Language Access: Selected Agencies Can Improve Services to Limited English Proficient Persons
Published: 2010-04-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Executive Order 13166 (August 11, 2000) directs each federal agency to improve access to federal programs and services for persons with limited English proficiency (LEP). Using guidance issued by DOJ, agencies are generally required to develop recipient guidance and/or an LEP plan outlining steps for ensuring that LEP persons can access federal services and programs. As requested, GAO (1) determined which agencies have completed their recipient guidance and LEP plan, (2) assessed the extent to which the selected agencies have implemented the Executive Order consistent with DOJ's guidance, and (3) examined DOJ's and the three selected agencies' efforts to enhance collaboration. GAO analyzed the Executive Order and agencies' recipient guidance and plans posted on LEP.gov; selected the IRS, FEMA, and SBA for this review because of the amount and significance of their interaction with LEP persons; and reviewed documentation of agencies' collaborative efforts to provide access to federal services.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: As of February 2010, 22 agencies have completed their recipient guidance. Additionally, DOJ has reported receiving LEP plans from 58 federal agencies. However, the total number of agencies required to complete recipient guidance and an LEP plan cannot be determined because the Executive Order makes agencies responsible for determining the need for guidance and a plan based on their interaction with LEP persons and does not require agencies to report on the results of their determination. Consequently, some agencies may determine that drafting a recipient guidance or an LEP plan is not necessary. Further, although the Executive Order requires agencies to make recipient guidance public, the same requirement does not exist for plans. DOJ's guidance contains four elements for improving access to federal programs and services by LEP persons. IRS has fully addressed each of these elements, while FEMA and SBA have made less progress, as shown in the table below. IRS has centralized its language access services within one office, overseen by an agencywide executive council. Additionally, IRS regularly identifies the LEP populations it serves, administers a variety of targeted language access services, and monitors these services for potential improvements. FEMA has demonstrated agency commitment, identified LEP populations, and delivered services during disasters, but it lacks a structured approach to monitor these services. While SBA is continuing to draft its LEP plan, the agency does not conduct a needs assessment, and provides limited monitoring of services to LEP populations. Among the three agencies GAO reviewed, FEMA collaborates with SBA and IRS to provide LEP persons a centralized location for receiving assistance during a declared disaster. Additionally, these agencies (along with 21 other federal agencies), participate in an Interagency Working Group on LEP issues. GAO identified a potential shared services approach agencies could use for translation and interpretive services.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: According to 2007 U. S. Census Bureau data, 21.7 million adults in  America, or 9.5 percent of the population, were defined as adults that  speak English less than “very well,” an increase of 21.8 percent from 2000.  Persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) may be unable to access  federal programs and services that they are otherwise eligible to receive,  which in turn could affect individual LEP persons or entire LEP  communities.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person in the  United States shall be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or  national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial  assistance. On August 11, 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order  13166, which extended the principles of meaningful access for limited  English proficient persons embodied in Title VI to federal agencies’  programs and services. Executive Order 13166 required federal agencies to  examine how to improve access for LEP persons to programs, services,  and activities conducted by both federal agencies as well as state, local,  and regional entities that receive federal financial assistance (a group  referred to in the Executive Order as “recipients”). While the Executive  Order does not prescribe specific approaches for improving access for  LEP persons, it does require federal agencies that provide federal  assistance to state, local, or regional programs and services to develop  guidelines (referred to as recipient guidance) that clarifies their Title VI  obligations. It also requires agencies to prepare LEP plans outlining the  steps they will take to ensure that eligible LEP persons can access their  programs and activities. The Executive Order gives the Department of  Justice (DOJ) responsibility for approving agencies’ recipient guidance  and serving as a central repository of agencies’ plans.
In light of the growing size and diversity of the nation’s LEP communities,  you asked us to examine aspects of the implementation of the Executive  Order governmentwide, and to provide illustrative examples of how  specific agencies were meeting the Executive Order’s requirements. As  agreed with your offices, we (1) determined which executive branch  agencies have completed recipient guidance and plans; (2) assessed the  extent to which three selected agencies have implemented the Executive  Order consistent with DOJ’s guidance; and (3) examined DOJ’s and the  selected agencies’ efforts to enhance collaboration to improve access to  federal programs and services for LEP populations, as well as other  potential opportunities for collaboration.
To determine which executive branch agencies have completed recipient  guidance and LEP plans, we reviewed the recipient guidance and LEP  plans published on LEP.gov, a Web site created and maintained by DOJ to  implement the Executive Order. We also reviewed the requirements of the  Executive Order and DOJ’s guidance that was issued to assist agencies in  developing their recipient guidance. Additionally, we interviewed DOJ  officials regarding the technical advice they provided to federal agencies  on preparing recipient guidance and LEP plans. We assessed whether the  selected agencies implemented four elements discussed in the DOJ  guidance, specifically (1) agency commitment, (2) needs assessment,   (3) service delivery, and (4) monitoring. These elements were assessed to  determine whether they were fully implemented, partially implemented, or  not implemented. For example, an agency would be assessed as having  implemented the “agency commitment” element if it had completed its  recipient guidance and/or LEP plan and had incorporated into its agency  mission, strategic plans, processes, and resource allocation. Additionally,  if its recipient guidance and/or LEP plan had not been formalized and/or it  had not integrated its language access efforts into all aspects of its plans,  processes, or resources, the agency would be assessed as having partially  implemented the agency commitment element. An agency would be  assessed as minimally implementing this element if it had taken no actions  or minimal actions to address the element.
To review the extent to which selected agencies have implemented the  Executive Order consistent with DOJ guidance, we selected three agencies  to obtain a range of different types of interactions with, and services  provided to LEP populations, as well as a mix of agencies with diverse  missions and size. Specifically, we reviewed the following agencies:  Internal Revenue Service (IRS), with 90,647 full-time equivalents and a  budget of $11 billion as of fiscal year 2008, which interacts with all  taxpayers nationwide. All persons earning an income are subject to  paying taxes regardless of citizenship, immigrant status, or level of  English proficiency.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), with 2,765  permanent full-time equivalents and several thousand part time  disaster assistance employees and a budget of $20 billion as of fiscal  year 2008, which leads federal efforts to prepare for, prevent, respond  to, and recover from all hazards. It provides life-sustaining and life- saving services and information to LEP and non-LEP persons affected  by presidentially declared disasters.
Small Business Administration (SBA), with 3,636 full-time equivalents  and a budget of $1.6 billion as of fiscal year 2008, which provides  services and grants to LEP and non-LEP persons seeking assistance to  start and build upon their small businesses. Additionally, it assists  small businesses in recovery from disasters through its disaster  assistance program.
Because these agencies were a nonrandom selection, the results cannot be  generalized to other federal agencies. For each of the three agencies, we  analyzed the selected agencies’ recipient guidance for their funding  recipients, their LEP plans and language access policies, and their  strategic and human capital plans, and interviewed agency officials  responsible for implementing the Executive Order.
To review DOJ’s and the three selected agencies’ collaborative efforts, we  reviewed DOJ, IRS, FEMA, and SBA documentation of these efforts and  compared those programs with practices that we have identified that  enhance collaboration. Additionally, we interviewed officials who  participate in interagency language groups and programs as well as  officials from the selected agencies that collaborate with other agencies.  To examine additional opportunities for collaboration, we interviewed  officials from the National Virtual Translation Center (NVTC), created by  statute and housed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which makes  translation services available to 15 federal intelligence agencies on an as  needed basis.
To observe the agencies’ language access services and collaborative  efforts and to obtain views of agency officials who interact directly with  LEP persons, we interviewed IRS, FEMA, and SBA officials in California,  Georgia, Louisiana, North Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Washington,  D.C. We selected these states because of the nature and significance of  agencies’ field office interaction with LEP persons and the diversity of the  LEP populations in these locations.
In addition to this report, we have recently issued other reports addressing  the federal government’s foreign language capabilities. These reports  cover several federal agencies’ efforts, including the Department of  Transportation’s efforts to serve their LEP customers; Health and Human  Services’s (HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services translation of  documents and HHS’s Child Care Bureau process for sharing information  to improve access to LEP families; services for English language learners  administered by the Departments of Education, Labor, HHS, and National  Institute for Literacy; and the foreign language capabilities of the  Department of Defense and the Department of State. A list of these related  GAO products is provided at the end of this report. Together, these reports  provide a broad perspective on the extent to which the federal government  is developing the necessary foreign language capabilities and cultural  sensitivities to face the nation’s emerging foreign language challenges.
Because these reports broadly cover federal agencies capabilities and  recipient issues, we excluded these agencies from this review. We also  excluded the U.S. Census Bureau from this review due to the numerous  reports we have issued on the Census Bureau’s efforts to increase  participation of LEP persons in the decennial Census.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to February  2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Additional details on the  scope and methodology for this review are provided in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, state, local, or regional  entities that receive federal funding to provide programs and services may  not discriminate based on race, color, or national origin. Executive Order  13166 extends the language access requirements of Title VI to federal  agencies that provide programs and services themselves and specifically  addresses persons who, as a result of their national origin, are LEP  persons. While the Executive Order does not prescribe specific  approaches to language access services, it does require federal agencies to  prepare plans (referred to as LEP plans) outlining the steps they will take  to ensure that eligible LEP persons can access their programs and  activities. According to DOJ, these LEP plans are important because they  outline the steps agencies will take to ensure that eligible LEP persons can  access federal programs and activities.
Federal agencies that provide financial assistance to state, local, or  regional programs and services are also required to develop guidance  (referred to as recipient guidance) that clarifies the funding recipients’  obligations under Title VI. Rather than express uniform rules of  compliance, DOJ’s guidance incorporates “reasonableness” as its guiding  principle by suggesting agencies assess their programs, services, or  activities using four factors: (1) the number or proportion of LEP persons  eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by the program or  recipient; (2) the frequency with which LEP persons come in contact with  the program; (3) the nature and importance to people’s lives of the  program, activity, or service provided by the recipient; and (4) the  resources available to the recipient and the costs of language access  services. By instructing agencies to use this four-factor analysis, DOJ’s  guidance intends to create a balance between ensuring meaningful access  to critical services for LEP persons and not imposing undue burdens on  federal agencies or the small businesses, local governments, or nonprofits  that may be receiving federal assistance.
The Executive Order required agencies to develop and implement their  LEP plans by December 11, 2000. Agencies were required to send copies of  their LEP plans to the Coordination and Review Section (COR) of DOJ’s  Civil Rights Division, which is responsible for serving as a central  repository for agencies’ plans. Additionally, COR is responsible for  providing technical assistance to federal agencies in developing LEP plans  and recipient guidance. Agencies’ recipient guidance was to be submitted  to DOJ for review and approval by December 11, 2000. Following DOJ’s  approval, each agency was required to publish its recipient guidance in the  Federal Register for public comment. Agencies also placed their recipient  guidance on LEP.gov, a Web site created by the Federal Interagency  Working Group on LEP formed by DOJ in 2002 to share information on  efforts to implement the Executive Order. COR maintains the Web site.
section_title: While Many Agencies Have Completed Guidance and Plans, the Extent of Compliance across the Executive Branch Cannot Be Determined
paragraphs: As of December 1, 2009, 22 federal departments and independent agencies,  including 13 of the 16 executive-level departments, had posted completed  guidance for funding recipients on LEP.gov. Of these cabinet-level  departments, recipient guidance for the Department of Homeland Security  (DHS), Department of Defense, and Department of Agriculture are listed  as “pending.” Table 1 lists the agencies that have posted their recipient  guidance.
The number of federal agencies that still must complete recipient guidance  or LEP plans could not be determined. The Executive Order does not  assign DOJ the responsibility for ensuring agencies complete recipient  guidance or LEP plans. Rather, under the Executive Order, executive  branch agencies are responsible for determining the need to develop  recipient guidance based on whether they provide financial assistance to  entities that provide federal services to LEP populations. Likewise,  agencies are responsible for determining if they must draft LEP plans by  assessing whether they have frequent or significant contact with LEP  persons. If an agency determines that it is not required to draft recipient  guidance, an LEP plan, or both, the agency is not required to report that  determination to DOJ. DOJ has, however, provided technical assistance in  many of these determinations and issued numerous reminders to agencies  regarding their responsibilities under the Executive Order. For example,  on November 12, 2002, the Civil Rights Division issued a memorandum to  heads of federal agencies, general counsels, and civil rights directors.  Section II of that memorandum asks that each federal agency draft or  update LEP plans and urged each agency to place a copy of that plan on its  Web site and provide COR with the link so that it could be placed on  LEP.gov. Other DOJ letters, speeches, and memoranda have encouraged  agencies to publish recipient guidance and to issue or update LEP plans.
Although the Executive Order requires agencies’ recipient guidance to be  placed in the Federal Register for public comment, there is no similar  requirement that agencies make their LEP plans publicly available. Rather,  DOJ officials stated that, while it has encouraged agencies to post LEP  plans and provide links to those plans on LEP.gov, agencies are given the  discretion to make their LEP plans public. Of the 58 agencies that had  submitted LEP plans to DOJ as of December 2009, 17 agencies have posted  their LEP plans on LEP.gov, these are listed in table 2.
Our prior work has noted that high-performing organizations focus on the  needs of their external stakeholders. Additionally, on December 8, 2009,  OMB issued a memo directing agency heads to promote transparency and  accountability by providing the public timely access to information on the  activities of federal agencies. As such, publicly available LEP plans could  help ensure that federal agencies appropriately focus on the needs of LEP  communities by enhancing the transparency of agencies’ efforts and  allowing for stakeholder scrutiny. Stakeholder review of LEP plans is  especially important given the consequences that may occur if LEP  communities do not have the appropriate level of access to federal  programs and activities.
Of our three selected agencies, only IRS has posted its completed recipient  guidance. FEMA and SBA have their recipient guidance listed as  “pending.” In regard to LEP plans, only IRS has issued an LEP plan, while  FEMA and SBA have not.
section_title: IRS, FEMA, and SBA Are Implementing the Executive Order to Varying Extents
paragraphs: The elements of an effective LEP plan, which involve agency commitment,  a comprehensive needs assessment, systematic provision of services, and  ongoing monitoring are included in DOJ’s guidance. We used these  elements as criteria to assess the selected agencies’ progress in  implementing aspects of the Executive Order. As shown in figure 1, IRS  has addressed all the elements of an effective LEP Plan while FEMA has  addressed half the elements, and SBA has met one element.
section_title: Opportunities Exist for Additional Collaboration and Leveraging Resources
paragraphs: Collaboration among agencies to improve LEP access through planning  and providing language access services is ongoing, but could be enhanced.  Our prior work has found that by collaborating on crosscutting issues,  federal agencies are able to deliver results more efficiently than when  acting alone. As part of that effort, we have identified practices that  agencies can employ to improve their collaboration. Of these practices,  we found the following four practices applicable to agencies’ efforts to  improve language access services:    Define and articulate a common outcome through identifying a  compelling rationale for agencies to collaborate;    Establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies by aligning agencies’  activities, core processes, and resources to accomplish the common  outcome;    Agree on roles and responsibilities, including how the collaborative  effort will be led, clarifying who will do what, organizing their joint and  individual efforts, and facilitating decision making; and  Identify and address needs by leveraging each others’ resources, thus  obtaining additional benefits that would not be available if agencies  were working separately.
Our work found that these collaboration practices are employed by the  Federal Interagency Working Group on LEP, a network of federal agencies  established in 2002 by DOJ to help foster governmentwide collaboration  for serving LEP communities. The working group’s invitation list includes  46 different federal agencies. DOJ estimates that approximately 24 federal  agencies participate actively. The group includes the three selected  agencies, several cabinet level departments, such as the Department of  Health and Human Services, and several smaller agencies, such as the  National Labor Relations Board. The group’s mission is to build awareness  of the needs and methods for ensuring that LEP persons have meaningful  access to federal and federally funded programs and activities.
The working group meets approximately twice a year to discuss topics  such as language access services in emergency preparedness, promising  practices in a variety of contexts, enforcement, and other cross-cutting  language access issues. The working group also consists of committees  that meet on a more frequent basis to work on various implementation  issues. The working group’s Federally Conducted Committee, for example,  developed a guide of suggested practices for implementing language  access services based on a survey it administered to federal agencies. In  addition, the working group convenes larger conferences covering a  broader range of issues, such as stakeholder partnerships, dealing with  limited budgetary resources, and leveraging technology. COR coordinates  these meetings, committees, and conferences.
The working group and its committees have sought to improve access for  LEP populations by promoting collaboration among federal agencies and  state and local government entities. These efforts include sharing  information through the production and distribution of informational  brochures and videos as well as surveying federal agencies about their  initiatives to improve access for LEP persons. Additionally, the working  group has sought to increase understanding and dissemination of language  data from the U.S. Census Bureau and to strengthen enforcement efforts.  According to DOJ officials, the working group reports that their efforts  have improved inter-agency understanding of LEP issues, and in some  cases, have helped to keep the implementation of the Executive Order and  language access services a priority within agencies.
The working group’s Web site, www.LEP.gov, which is maintained by  COR, shares the information it has collected and the practices it has  developed. The Web site includes information on Executive Order 13166, a  list of links to agency recipient guidance, as well as some of the published  LEP plans that agencies have sent to DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. Agencies  are able to share and learn from the information available on the LEP Web  site and the site can be used as a resource by other agencies or  organizations when creating their own LEP plans and recipient guidance.  Moreover, the Web site posts best practices, planning and technical  assistance tools, other tools and samples, and links to resources on topics  such as interpretation, translation, and civil rights. For example, the  general planning and technical assistance tools include information on  how to access census data, a selection of census data on LEP populations  by state, and an introduction to choosing language service providers,  among other information. These efforts to share information have assisted  agencies in addressing the executive order and in providing meaningful  access to LEP populations. The Federally Conducted Committee has  considered building upon these efforts by exploring the possibility of  sharing resources among agencies, which is not currently done by the  members of the working group. According to an official from the working  group, the committee has discussed the possible benefits of creating an  entity that would allow federal agencies to share translation and  interpretation services as well as services for training translators and  interpreters.
In addition to these efforts to share information, the working group has  begun exploring how agencies might share resources to improve access to  federal programs and services by LEP persons. Our prior work has  examined how federal agencies have shared resources for various support  services, such as human resource management, financial management,  and other administrative services. A shared services approach enables  agencies to leverage their resources by allowing multiple agencies to use  the same service provider to meet a common need rather than each agency  individually identifying and managing those services. Moreover, we have  also found that this approach holds promise for enhancing the economy  and efficiency of federal operations in an environment of increasingly  constrained federal resources.
subsections: section_title: Selected Agencies Have Collaborated on LEP Access During Disaster Recovery
paragraphs: Efforts at the Disaster Recovery Centers (DRC) demonstrate the four  applicable collaboration practices. The National Response Framework,  developed by the Department of Homeland Security, directs FEMA to  coordinate disaster recovery activities, including IRS and SBA disaster  assistance programs. FEMA partners with IRS’s Office of Disaster  Assistance and Emergency Relief and SBA’s Office of Disaster Assistance,  among others, to operate DRCs, which are readily accessible facilities or  mobile offices during the recovery from a disaster where applicants may  obtain information about disaster assistance programs. FEMA shares  information on affected LEP communities with IRS and SBA, and the  agencies share oral and written language access services for LEP persons.  For example, an IRS official stated that while at a DRC, FEMA personnel  assess the English-language ability of taxpayers seeking assistance and are  responsible for providing interpreter services as needed.
FEMA and SBA staff have collaborated on providing language access  services at the DRCs in Austin, Texas for Hurricanes Ike and Gustav as  well as in Bismarck, North Dakota for the Midwest floods. For example,  according to a senior SBA official, during Hurricane Ike and Gustov, SBA  worked very closely with officials from FEMA’s Individual Assistance and  Public Assistance programs to prepare the preliminary damage assessment  when the disasters first occurred. In addition, in Bismarck, North Dakota,  FEMA and SBA provided interpretation and translation services in  multiple languages to LEP disaster victims that applied for federal  assistance. Collaboration among the selected agencies facilitated LEP  persons applying for federal aid after the disasters.
section_title: Shared Services Approach May Enable Agencies to Leverage Foreign Language Capabilities
paragraphs: The approaches used by DOJ and the selected agencies are two examples  of how agencies can leverage resources to provide LEP persons access to  programs and services. A third example is the use of a shared services  approach, which is used to leverage foreign language capabilities among  the federal intelligence community. The National Virtual Translation  Center (NVTC), created by statute and housed by the Federal Bureau of  Investigation, makes translation services available to 15 federal  intelligence agencies on an as needed basis. Intelligence agencies  requiring linguists in critical foreign language skills, such as Arabic or  Somali, may use NVTC’s services through reimbursable agreements or  military payment arrangements. NVTC uses independent contractor  linguists with security clearances to provide these translation services. To  reduce costs, these contractors work from locations across the country,  either from their homes or nearby government offices. Documents needing  translation are distributed to the contractors via secure channels. Rather  than each agency expanding its own workforce to include additional  translators with critical foreign language capabilities, this collaborative  effort enables the intelligence community to share these capabilities more  efficiently while meeting the demands of their missions. Although the  NVTC illustrates a possible shared services approach for providing  translation services among domestic agencies, this approach may be  limited due to the technical nature of some of the documents needing  translation, such as IRS’s tax forms and instructions. Despite this potential  limitation, the shared services approach still provides domestic agencies  an example for translating basic information on agency programs and  services more efficiently.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Governmentwide, 22 federal departments and agencies have completed  their recipient guidance for their funding recipients, which are used to  clarify the funding recipients’ obligations under Title VI. Regarding the  Executive Order’s requirement that agencies prepare LEP plans, DOJ  officials reported receiving LEP plans from 58 federal agencies, with 17 of  these plans listed on LEP.gov, as of December 2009. Because the  Executive Order makes agencies responsible for determining their need to  complete recipient guidance and an LEP plan, we could not determine  which agencies still needed to complete either the recipient guidance or  the LEP plan; if an agency decides it is not required to complete a recipient  guidance or LEP plan, they do not need to report this decision to DOJ.
Moving forward, it will be important for DOJ to continue to encourage  federal agencies to complete and submit their recipient guidance to DOJ  for review and approval as mandated by the Executive Order.  Furthermore, although not required by the Executive Order, publicly  available LEP plans could provide LEP communities and other  stakeholders the opportunity to review agencies’ strategies for improving  access to federal programs and activities by LEP persons. By increasing  the transparency of these LEP plans, agencies could obtain additional  feedback from stakeholders on potential improvements to their efforts for  serving LEP persons.
Aside from the preparation of their LEP plans and recipient guidance, we  identified other opportunities to improve how the three selected agencies  implement the Executive Order. For example, assessing the needs of LEP  persons is integral to understanding the demand for services, and can be  effective when needs assessment incorporates diverse strategies. Both IRS  and FEMA conduct needs assessments that profile LEP persons at a  national and local level. In regard to SBA, because it does not conduct a  systematic needs assessment, the agency cannot determine if offices and  funding recipients are fully meeting the needs of LEP persons.
Unlike IRS, FEMA has not developed criteria for determining which of its  documents are vital. Translating vital documents would ensure that LEP  persons can have meaningful access to federal programs and services.  Implementing a policy for classifying documents considered vital might  include criteria for translating documents, including regularly assessing  the language needs of the populations frequently encountered or  potentially affected by the program or activity. Additionally, the policy  could include a process for ensuring that the FEMA office responsible for  managing language access services has complete and accurate information  about the agency’s efforts to translate documents classified as vital.
With respect to monitoring their efforts, while TAS collects limited  information on its service provisions, it could take additional steps to  collect more comprehensive and verifiable data to identify opportunities  to improve service delivery. By collecting and using more comprehensive  data as part of the existing data collection efforts, TAS will be better  positioned to ensure that the local taxpayer advocate offices are not  missing LEP populations in their jurisdictions or inadequately addressing  the needs of existing LEP populations. TAS may want to assess whether it  would be beneficial to collect this data from its funding recipients to  identify potential improvements to the services provided to LEP persons.  The limited information that FEMA collects from internal and external  stakeholders after completing disaster response and recovery activities is  not systematic enough to substantively improve current activities. SBA  does not monitor or evaluate its services to LEP populations. With more  systematic monitoring, FEMA and SBA would be able to determine  whether LEP persons were able to access programs and services and  whether those services met their needs or identify any potential  improvements to those services.
Collaboration among federal agencies participating in the Federal  Interagency Working Group on LEP provides an opportunity to enhance  collaborative efforts across the selected agencies and governmentwide.  Building on its past and current efforts, DOJ could encourage the Federal  Interagency Working Group on LEP to share additional practices and  resources for use across federal agencies, such as exploring a shared  services approach for leveraging translation and interpretation services.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making nine recommendations to the Attorney General, Secretary  of Homeland Security, and the Administrators of the Federal Emergency  Management Agency and the Small Business Administration.
subsections: section_title: Department of Justice
paragraphs: To help ensure access to federal programs and services for LEP  populations, as well as to promote greater transparency for LEP  stakeholders, we recommend that the Attorney General direct the  appropriate DOJ officials to issue a letter to the heads of all federal  agencies reminding them of their obligations under the Executive Order.  Specifically, the letter’s content should encourage federal agencies to:    Complete and submit their LEP plans and recipient guidance to DOJ  for review and approval, and    Make their completed LEP plans available to the public.
Additionally, in cases when an agency has determined that it is not  required to draft recipient guidance or an LEP plan, the Assistant Attorney  General should request agencies to report the results of this determination  to DOJ.
To promote more efficient improvements to LEP persons’ access across  the government, we also recommend that the Attorney General direct the  Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights to work with members of the  Federal Interagency Working Group on LEP to explore possible sharing of  resources and foreign language capabilities. For example, members of the  working group may consider leveraging their shared resources to produce  routine and frequently used documents needing to be translated in less  common foreign languages.
section_title: Internal Revenue Service, Taxpayer Advocate Service
paragraphs: To improve service to LEP populations, we recommend that the National  Taxpayer Advocate determine whether any potential service  improvements could be derived from requiring Low Income Tax Clinics to  collect more detailed data on LEP populations they serve.
section_title: Department of Homeland Security
paragraphs: To comply with the Executive Order and provide recipient guidance for  DHS’s components such as FEMA to follow when assessing the need to  provide language access services for their programs, services, and  activities, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security finalize  and issue the department’s LEP plan and recipient guidance.
section_title: Federal Emergency Management Agency
paragraphs: To provide more meaningful access for LEP communities, we recommend  that the Administrator of FEMA take the following actions:    Develop criteria for determining vital documents needed for  translation, and make available general disaster information in the  regularly encountered languages.
Develop mechanisms to monitor and evaluate services provided to  LEP persons.
section_title: Small Business Administration
paragraphs: To provide more meaningful access to LEP populations, we recommend  that the Administrator take the following actions:    Finalize and issue its LEP plan and recipient guidance.
Complete a comprehensive national needs assessment which should  include data from its existing funding recipients on the number of LEP  persons served and how they are served.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a copy of the draft report to the Secretaries of the  Department of Department of Homeland Security and the Department of  Justice; the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service; and the  Administrator of the Small Business Administration for their review and  comment.  We received written comments on the draft report from DHS,  IRS, and SBA, which are summarized below and reprinted in Appendices  II, III, and IV. DOJ provided written technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate.  DOJ, DHS, IRS, and SBA concurred with all  our recommendations.
Specifically, the DOJ Civil Rights Division concurred with our  recommendations that DOJ issue a letter to all heads of all federal  agencies reminding them of their obligation under the Executive Order  and work with members of the Federal Interagency Working Group on  LEP to explore the possibility of sharing resources. DOJ Civil Rights  Division stated that this report would help to further federal initiatives to  ensure meaningful access to federally conducted and assisted activities for  persons with limited English proficiency and would take steps to address  the recommendation.
DHS agreed with our recommendation that DHS finalize and issue its  recipient guidance and LEP plan and stated that it is taking steps to  finalize and publish its recipient guidance in the Federal Register for  comment.  Furthermore, the DHS stated that its Office of Civil Rights and  Civil Liberties has assumed responsibility for completing the agency’s LEP  plan and will collaborate with FEMA to develop criteria for determining  what documents should be translated and the mechanism to be used for  monitoring and evaluating services to LEP populations.
Although the IRS/Taxpayer Advocate Service agreed with our  recommendation that the Taxpayer Advocate Service determine whether  any potential service improvements could be derived from requiring Low  Income Taxpayer Clinics collect more detail data on LEP populations they  serve, the IRS/Taxpayer Advocate Service stated that the Low Income  Taxpayer Clinics lack resources to collect detailed data on the LEP  populations that they serve.
SBA agrees with our recommendations to finalize and issue its recipient  guidance and LEP plan and conduct a national needs assessment.  SBA  stated that it is initiating actions to implement the recommendations and  provide more meaningful access to SBA’s LEP populations.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of the Departments  of Homeland Security and Justice, the Commissioner of the Internal  Revenue Service, Administrators of the Federal Emergency Management  Agency and the Small Business Administration and other interested  parties. This report will also be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site  at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staffs have any questions about this  report, please contact me at (202) 512-9110 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To review agencies’ progress in improving access to federal programs and  services and how specific federal agencies were meeting the Executive  Order’s requirements, we (1) determined which executive branch agencies  have completed their recipient guidance and Limited English Proficiency  (LEP) plans; (2) assessed the extent to which Internal Revenue Service  (IRS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and Small  Business Administration (SBA) have implemented the Executive Order  consistent with Department of Justice’s (DOJ) guidance, and (3) reviewed  DOJ’s and the selected agencies’ efforts to enhance collaboration to  improve access to federal programs and services for LEP populations, as  well as other potential collaboration opportunities.
To determine which executive branch agencies have completed recipient  guidance and LEP plans, we identified which agencies and departments  had posted completed recipient guidance on LEP.gov as of December 1,  2009. We also reviewed the requirements of the Executive Order and DOJ’s  guidance and interviewed DOJ officials regarding the technical advice they  provided to federal agencies on preparing recipient guidance and LEP  plans. We assessed whether the selected agencies implemented four  elements discussed in the DOJ guidance, specifically (1) agency  commitment, (2) needs assessment, (3) service delivery, and (4)  monitoring. These elements were assessed as to whether they were  implemented, partially implemented, or not implemented. For example, an  agency would be assessed as having implemented the “agency  commitment” element if it had completed its recipient guidance and/or  LEP plan and had incorporated services to LEP populations into its agency  mission, strategic plans, processes, and resource allocation. Additionally,  if its recipient guidance and/or LEP plan had not been formalized and/or it  had not integrated its language access efforts into all aspects of its plans,  processes, or resources, the agency would be assessed as having partially  implemented the agency commitment element. An agency would be  assessed as not implementing this element if it had taken no actions or  minimal actions to address the element.
To assess how specific federal agencies have implemented the Executive  Order, this review, we considered federal agencies based on the amount  and significance of agency interaction with LEP populations, the types of  services provided, agency size, agency mission, the status of each agency’s  LEP plan and/or recipient guidance, and the diversity of LEP populations  served. To avoid duplication, we also coordinated our selection of  agencies with work being conducted by other GAO teams in this area.  Based on these criteria, we selected the IRS, FEMA, and SBA, as agencies  that would provide a broad perspective on how a diverse group of  agencies are addressing the Executive Order.
To review the extent to which these three agencies implemented  Executive Order 13166 consistent with DOJ’s guidance, we reviewed and  analyzed the Executive Order, DOJ’s guidance, the agencies’ LEP plans  and recipient guidance, and agencies’ language access plans. The  information contained in these documents explained the agencies’  strategies for providing access to their programs and services. To better  understand the agencywide language access policies and standard  operating procedures for providing language assistance services to LEP  populations, we also interviewed headquarters officials to obtain an  understanding of the process used to develop recipient guidance and LEP  plans for agencies and their components.
To determine how the selected agencies provide services to LEP  populations, we interviewed senior officials at the three agencies’  headquarters who were responsible for implementation of LEP plans and  recipient guidance, such as civil rights officers, disaster assistance staff,  and individuals responsible for providing language access services. We  also conducted field visits at agency locations described below to observe  the agencies’ language assistance services and to obtain views of agency  officials who interact directly with LEP persons. In consultation with  senior agency officials responsible for language assistance services, we  chose our field site visits based on opportunity to see direct service being  provided to LEP persons.
To examine how IRS provides direct service to LEP populations, we  visited IRS Call Centers, Taxpayer Assistance Centers, Low Income Tax  Clinics and Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Centers in Atlanta, Georgia;  Austin, Texas; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Los Angeles, California. We  also visited Taxpayer Advocate Service locations in Atlanta and New  Orleans. We interviewed staff in the Los Angeles local taxpayer advocate  service office on the phone.
To examine how FEMA serves LEP populations in disasters, how that  process has changed, and what lessons could be applied to future  disasters, we included past and current disasters in different phases of  recovery. We visited the Louisiana Transitional Recovery Office in New  Orleans, Louisiana (for information regarding Hurricane Katrina in 2005);  and Joint Field Offices in Austin, Texas (for information regarding  Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008); and Bismarck, North Dakota (for  information regarding the North Dakota floods of 2009).
To examine how SBA provides access to its programs and services for LEP  populations, we visited Women’s Business Centers and Small Business  Development Centers in Atlanta, Georgia, and New Orleans. We spoke to  Pacific Asian Consortium Employment (PACE) in Los Angeles, California  on the phone. In addition, we visited SBA’s Office of Disaster Assistance,  which is co-located with FEMA’s joint field offices in Austin and Bismarck.
To assess ongoing collaborative efforts to support and improve agencies’  language access services, we reviewed selected agency documentation of  these efforts and compared the efforts with GAO-identified practices that  help sustain and enhance collaboration. In short, GAO’s practices that  enhance and sustain collaboration are:    define and articulate common outcomes;  establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies;  identify and address needs by leveraging resources; agree on roles and  responsibilities;  establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate  across agency boundaries;    develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results;   reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts; and   reinforce individual accountability for collaborative efforts.
For the purpose of this review, we focused on the practices that were most  applicable to federal agencies seeking to collaborate on providing  language access services to LEP persons and communities. As such, we  selected the following four of the eight collaboration practices as criteria  for this review:    Define and articulate a common outcome through identifying a  compelling rationale for agencies to collaborate;    Establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies by aligning agencies’  activities, core processes, and resources to accomplish the common  outcome;    Agree on roles and responsibilities, including how the collaborative  effort will be led, clarifying who will do what, organizing their joint and  individual efforts, and facilitating decision making; and  Identify and address needs by leveraging each others’ resources, thus  obtaining additional benefits that would not be available if agencies  were working separately.
Additionally, we interviewed officials who convene interagency language  groups and officials from the selected agencies that participate in those  efforts, specifically senior officials of the Federal Interagency Working  Group. During interviews with officials from DOJ’s Coordination and  Review Section, we sought suggestions for other federal entities involved  with acquiring and maintaining foreign language capabilities. DOJ officials  suggested that we interview the Director of the National Virtual  Translation Center to gain an understanding of how the intelligence  agencies collaborate and leverage foreign language capabilities for a  common goal.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Small Business Administration
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Steven Lozano and Kisha Clark managed this engagement. Scott  Doubleday, Robin Ghertner, and Pamela Harris made key contributions to  all aspects of the report. In addition, Virginia Chanley provided design  methodology support, Andrea Levine provided legal support, and Melanie  Papasian and Robert Gebhart provided communications support.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Department of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent  Foreign Language Shortfalls. GAO-09-955. Washington, D.C.: September  17, 2009.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: CMS Should Develop an  Agencywide Policy for Translating Medicare Documents into Languages  Other Than English. GAO-09-752R. Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2009.
English Language Learning: Diverse Federal and State Efforts to  Support Adult English Language Learning Could Benefit from More  Coordination. GAO-09-575. Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2009.
Military Training: DOD Needs a Strategic Plan and Better Inventory  and Requirements Data to Guide Development of Language Skills and  Regional Proficiency. GAO-09-568. Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2009.
Medicare: Callers Can Access 1-800-MEDICARE Services, but  Responsibility within CMS for Limited English Proficiency Plan  Unclear. GAO-09-104. Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2008.
Child Care and Early Childhood Education: More Information Sharing  and Program Review by HHS Could Enhance Access for Families with  Limited English Proficiency. GAO-06-807. Washington, D.C.: August 17,  2006.
Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT’s  Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English Proficient  Population. GAO-06-52. Washington, D.C.: November 6, 2005.