations, however, imposes additional 

responsibility to ensure that the quality and accuracy permit me:aningful access by 

LEP persons. 

8. Developing an Effective Language Assistance for LEP Persons 

8.1.	 After completing the four-factor analysis and deciding what language assistance 

services are appropriate, an implementation plan should be devdoped to address 

the identified needs ofthe LEP populations they serve. There is considerable 

flexibility in developing this plan. The development and maintenance of a 

periodically-updated written LAP for use by employees engaged in NASAconducted programs and/or activities will likely be the most apJropriate and cost3 For those languages in which no formal accreditation currently exists, a particular bvel ofmembership in 

a professional translation association can provide some indicator ofprofessionalism. 

4 For instance, there may be languages which do not have an appropriate direct trans] ation of some 

technical terms and the translator should be able to provide an appropriate translation. The translator 

should likely also make NASA aware ofthis. NASA can then work with translators 10 develop a consistent 

and appropriate set of descriptions ofthese terms in that language that can be used again, when appropriate. 

NASA will find it more effective and less costly if it tries to maintain consistency in Ihe words and phrases 

used to translate terms of art and legal or other technical concepts. 

15 
effective means of documenting compliance with Section 2 of Executive Order 

13166, and providing a framework for the provision of timely and reasonable 

language assistance. Moreover, such written plans would likdy provide 

additional benefits to managers in the areas of training, administration, planning, 

and budgeting. These benefits should lead to the documentatiJn in a written LAP, 

of the language assistance services provided, and how staff and LEP persons can 

access those services. 

8.2.	 Entities having significant contact with LEP persons, such as ;~:(;hools, religious 

organizations, community groups, and groups working with m~w immigrants can 

be very helpful in providing important input into this planning process from the 

beginning. Five steps that may be helpful in designing a LAP cmd are typically 

part of effective implementation plans are discussed below. 

8.3.	 Step 1: Identifying LEP Individuals Who Need Language Assistance 

8.3.1.	 The first two factors in the four-factor analysis require an asse:;sment of the 

number or proportion of LEP individuals eligible to be served Jr encountered and 

the frequency of encounters. This requires the identification of LEP persons with 

whom it has contact. 

8.3.2.	 One way to detennine the language of communication is to USI~~ language 

identification cards (or "I speak cards"), which invite LEP pen ons to identify 

their language needs to staff. Such cards, for instance, might SlY "I speak 

Spanish" in both Spanish and English, "I speak Vietnamese" in both English and 

Vietnamese, etc. To reduce costs, the Federal Government has made a set of 

these cards available on the Internet. The Census Bureau "I sp:::ak card" can be 

found and downloaded at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/corIl3166.htm. When records 

are nonnally kept of past interactions with members of the pubLlc, the language of 

the LEP person can be included as part of the record. In addition to helping 

employees identify the language of LEP persons they encountt~r, this process will 

help in future applications of the first two factors of the four-fa:;tor analysis. 

8.4.	 Step 2: Language Assistance Measures 

8.4.1.	 An effective LAP would likely include infonnation about the ways in which 

language assistance will be provided. For instance, a LAP may include 

infonnation on at least the following: 

(a) Types of language services available. 

(b) How staff can obtain those services. 

(c) How to respond to LEP callers. 

(d) How to respond to written communications from LEP persons. 

(e) How to respond to LEP individuals who have in-person contact with Agency 

staff. 

(f) How to ensure competency of interpreters and translation s(: Ivices. 

16 
8.5.	 Step 3: Training Staff 

8.5.1.	 Staff should know their obligations to provide meaningful access to information 

and services for LEP persons. An effective LAP plan would l.ikely include 

training to ensure that: 

(a) Staffis knowledgeable about LEP policies and procedures. 

(b) NASA personnel having contact 'with the public are trained to work 

effectively with in-person and telephone interpreters. 

8.5.2.	 This training may be included as part ofthe orientation for ne'l\' employees. It is 

important to ensure that all employees in public contact positions are properly 

trained. There is sufficient flexibility in deciding the manner :in which the training 

is provided. The more frequent the contact with LEP persons, the greater the need 

will be for in-depth training. Staff with little or no contact witb LEP persons may 

only have to be aware of a LAP. However, management staff, \~ven ifthey do not 

interact regularly with LEP persons, should be fully aware of,;nd understand the 

plan so they can reinforce its importance and ensure its implementation by staff. 

8.6.	 Step 4: Providing Notice to LEP Persons 

8.6.1.	 Once a decision has been made, based on the four factors, that language services 

will be provided, it is important to let LEP persons know that tbose services are 

available and that they are free of charge. Notification of available language 

services should be provided in a language LEP persons will understand. 

Examples of notification that recipients are addressed below. 

8.6.2.	 Posting signs in entry points 

(a) When language assistance is needed to ensure meaningful i:IGCeSS to 

information and services, it is important to provide notice in appropriate 

languages in entrance areas or initial points of contact so that LEP persons can 

learn how to access those language services. This is particularly true in areas 

with high volumes of LEP persons seeking access to certain NASA programs, 

activities and/or facilities. For instance, signs in entry area~: could state that 

free language assistance is available. 

(b) The signs should be translated into the most common languages encountered. 

They should explain how to get the language help. In addition, posting 

notices in commonly encountered languages notifying LEP persons of 

language assistance will encourage them to self-identify. 

8.6.3. Stating in outreach documents that language services are availal:le from the NASA 

recipient 

(a) Announcements could be in, for instance, brochures, bookkts, and in outreach 

and recruitment information. These statements should be tnmslated into the 

17 
most common languages and could be placed on the front of common 

documents. 

(b) Working with community-based organizations and other ::takeholders to 

inform LEP individuals of the availability of language assi stance services. 

(c) Using a telephone voice mail menu.	 The menu could be in the most common 

languages encountered. It should provide information about available 

language assistance services and how to get them. 

(d) Including notices in local newspapers in languages other t:Jan English. 

(e) Providing notices on non-English-language radio and telev:lsion stations 

about the available language assistance services and how to get them. 

(f)	 Presentations and/or notices at schools and religious organizations. 

(g) Monitoring and updating the LAP 

8.6.4.	 Where appropriate, a process should be implemented for determining, on an 

ongoing basis, whether new documents, programs, services, and activities need to 

be made accessible for LEP individuals, including for providing notice of any 

changes in services to the LEP public and to employees. In addition, 

consideration should be given to whether changes in demographics, types of 

services, or other needs require annual reevaluation of their LAP. Less frequent 

reevaluation may be more appropriate where demographics, services, and needs 

are more static. One good way to evaluate the LAP is to seek:~~edbackfrom the 

community. 

8.7.	 Step 5: Reevaluating the Need for Modifications to the LAP 

8.7.1.	 Agency officials may want to consider assessing changes in: 

(a) Current LEP populations in the area or population affected :Jir encountered. 

(b) Frequency of encounters with LEP language groups. 

(c) Nature and importance of activities to LEP persons. 

(d) Availability of resources, including technological advances ,md sources of 

additional resources, and the costs imposed. 

(e) Whether existing assistance is meeting the needs of LEP pe:"sons. 

(f) Whether staff knows and understands the LAP and how to implement it. 

(g) Whether identified sources for assistance are still available and viable. 

8.7.2.	 In addition to the seven elements above, effective plans set clear goals, 

management accountability, and opportunities for community input and planning 

throughout the process. 

18 
9. Resources for Identifying and Evaluating Possible Accommodations 

9.1.	 A list of resources that LAOs and other Agency employees may consult to learn 

more about the provision of services to LEP persons may be fimnd at 

www.lep.gov. Please review this website and inform emploY4;:l~s and managers of 

this resource (e.g., website posting, copies of documents madc; available in the EO 

Office). Please also ensure that copies of the NASA LEP brodlure are made 

available to participants in Center conducted programs (e.g., visitor's center). 

9.2.	 Any person wanting further information concerning this guidatlce may contact the 

Center EO Office or the Agency's Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity 

(ODEO), NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, at (202) 358-2167. 

19