[Federal Register: December 22, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 71224-71234]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22de03-112]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding
Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting
Limited English Proficient Persons
AGENCY: Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed guidance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury publishes for public
comment proposed policy guidance on Title VI's prohibition against
national origin discrimination as it affects limited English proficient
persons. This policy guidance is intended to replace policy guidance
published March 7, 2001, and republished on March 7, 2002, See 66 FR
13829 and 67 FR 10477.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 21, 2004. The
Department of the Treasury will review all comments and will determine
what modifications, if any, to this policy guidance are necessary.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons should submit written comments to Ms.
Mariam Harvey, Acting Director, Workforce Development and Equal
Opportunity Division, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Room 6071 Metropolitan Square, Washington, DC 20220.
Comments may also be submitted by e-mail to: OEOPWEB@do.treas.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Proctor at the Workforce
Development and Equal Opportunity Division, Department of the Treasury,
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 6071 Metropolitan Square,
Washington, DC 20220; (202) 622-1170 voice, (202) 622-0367 fax, (202)
622-7104 TTY. Arrangements to receive the policy in an alternative
format may be made by contacting Ms. Proctor.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. 2000d, et seq. provides that no person shall be subjected to
discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under
any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance.
This document was originally published on March 7, 2001. See 66 FR
13829. The document was based on the policy guidance issued by the
Department of Justice entitled ``Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964--National Origin Discrimination Against Persons with
Limited English Proficiency.'' 65 FR 50123 (August 16, 2000).
On October 26, 2001 and January 11, 2002, the Assistant Attorney
General for Civil Rights issued to Federal departments and agencies
guidance memoranda which reaffirmed the Department of Justice's
commitment to ensuring that federally assisted programs and activities
fulfill their LEP responsibilities, and which clarified and answered
certain questions raised regarding the August 16th publication. In
furtherance of those memoranda, the Department of the Treasury
republished its guidance for the purpose of obtaining additional public
comment on March 7, 2002. See 67 FR 10477.
On March 14, 2002, following republication of Treasury's policy
guidance, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Report to
Congress titled ``Assessment of the Total Benefits and Costs of
Implementing Executive Order No. 13166: Improving Access to Services
for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.'' Among other things, the
Report recommended the adoption of uniform guidance across all Federal
agencies, with flexibility to permit tailoring to each agency's
specific recipients. Consistent with this OMB recommendation, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) published LEP Guidance for DOJ recipients
which was drafted and organized to also function as a model for similar
guidance by other Federal grant agencies. See 67 FR 41455 (June 18,
2002). To the extent appropriate, the proposed guidance is consistent
with the model LEP guidance document published by DOJ.
It has been determined that the guidance does not constitute a
regulation subject to the rulemaking requirements of the Administration
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. It has also been determined that this
guidance document is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12866.
The text of the complete proposed guidance document appears below.
[[Page 71225]]
Dated: November 20, 2003.
Teresa Mullett Ressel,
Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer, United
States Department of the Treasury.
I. Introduction
Most individuals living in the United States read, write, speak and
understand English. There are many individuals, however, for whom
English is not their primary language. For instance, based on the 2000
census, over 26 million individuals speak Spanish and almost 7 million
individuals speak an Asian or Pacific Island language at home. If these
individuals have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand
English, they are limited English proficient, or ``LEP.'' While
detailed data from the 2000 census has not yet been released, 26% of
all Spanish-speakers, 29.9% of all Chinese-speakers, and 28.2% of all
Vietnamese-speakers reported that they spoke English ``not well'' or
``not at all'' in response to the 1990 census.
Language for LEP individuals can be a barrier to accessing
important benefits or services, understanding and exercising important
rights, complying with applicable responsibilities, or understanding
other information provided by federally funded programs and activities.
The Federal Government funds an array of services that can be made
accessible to otherwise eligible LEP persons. The Federal Government is
committed to improving the accessibility of these programs and
activities to eligible LEP persons, a goal that reinforces its equally
important commitment to promoting programs and activities designed to
help individuals learn English. Recipients should not overlook the
long-term positive impacts of incorporating or offering English as a
Second Language (ESL) programs in parallel with language assistance
services. ESL courses can serve as an important adjunct to a proper LEP
plan. However, the fact that ESL classes are made available does not
obviate the statutory requirement to provide meaningful access for
those who are not yet English proficient. Recipients of federal
financial assistance have an obligation to reduce language barriers
that can preclude meaningful access by LEP persons to important
government services.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Treasury recognizes that many recipients may have had
language assistance programs in place prior to the issuance of
Executive Order 13166. This policy guidance provides a uniform
framework for a recipient to integrate, formalize, and assess the
continued vitality of these existing and possibly additional
reasonable efforts based on the nature of its program or activity,
the current needs of the LEP populations it encounters, and its
prior experience in providing language services in the community it
serves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In certain circumstances, failure to ensure that LEP persons can
effectively participate in or benefit from federally assisted programs
and activities may violate the prohibition under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d. The purpose of this policy
guidance is to assist recipients in fulfilling their responsibilities
to provide meaningful access to LEP persons under existing law. This
policy guidance clarifies existing legal requirements for LEP persons
by providing a description of the factors recipients should consider in
fulfilling their responsibilities to LEP persons.\2\ These are the same
criteria Treasury will use in evaluating whether recipients are in
compliance with Title VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The policy guidance is not a regulation but rather a guide.
Title VI requires that recipients take reasonable steps to ensure
meaningful access by LEP persons. This guidance provides an
analytical framework that recipients may use to determine how best
to comply with statutory and regulatory obligations to provide
meaningful access to the benefits, services, information, and other
important portions of their programs and activities for individuals
who are limited English proficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before discussing these criteria in greater detail, it is important
to note two basic underlying principles. First, we must ensure that
federally-assisted programs aimed at the American public do not leave
some behind simply because they face challenges communicating in
English. This is of particular importance because, in many cases, LEP
individuals form a substantial portion of those encountered in
federally-assisted programs. Second, we must achieve this goal while
finding constructive methods to reduce the costs of LEP requirements on
small businesses, small local governments, or small non-profits that
receive Federal financial assistance.
There are many productive steps that the Federal Government, either
collectively or as individual grant agencies, can take to help
recipients reduce the costs of language services without sacrificing
meaningful access for LEP persons. Without these steps, certain smaller
grantees may well choose not to participate in federally assisted
programs, threatening the critical functions that the programs strive
to provide. To that end, the Department of the Treasury, in conjunction
with the Department of Justice (DOJ), plans to continue to provide
assistance and guidance in this important area. In addition, Treasury
plans to work with its recipients and LEP persons to identify and share
model plans, examples of best practices, and cost-saving approaches.
Moreover, Treasury intends to explore how language assistance measures,
resources and cost-containment approaches developed with respect to its
own federally conducted programs and activities can be effectively
shared or otherwise made available to recipients, particularly small
businesses, small local governments, and small non-profits. An
interagency working group on LEP has developed a Web Site, http://www.lep.gov
, to assist in disseminating this information to recipients,
Federal agencies, and the communities being served.
Many commentators have noted that some have interpreted the case of
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), as impliedly striking down
the regulations promulgated under Title VI that form the basis for the
part of Executive Order 13166 that applies to federally assisted
programs and activities. Treasury and Department of Justice have taken
the position that this is not the case, and will continue to do so.
Accordingly, we will strive to ensure that federally assisted programs
and activities work in a way that is effective for all eligible
beneficiaries, including those with limited English proficiency.
II. Legal Authority
Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
2000d, provides that no person shall ``on the ground of race, color or
national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.'' Section 602
authorizes and directs federal agencies that are empowered to extend
federal financial assistance to any program or activity ``to effectuate
the provisions of (section 601) * * * by issuing rules, regulations, or
orders of general applicability.'' 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1.
Agency regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 602 of Title VI
universally forbid recipients from ``utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of
administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to
discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or
have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment
of the objectives of the program as respects individuals of a
particular race, color, or national origin.'' See, e.g., 28 CFR
42.104(b)(2) (DOJ), 7 CFR 15.3(b)(2) (Department of Agriculture), 34
CFR 100.3(b)(2)(Department of Education), 45 CFR 80.3(b)(2) (Department
of Health and Human Services), and 45 CFR 1110.3(b)(2) (National
Endowment for
[[Page 71226]]
the Arts and Humanities). Treasury has not yet, but intends to, issue
regulations implementing Title VI. These will be consistent with this
long-standing federal policy prohibiting the use of criteria or methods
of administration which have the effect of discriminating on the basis
of race, color, or national origin.
The Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974),
interpreted regulations promulgated by the former Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, including language identical to that quoted
above, to hold that Title VI prohibits conduct that has a
disproportionate effect on LEP persons because such conduct constitutes
national-origin discrimination. In Lau, a San Francisco school district
that had a significant number of non-English speaking students of
Chinese origin was required to take reasonable steps to provide them
with a meaningful opportunity to participate in federally funded
educational programs.
On August 11, 2000, Executive Order 13166 was issued. ``Improving
Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,'' 65
FR 50121 (August 16, 2000). Under that order,every federal agency that
provides financial assistance to non-federal entities must publish
guidance on how their recipients can provide meaningful access to LEP
persons and thus comply with Title VI regulations forbidding funding
recipients from ``restrict[ing] an individual in any way in the
enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any
service, financial aid, or other benefit under the program'' or from
``utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of administration which have the
effect on subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their
race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or
substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program
as respects individuals of a particular race, color, or national
origin.''
On that same day, DOJ issued a general guidance document addressed
to ``Executive Agency Civil Rights Officers'' setting forth general
principles for agencies to apply in developing guidance documents for
recipients pursuant to the Executive Order. ``Enforcement of Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 National Origin Discrimination Against
Persons With Limited English Proficiency,'' 65 FR 50123 (August 16,
2000) (``DOJ LEP Guidance''). Subsequently, federal agencies raised
questions regarding the requirements of the Executive Order, especially
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Alexander v. Sandoval. On
October 26, 2001, Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant Attorney General for
the Civil Rights Division, issued a memorandum for ``Heads of
Departments and Agencies, General Counsels and Civil Rights
Directors.'' This memorandum clarified and reaffirmed the DOJ Lep
Guidance in light of Sandoval.\3\ The Assistant Attorney General stated
that because Sandoval did not invalidate any Title VI regulations that
proscribe conduct that has a disparate impact on covered groups--the
types of regulations that form the legal basis for the part of
Executive Order 13166 that applies to federally assisted programs and
activities--the Executive Order remains in force. This Guidance is thus
published pursuant to Executive Order 13166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The memorandum noted that some commentators have interpreted
Sandoval as impliedly striking down the disparate-impact regulations
promulgated under Title VI that form the basis for the part of
Executive Order 13166 that aplies to federally assisted programs and
activities. See, e.g., Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 286, 286 n.6 (``[W]e
assume for purposes of this decision that section 602 confers the
authority to promulgate disparate-impact regulations; * * * We
cannot help observing, however, how strange it is to say that
disparate-impact regulations are inspired by, at the service of, and
inseparably intertwined with Sec. 601 * * * when Sec. 601 permits
the very behavior that the regulations forbid.''). The memorandum,
however, made clear that DOJ disagreed with the commentators'
interpretation. Sandoval holds principally that there is no private
right of action to enforce Title VI disparate-impact regulations. It
did not address the validity of those regulations or Executive Order
13166 or otherwise limit the authority and responsibility of federal
grant agencies to enforce their own implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Who Is Covered?
Recipients of federal financial assistance from Treasury are
required to provide meaningful access to LEP persons.\4\ Federal
financial assistance includes grants, training, use of equipment,
donations of surplus property, and other assistance. Recipients of
assistance from Treasury typically include, but are not limited to, for
example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Pursuant to Executive Order 13166, the meaningful access of
Title VI and the four-factor analysis set forth in the DOJ LEP
Guidance are to additionally apply to the federally conducted
programs and activities of federal agencies, including Treasury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[sbull] Nonprofit organizations engaged in taxpayer education,
[sbull] Financial institutions serving distressed communities.
Subrecipients likewise are covered when federal funds are passed
through from one recipient to a subrecipient. This is true even if only
one part of the recipient receives the federal assistance.\5\ Coverage
extends to a recipient's entire program or activity; i.e., to all parts
of a recipient's operations.
Some recipients may operate in jurisdictions in which English has
been declared the official language. Nonetheless, these recipients
continue to be federal non-discrimination requirements, including those
applicable to the provision of federally assisted services to persons
with limited English proficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ However, if federal agency were to decide to terminate
federal funds based on noncompliance with Title VI, only funds
directed to the particular program or activity that is out of
compliance would be terminated. 41 U.S.C. 2000d-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Who Is a Limited English Proficient Individual?
Individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and
who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English
can be limited English proficient, or ``LEP,'' entitled to language
assistance with respect to a particular type of service, benefit, or
encounter. Examples of populations likely to include LEP persons who
are encountered and/or served by Treasury's recipients and should be
considered when planning language services include, but are not limited
to:
[sbull] Persons participating in taxpayer education programs
conducted by assisted non-profit organizations, and,
[sbull] Members of distressed communities seeking fiscal services
from assisted financial institutions.
V. How Does a Recipient Determine the Extent of Its Obligation To
Provide LEP Services?
Recipients are required to take reasonable steps to ensure
meaningful access to their programs and activities by LEP persons.
While designed to be a flexible and fact-dependent standard, the
starting point is an individualized assessment that balance the
following four factors: (1) The number or proportion of LEP persons
eligible to be served or likely to be encountered b the program or
grantee; (2) the frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact
with the program; (3) the nature and importance of the program,
activity, or services provided by the program to people's lives; and
(4) the resources available to the grantee/recipient and costs. As
indicated above, the intent of this guidance is to suggest a balance
that ensures meaningful access by LEP persons to critical services
while not imposing undue burdens on small business, small local
governments, or small nonprofits.
[[Page 71227]]
After applying the above four-factor analysis, a recipient may
conclude that different language assistance measures are sufficient for
the different types of programs or activities in which it engages. For
instance, some of a recipient's activities will be more important than
others or have greater impact on or contact with LEP persons, and thus
may require more in the way of language assistance. The flexibility
that recipients have in addressing the needs of the LEP populations
they serve does not diminish, and should not be used to minimize, the
obligation that those needs be addressed. Treasury's recipients should
apply the following four factors to the various kinds of contacts that
they have with the public to assess language needs and decide what
reasonable steps they should take to ensure meaningful access for LEP
persons.
(1) The Number or Proportion of LEP Persons Served or Encountered
in the Eligible Service Population. One factor in determining what
language services recipients should provide is the number or proportion
of LEP persons from a particular language group served or encountered
in the eligible service population. The greater the number or
proportion of these LEP persons, the more likely language services are
needed. Ordinarily, persons ``eligible to be served, or likely to be
directly affected, by'' a recipient's program or activity are those who
are served or encountered in the eligible service population. This
population will be program specific, and includes persons who are in
the geographic area that has been approved by a federal grant agency as
the recipient's service area. However, where, for instance, a precinct
in the case of a law enforcement entity or a school in the case of an
educational system serves a large LEP population, the appropriate
service area is most likely the precinct or school, and not the entire
population served by the recipient. Where no service area has
previously been approved, the relevant service area may be that which
is approved by state or local authorities or designated by the
recipient itself, provided that these designations do not themselves
discriminatorily exclude certain populations. When considering the
number or proportion of LEP individuals in a service area, recipients
providing educational services to minor LEP students should also
include the students' LEP parent(s) or primary caretakers among those
likely to be encountered.
Recipients should first examine their prior experiences with LEP
encounters and determine the breadth and scope of language services
that were needed. In conducting this analysis, it is important to
include language minority populations that are eligible for their
programs or activities but may be underserved because of existing
language barriers. Other data should be consulted to refine or validate
a recipient's prior experience, including the latest census data for
the area served, data from school systems and from community
organizations, and data from state and local governments.\6\ Community
agencies, school systems, religious organizations, legal aid entities,
and others can often assist in identifying populations for whom
outreach is needed and who would benefit from the recipients' programs
and activities were language services provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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 languages
other than English and the percentage of people who speak that
language who speak or understand English less 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 the languages spoken most frequently by limited English
proficient individuals. When using demographic data, it is important
to focus in on the languages spoken by those who are not proficient
in English.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The Frequency With Which LEP Individuals Come in Contract With
the Program. Recipients should assess, as accurately as possible, the
frequency with which they have or should have contact with an LEP
individual from different language groups seeking assistance. The more
frequent the contact with a particular language group, the more likely
that enhanced language services in that language are needed. The steps
that are reasonable for a recipient that serves an LEP person on a one-
time basis will be very different than those expected from a recipient
that serves LEP persons daily.
It is also 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 an LEP individual accesses
a program or service on a daily basis, a recipient has greater duties
than if the same individual's program or activity contact is
unpredictable or infrequent. But even recipients that serve LEP persons
on an unpredictable or infrequent basis should use this balancing
analysis to determine what to do if an 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 of the commercially-available
telephonic interpretation services to obtain immediate interpreter
services. In applying this standard, recipients should take care to
consider whether appropriate outreach to LEP persons could increase the
frequency of contact with LEP language groups.
(3) The Nature and Importance of the Program, Activity, or Service
Provided by the Program. The more important the activity, information,
service, or program, or the greater the possible consequences of the
contact to the LEP individuals, the more likely language services are
needed. For example, the obligations of a federally assisted school or
hospital to LEP constituents are generally far grater than those of a
federally assisted zoo or theater. A recipient needs to determine
whether denial or delay of access to service or information could have
serious or even life-threatening implications for the LEP individual.
Decisions by a federal, state, or local entity to make an activity
compulsory, such as a particular educational program, can serve as
strong evidence of the program's importance. While all situations must
of course be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, the following general
observations may be helpful to Treasury's recipients considering the
implications of applying this factor of the four-factor test to their
respective programs:
Examples
[sbull] An assisted financial institution in a city with a large
Hispanic population including a significant number of LEP members
should consider translating account and loan applications into Spanish
(or implementing a procedure through which Spanish-speaking LEP persons
could be served by Spanish-speaking officers).
With respect to the importance of a program, activity, or service
provided by one of the Agency's recipients, the obligation to provide
translation services will most likely be greatest in educational/
training situations or in connection with the provision of law
enforcement services. As an aid in applying this guidance to their own
programs or activities, entities that receive federal financial
assistance from either the Department of Education or Department of
Justice and Treasury may rely on the more particularized LEP Guidance
of the Department of Education (in the case of a school-based
educational program) or the Department of Justice (in the case of a law
enforcement entity) to ensure compliance with the obligation to provide
meaningful access in those respective contexts.
[[Page 71228]]
(4) The Resources Available to the Recipient and Costs. A
recipient's level of resources and the costs that would be imposed on
it may have an impact on the nature of the steps it should take.
Smaller recipients with more limited budgets are not expected to
provide the same level of language services as larger recipients with
larger budgets In addition, ``reasonable steps'' may cease to be
reasonable where the costs imposed substantially exceed the benefits.
Resource and cost issues, however, can often be reduced by
technological advances; the sharing of language assistance materials
and services among and between recipients, advocacy groups, and Federal
grant agencies; and reasonable business practices. Where appropriate,
training bilingual staff to act as interpreters and translators,
information sharing through industry groups, telephonic and video
conferencing interpretation services, pooling resources and
standardizing documents to reduce translation needs, using qualified
translators and interpreters to ensure that documents need not be
``fixed'' later and that inaccurate interpretations do not cause delay
or other costs, centralizing interpreter and translator services to
achieve economies of scale, or the formalized use of qualified
community volunteers, for example, may help reduce costs.\7\ Recipients
should carefully explore the most cost-effective means of delivering
competent and accurate language services before limiting services due
to resource concerns. Large entities and those entities serving a
significant number or proportion of LEP persons should ensure that
their resource limitations are well-substantiated before using this
factor as a reason to limit language assistance. Such recipients may
find it useful to be able to articulate, through documentation or in
some other reasonable manner, their process for determining that
language services would be limited based on resources or costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Small recipients with limited resources may find that
entering into a bulk telephonic interpretation service contract will
prove cost effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treasury is well aware of the fact that some of its grant
recipients may experience difficulties with resource allocation.
Treasury emphasizes that reasonable translation and interpretation
costs are appropriately included in grant and award budget requests.
This four-factor analysis necessarily implicates the ``mix'' of LEP
services required. Recipients have two main ways to provide language
services: Oral interpretation either in person or via telephone
interpretation service (hereinafter ``interpretation'') and written
translation (hereinafter ``translation''). Oral interpretation can
range from on-site interpreters for critical services provided to a
high volume of LEP persons to access through commercially-available
telephonic interpretation services. Written translation, likewise, can
range from translation of an entire document to translation of a short
description of the document. In some cases, language services should be
made available on an expedited basis while in others the LEP individual
may be referred to another office of the recipient for language
assistance.
The correct mix should be based on what is both necessary and
reasonable in light of the four-factor analysis. Regardless of the type
of language service provided, quality and accuracy of those services
can be critical in order to avoid serious consequences to the LEP
person and to the recipient. Recipients have substantial flexibility in
determining the appropriate mix.
VI. Selecting Language Assistance Services
Recipients have two main ways to provide language services: oral
and written language services. Quality and accuracy of the language
service is critical in order to avoid serious consequences to the LEP
person and to the recipient.
A. Oral Language Services (Interpretation)
Interpretation is the act of listening to something in one language
(source language) and orally translating it into another language
(target language). Where interpretation is needed and is reasonable,
recipients should consider some or all of the following options for
providing competent interpreters in a timely manner.
[sbull] Competence of Interpreters. When providing oral assistance,
recipients should ensure competency of the language service provider,
no matter which of the strategies outlined below are used. Competency
requires more than self-indentification as bilingual. Some bilingual
staff and community volunteers, for instance, may be able to
communicate effectively in a different language when communicating
information derectly in that language, but not be competent to
interpret in and out of English. Likewise, they may not be able to do
written translations.
Competency to interpret, however, does not necessarily mean formal
certification as an interpreter, although certification may be helpful.
When using interpreters, recipients should ensure that they:
[sbull] Demonstrate proficiency in and ability to communicate
information accurately in both English and in the other language and
identify and employ the appropriate mode of interpreting (e.g.,
consecutive, simultaneous, summarization, or sight translation);
[sbull] Have knowledge in both languages of any specialized terms
or concepts peculiar to the entity's program or activity and of any
particularized vocabulary and phraseology used by the LEP person; \8\
and, if applicable, understand and follow confidentiality and
impartiality rules to the same extent as the recipient employee for
whom they are interpreting and/or to the extent their position
requires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Many languages have``regionalisms,'' or differences in
usage. For instance, a word that may be understood to mean something
in Spanish for someone from Cuba may not be so understood by someone
from Mexico. In addition, because there may be languages which do
not have an appropriate direct interpretation of some terms, the
interpreter should be aware and be able to provide the most
appropriate interpretation. The interpreter should likely make the
recipient aware of the issue and the interpreter and recipient can
then work to develop a consistent and appropriate set of
descriptions of these terms in that language that can be used again,
when appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[sbull] Understand and adhere to their role as interpreters without
deviating into any other role such as counselor or advisor.
Some recipients may have additional self-imposed requirements for
interpreters. Where individual rights depend on precise, complete, and
accurate interpretation or translation, the use of certified
interpreters is strongly encouraged. Where such proceedings are
lengthy, the interpreter will likely need breaks and team interpreting
may be appropriate to ensure accuracy and to prevent errors caused by
mental fatigue of interpreters.
While quality and accuracy of language services is critical, the
quality and accuracy of language services is nonetheless part of the
appropriate mix of LEP services required. The quality and accuracy of
language services in information about completion of tax forms, for
example, must be quite high while the quality and accuracy of language
services in translation of a brochure about the history of money need
not meet the same exacting standards. Finally, when interpretation is
needed and is reasonable, it should be provided in a timely manner. To
be meaningfully effective, language
[[Page 71229]]
assistance should be timely. While there is no single definition for
``timely'' applicable to all types of interactions at all times by all
types of recipients, one clear guide is that the language assistance
should be provided at a time and place that avoids the effective denial
of the service, benefit, or right at issue or the imposition of an
undue burden on or delay in important rights, benefits, or services to
the LEP person. Conversely, where access to or exercise of a service,
benefit, or right is not effectively precluded by a reasonable delay,
language assistance can likely be delayed for a reasonable period.
[sbull] Hiring Bilingual Staff. When particular languages are
encountered often, hiring bilingual staff offers one of the best, and
often most economical, options. Recipients and subrecipients can, for
example, fill public contact positions with staff who are bilingual and
competent to communicate directly with LEP persons in their language
and at the appropriate level of competency. If bilingual staff are also
used to interpret between English speakers and LEP persons, or to
orally interpret written documents from English into another language,
they should be competent in the skill of interpreting. 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
member of a formal review panel adjudicating allegations of program or
fiscal noncompliance would probably not be able to perform effectively
the role of interpreter and adjudicator at the same time, even if the
bilingual employee were a qualified interpreter). Effective management
strategies, including any appropriate adjustments in assignments and
protocols for using bilingual staff, can ensure that bilingual staff
are fully and appropriately utilized. When bilingual staff cannot meet
all of the language service obligations of the recipient, the recipient
should turn to other options.
[sbull] Hiring Staff Interpreters. Hiring interpreters may be most
helpful where there is a frequent need for interpreting services in one
or more languages. Depending on the facts, sometimes it may be
necessary and reasonable to provide on-site interpreters to provide
accurate and meaningful communication with an LEP person.
[sbull] Contracting for Interpreters. Contract interpreters may be
a cost-effective option when there is no regular need for a particular
language skill. In addition to commercial and other private providers,
many community-based organizations and mutual assistance associations
provide interpretation services for particular languages. Contracting
with and providing training regarding the recipient's programs and
processes to these organizations can be a cost-effective option for
providing language services to LEP persons from those language groups.
[sbull] Using Telephone Interpreter Lines. While of limited value
for live performances or museum exhibits, telephone interpreter service
lines often offer speedy interpreting assistance in many different
languages in other public-contract situations. They may be particularly
appropriate where the mode of communicating with an English proficient
person would also be over the phone. Although telephonic interpretation
services are useful in many situations, it is important to ensure that,
when using such services, the interpreters used are competent to
interpret any technical terms specific to a particular program that may
be important parts of the conversation. Nuances in languages and non-
verbal communication can often assist an interpreter and cannot be
recognized over the phone. Video teleconferencing may sometimes help
resolve this issue where necessary. In addition, where documents 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.
[sbull] Using Community Volunteers. In addition to consideration of
bilingual staff, staff interpreters, or contract interpreters (either
in-person or by telephone) as options to ensure meaningful access by
LEP persons, use of recipient-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 a recipient's less critical programs and activities. To the
extent the recipient relies on community volunteers, it is often best
to use volunteers who are trained in the information or services of the
program and can communicate directly with LEP persons in their
language. Just 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 confidentiality and impartiality
rules, if any. Recipients should consider formal arrangements with
community-based organizations that provide volunteers to address these
concerns and to help ensure that services are available more regularly.
[sbull] Use of Family Members or Friends as Interpreters. Although
recipients should not plan to rely on an LEP person's family members,
friends, or other informal; interpreters to provide meaningful access
to important 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 professional interpreter, family member,
or friend) in place of or as a supplement to the free language services
expressly offered by the recipient. 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 foreseeable, temporary use of interpreters not provided by
the recipient may be necessary. However, with proper planning and
implementation, recipients should be able to avoid most such
situations. Recipients, however, should take special care to ensure
that family, legal guardians, caretakers, and other informal
interpreters are appropriate in light of the circumstances and subject
matter of the program, service or activity, including protection of the
recipient's own administrative or enforcement interest in accurate. In
many circumstances, family members (especially children) or friends are
not competent to provide quality and accurate interpretations. Issues
of confidentiality, privacy, or conflict of interest may also arise.
LEP individuals may feel uncomfortable revealing or describing
sensitive, confidential, or potentially embarrassing information to a
family member, friend, or member of the local community. In addition,
such informal interpreters may have a personal connection to the LEP
person or an undisclosed conflict of interest. For these reasons, when
oral language services are necessary, recipients should generally offer
competent interpreter services free of cost to the LEP person.
While issues of competency, confidentiality, and conflict of
interest in the use of family members or friends often make their use
inappropriate, the use of these individuals as interpreters may be an
appropriate option where proper application of the four factors would
lead to a conclusion that recipient-provided services are not
necessary. If the importance and nature of the activity is relatively
low and unlikely to implicate issues of confidentiality, conflict of
interest, or
[[Page 71230]]
the need for accuracy, and the resources needed and costs of providing
language services are high, an LEP person's use of family, friends, or
others may be appropriate.
If the LEP person voluntarily chooses to provide his or her own
interpreter, a recipient should consider whether a record of that
choice and of the recipient's offer of assistance is appropriate. Where
precise, complete, and accurate interpretations or translations of
information and/or testimony are critical, or where the competency of
the LEP person's interpreter is not established, a recipient might
decide to provide its own, independent interpreter, even if an 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 issues of competency, confidentiality, or conflict of
interest when the choice involves using children as interpreters. The
recipient should take care to ensure that the LEP person's choice is
voluntary, that the LEP person is aware of the possible problems if the
preferred interpreter is a minor child, and that the LEP person knows
that a competent interpreter could be provided by the recipient at no
cost.
B. Written Language Services (Translation)
Translation is the replacement of a written text from one language
(source language) into an equivalent written text in another language
(target language).
What Documents Should be Translated? After applying the four-factor
analysis, a recipient may determine that an effective LEP plan for its
particular program or activity includes the translation of vital
written materials into the language of each frequently-encountered LEP
group eligible to be served and/or likely to be affected by the
recipient's program.
Such written materials could include, for example:
[sbull] Notices advising LEP persons of free language assistance.
[sbull] Written tests that do not assess English language
competency, but test competency for a particular license, job, or skill
for which knowing English is not required.
[sbull] Applications to participate in a recipient's program or
activity or to receive recipient benefits, grants, or services.
Whether or not a document (or the information it solicits) is
``vital'' may depend upon the importance of the program, information,
encounter, or service involved, and the consequence to the LEP person
if the information in question is not provided accurately or in a
timely manner. Where appropriate, recipients are encouraged to create a
plan for consistently determining, over time and across its various
activities, what documents are ``vital'' to the meaningful access of
the LEP populations they serve.
Classifying a document as vital or non-vital is sometimes
difficult, especially in the case of outreach materials like brochures
or other information on rights and services. Awareness of rights or
services is an important part of ``meaningful access.'' Lack of
awareness that a particular program, right, or service exists may
effectively deny LEP individuals meaningful access. Thus, where
recipient is engaged in community outreach activities in furtherance of
its activities, it should regularly assess the needs of the populations
frequently encountered or affected by the program or activity 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, the
recipient should consider whether translations of outreach material may
be made more effective when done in tandem with other outreach methods,
including utilizing the ethnic media, schools, religious, and community
organizations to spread a message.
Sometimes a document includes both vital and non-vital information.
This may be the case when the document is very large. It my also be the
case when the title and phone number for obtaining more information on
the contents of the document in frequently-encountered languages other
than English is critical, but the document is sent out to the general
public and cannot reasonably 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 translation of the
document.
Into What Languages Should Documents be Translated? The languages
spoken by the LEP individuals with whom the recipient has contact
determine the languages into which vital documents should be
translated. A distinction should be make, however, between languages
that are frequently encountered by a recipient and less commonly-
encountered languages. Many recipients serve communities in large
cities or across the country. They regularly serve LEP persons who
speak dozens and sometimes over 100 different languages. To translate
all written materials into all of those languages is unrealistic.
Although recent technological advances have made it easier for
recipients to store and share translated documents, such an undertaking
would incur substantial costs and require substantial resources.
Nevertheless, well-substantiated claims of lack of resources to
translate all vital documents into dozens of languages do not
necessarily relieve the recipient of the obligation to translate those
documents into at least several of the more frequently-encountered
languages and to set benchmarks for continued translations into the
remaining languages over time. As a result, the extent of the
recipient's obligation to provide written translations of documents
should be determined by the recipient on a case-by-case basis, looking
at the totality of the circumstances in light of the four-factor
analysis. Because translation is one-time expense, consideration should
be given to whether the up-front cost of translating a document (as
opposed to oral interpretation) should be amortized over the likely
lifespan of the document when applying this four-factor analysis.
Safe Harbor. Many recipients would like to ensure with greater
certainty that they comply with their obligations to provide written
translations in languages other than English. Paragraphs (a) and (b)
outline the circumstances that can provide a ``safe harbor'' for
recipient regarding the requirements for translation of written
materials. A ``safe harbor'' mean that if a recipient provides written
translations under these circumstances, such action will be considered
strong evidence of compliance with the recipient's written-translation
obligations.
The failure to provide written translations under the circumstances
outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) dies not mean there is non-
compliance. Rather, they provide a common starting point for recipients
to consider whether and at what point the importance of the service,
benefit, or activity involved; the nature of the information sought;
and the number or proportion of LEP persons served call for written
translations of commonly-used forms into frequently-encountered
languages other than English. Thus, these paragraphs merely provide a
guide for recipients that would like greater certainty of compliance
than can be provided by a fact-intensive, four-factor analysis.
Example: Even if the safe harbors are not used, if written
translation of a
[[Page 71231]]
certain document(s) would be so burdensome as to defeat the legitimate
objectives of its program, the translation of the written materials is
not necessary. Other ways of providing meaningful access, such as
effective oral interpretation of certain vital documents, might be
acceptable under such circumstances.
Safe Harbor Guides. The following actions will be considered strong
evidence of compliance with the recipient's written-translation
obligations:
(a) The recipient provides written translations of vital documents
for each eligible LEP language group that constitutes five percent or
1,000, whichever is less, of the population of persons eligible to be
served or likely to be affected or encountered. Translation of other
documents, if needed, can be provided orally; or
(b)If there are fewer than 50 persons in a language group that
reaches the five percent trigger in (a), the recipient does not
translate vital written materials but provides written notice in the
primary language of the LEP language group of the right to receive
competent oral interpretation of those written materials, free of cost.
These safe harbor provisions apply to the translation of written
documents only. They do not affect the requirement to provide
meaningful access to LEP individuals through competent oral
interpreters where oral language services are needed and are
reasonable.
Treasury provides assistance to a range of programs and activities
serving different geographic areas with varying populations. Moreover,
as noted above, the obligation to consider translations applies only to
a recipient's vital documents having a significant impact on access
rather than all types of documents used or generated by a recipient in
the course of its activities, For these reasons, a strict reliance on
the numbers or percentages set out in the safe harbor standards may not
be appropriate for all of Treasury's recipients and for all their
respective programs or activities. While the safe harbor standards
outlined above offer a common guide, the decision as to what documents
should be translated should ultimately be governed by the underlying
obligation under Title VI to provide meaningful access by LEP persons
by ensuring that the lack of appropriate translations of vital
documents does not adversely impact upon an otherwise eligible LEP
persons ability to access its programs or activities.
Competence of Translators. As with oral interpreters, translators
of written documents should be competent. Many of the same
considerations apply. However, the skill of translation is very
different from the skill of interpreting, and a person who is a
competent interpreter may or may not be competent to translate.
Particularly where vital documents are being translated, competence
can often be achieved by use of certified translators. Certification or
accreditation may not always be possible or necessary.\9\ Competence
can often be ensured by having a second, independent translator
``check'' the work of the primary translator. Alternatively, one
translator can translate the document, and a second, independent
translator could translate it back into English to check that the
appropriate meaning has been conveyed. This is called ``black
translation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For those languages in which no formal accreditation
currently exists, a particular level of membership in a professional
translation association can provide some indicator of
professionalism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translators should understand the expected reading level of the
audience and, where appropriate, have fundamental knowledge about the
target language group's vocabulary and phraseology. Sometimes direct
translation of materials results in a translation that is written at a
much more difficult level than the English language version or has no
relevant equivalent meaning.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For instance, there may be languages which do not have an
appropriate direct translation of some terms and the translator
should be able to provide an appropriate translation. The translator
should likely also make the recipient aware of this. Recipients can
then work with translators to develop a consistent and appropriate
set of descriptions of these terms in that language that can be used
again, when appropriate. Recipients will find it more effective and
less costly if they try to maintain consistency in the words and
phrases used to translate terms of art and legal or other technical
concepts. Creating or using already-created glossaries of commonly
used terms may be useful for LEP persons and translators and cost
effective for the recipient. Providing translators with examples of
previous translations or similar material by the recipient, other
recipient, other recipients, or federal agencies may be helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community organizations may be able to help consider whether a
document is written at a good level for the audience. Likewise,
consistency in the words and phrases used to translate terms of art 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
cost effective for the recipient. Providing translators with examples
of previous accurate translations of similar material by the recipient,
other recipients, or federal agencies may be helpful.
While quality and accuracy of translation services is critical, the
quality and accuracy of translation services is nonetheless part of the
appropriate mix of LEP services required. For instance, documents that
are simple and have no significant consequence for LEP persons who rely
on them may use translators that are less skilled than important
documents with legal or other information upon which reliance has
important consequences. The permanent nature of written translations,
however, imposes additional responsibility on the recipient to ensure
that the quality and accuracy permit meaningful access by LEP persons.
VII. Elements of Effective Plan on Lanuage Assistance for LEP Persons
After completing the four-factor analysis and deciding what
language assistance services are appropriate, a recipient should
develop an implementation plan to address the identified needs of the
LEP populations they serve. Recipients have considerable flexibility in
developing this plan. The development and maintenance of a
periodically-updated written plan on language assistance for LEP
persons (``LEP plan'') for use by recipient employees serving the
public will likely be the most appropriate and cost-effective means of
documenting compliance and providing a framework for the provision of
timely and reasonable language assistance. Moreover, such written plans
would likely provide additional benefits to a recipient's managers in
the areas of training, administration, planning, and budgeting. These
benefits should lead most recipients to document in a written LEP plan
their language assistance services, and how staff and LEP persons can
access those services. Despite these benefits, certain recipients, such
as recipients serving very few LEP persons and recipients with very
limited resources, may choose not to develop a written LEP plan.
However, the absence of a written LEP plan does not obviate the
underlying obligation to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons to a
recipient's program or activities. Accordingly, in the event that a
recipient elects not to develop a written plan, it should consider
alternative ways to articulate in some other reasonable manner a plan
for providing meaningful access. Entities having significant contact
with LEP persons, such as schools, religious organizations, community
groups, and groups working with new immigrants
[[Page 71232]]
can be very helpful in providing inportant input into this planning
process from the beginning. The following five steps may be helpful in
designing an LEP plan and are typically part of effective
implementation plans.
(1) Identifying LEP Individuals Who Need Language Assistance. The
first two factors in the four-factor analysis require an assessment of
the number or proportion of LEP individuals eligible to be served or
encountered and the frequency of encounters. This requires recipients
to identify LEP persons with whom it has contact. One way to determine
the language of communication is to use language identification cards
(or ``I speak cards''), which invite LEP persons to identify their
language needs to staff. Such cards, for instance, might say ``I speak
Spanish'' in both Spanish and English, ``I speak Vietnamese'' in both
English and Vietnamese, etc. To reduce costs of compliance, the federal
government has made a set of these cards available on the Internet. The
Census Bureau ``I speak card'' can be found and downloaded at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/13166.htm.
When records are normally kept of past
interactions with members of the public, 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 encounter, this process will
help in future applications of the first two factors of the four-factor
analysis. In addition, posting notices in commonly encountered
languages notifying LEP persons of language assistance will encourage
them to self-identify.
(2) Language Assistance Measures. An effective LEP plan would
likely include information about the ways in which language assistance
will be provided. For instance, recipients may want to include
information on at least the following:
[sbull] Types of language services available.
[sbull] How staff can obtain those services.
[sbull] How to respond to LEP callers.
[sbull] How to respond to written communications from LEP persons.
[sbull] How to respond to LEP individuals who have in-person
contact with recipient staff.
[sbull] How to ensure competency of interpreters and translation
services.
(3) Training Staff. Staff should know their obligations to provide
meaningful access to information and services for LEP persons. An
effective LEP plan would likely include training to ensure that:
[sbull] Staff know about LEP policies and procedures.
[sbull] Staff having contact with the public are trained to work
effectively with in-person and telephone interpreters.
Recipients may want to include this training as part of the
orientation for new employees. It is important to ensure that all
employees in public contact positions are properly trained. Recipients
have 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
with LEP persons may only have to be aware of an LEP plan. However,
management staff, even if they do not interact regularly with LEP
persons, should be fully aware of and understand the plan so they can
reinforce its importance and ensure its implementation by staff.
(4) Providing Notice to LEP Persons. Once and organization has
decided, based on the four factors, that it will provide language
services, it is important for the recipients to let LEP persons know
that those services are available are that they are free of charge.
Recipients should provide this notice in a language LEP persons will
understand. Examples of notification that recipients should consider
include:
Posting signs in intake areas and other entry points. When language
assistance is needed to ensure meaningful access to information and
services, it is important to provide notice in appropriate languages in
intake areas or initial points of contact so that LEP persons can learn
how to access those language services. For instance, signs in intake
offices could state that free language assistance is available. The
signs should be translated into the most common languages encountered.
They should explain how to get the language help.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Social Security Administration has made such signs
available at http://www.ssa.gov/multilanguage/langlist1.htmwww.ssa.gov/multilanguage/langlist1.htm
These signs
could, for example, be modified for recipient use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[sbull] Stating in outreach documents that language services are
available from the agency. Announcements could be in, for instance,
brochures, booklets, and in outreach and recruitment information. These
statements should be translated into the most common languages and
could be ``tagged'' onto the front of common documents.
[sbull] Working with community-based organizations and other
stakeholders to inform LEP individuals of the recipients' services,
including the availability of language assistance services.
[sbull] 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.
[sbull] Including notices in local newspapers in languages other
than English.
[sbull] Providing notices on non-English-language radio and
television stations about the available language assistance services
and how to get them.
[sbull] Presentations and/or notices at schools and religious
organizations.
(5) Monitoring and Updating the LEP Plan. Recipients should, where
appropriate, have a process for determining, on and ongoing basis,
whether new documents, programs, services, and activities need to be
made accessible for LEP individuals, and they may want to provide
notice of any changes in services to the LEP public and to the
employee. In addition, recipients should consider whether changes in
demographics, types of services, or other needs require annual
reevaluation of their LEP plan. Less frequent reevaluation may be more
appropriate where demographics, services, and needs are more static.
One good way to evaluate the LEP plan is to seek feedback from the
community. In their reviews, recipients may want to consider assessing
changes in :
[sbull] Current LEP populations in service area or population
affected or encountered.
[sbull] Frequency of encounters with LEP language groups.
[sbull] Nature and importance of activities to LEP persons.
[sbull] Availability of resources, including technological advances
and sources of additional resources, and the costs imposed.
[sbull] Whether existing assistance is meeting the needs of LEP
persons.
[sbull] Whether staff knows and understands the LEP plan and how to
implement it.
[sbull] Whether identified sources for assistance are still
available and viable.
In addition to these five elements, effective plans set clear
goals, management accountability, and opportunities for community input
and planning throughout the process.
VIII. Voluntary Compliance Effort
The goal for Title VI and Title VI regulatory enforcement is to
achieve voluntary compliance. The requirement to provide meaningful
access to LEP persons is implemented by Treasury through complaint
investigations, compliance reviews, efforts to secure voluntary
compliance, and technical assistance. Upon publication of Treasury's
Title VI regulations, the
[[Page 71233]]
enforcement procedures in those regulations will be applicable to this
program.
Treasury will investigate whenever it receives a complaint, report,
or other information that alleges or indicates possible noncompliance
with Title VI. If the investigation results in a finding of compliance,
Treasury will inform the recipient in writing of this determination,
including the basis for the determination. Treasury will use voluntary
mediation to resolve most complaints. However, if a case is fully
investigated and results in a finding of noncompliance, Treasury will
inform the recipient of the noncompliance through a Letter of Findings
that sets out the areas of noncompliance and the steps that must be
taken to correct the noncompliance. It will first attempt to secure
voluntary compliance through informal means. If the matter cannot be
resolved informally, Treasury will secure compliance through the
termination of federal assistance after the recipient has been given an
opportunity for an administrative hearing and/or by referring the
matter to a DOJ litigation section to seek injunctive relief or pursue
other enforcement proceedings. Treasury will engage in voluntary
compliance efforts and provide technical assistance to recipients at
all stages of an investigation. During these efforts, Treasury will
propose reasonable timetables for achieving compliance and consult with
and assist recipients in exploring cost-effective ways of coming into
compliance. In determining a recipient's compliance with the Title VI
regulations, Treasury's primary concern is to ensure that the
recipient's policies and procedures provide meaningful access for LEP
persons to the recipient's programs and activities.
While all recipients must work toward building systems that will
ensure access for LEP individuals, Treasury acknowledges that the
implementation of a comprehensive system to serve LEP individuals is a
process and that a system will evolve over time as it is implemented
and periodically reevaluated. As recipients take reasonable steps to
provide meaningful access to federally assisted programs and activities
for LEP persons, Treasury will look favorably on intermediate steps
recipients take that are consistent with this Guidance, and that, as
part of a broader implementation plan or schedule, move their service
delivery system toward providing full access to LEP persons. This does
not excuse noncompliance but instead recognizes that full compliance in
all areas of a recipient's activities and for all potential language
minority groups may reasonably require a series of implementing actions
over a period of time. However, in developing any phased implementation
schedule, recipients should ensure that the provision of appropriate
assistance for significant LEP populations or with respect to
activities having a significant impact on the health, safety, legal
rights, or livelihood of beneficiaries is addressed first. Recipients
are encouraged to document their efforts to provide LEP persons with
meaningful access to federally assisted programs and activities.
In cases where a recipient of federal financial assistance from
Treasury also receives assistance from one or more other federal
agencies, there is no obligation to conduct and document separate but
identical analyses and language assistance plans. Treasury, in
discharging its compliance and enforcement obligations under Title VI,
will look to analyses performed and plans developed in response to
similar detailed LEP guidance issued by other federal agencies.
Accordingly, as an adjunct to this Guidance, recipients may, where
appropriate, also rely on guidance issued by other agencies in
discharging their Title VI LEP obligations.
In determining a recipient entity's compliance with Title VI,
Treasury's primary concern is to ensure that the entity's policies and
procedures overcome barriers resulting from language differences that
would deny LEP persons a meaningful opportunity to participate in and
access programs, services, and benefits. A recipient entity's
appropriate use of the methods and options discussed in this policy
guidance is viewed by Treasury as evidence of that entity's willingness
to comply voluntarily with its Title VI obligations.
IX. Complaint Process
Anyone who believes that he/she has been discriminated against
because of race, color or national origin in violation of Title VI may
file a complaint with Treasury within 180 days of the date on which the
discrimination took place.
The following information should be included:
[sbull] Your name and address (a telephone number where you may be
reached during business hours is helpful, but not required);
[sbull] A general description of the person(s) or class of persons
injured by the alleged discriminatory act(s);
[sbull] The name and location of the organization or institution
that committed the alleged discriminatory act(s);
[sbull] A description of the alleged discriminatory act(s) in
sufficient detail to enable the Office of Workforce Development and
Equal Opportunity (OEOP) to understand what occurred, when it occurred,
and the basis for the alleged discrimination.
[sbull] The letter or form must be signed and dated by the
complainant or by someone authorized to do so on his or her behalf.
A recipient may not retaliate against any person who has made a
complaint, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an
investigation or proceeding under the statutes governing Federal
financial assistance programs.
Civil rights complaints should be filed with: Department of the
Treasury, Office of Workforce Development and Equal Opportunity, 1500
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 6071 Metropolitan Square, Washington, DC
20220.
Departmental Offices--FY 2004 Salaries and Expenses
[Program Office: DAS Management & Budget]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% of YTD % of balance
Financial plan Balance spending remaining
Spending category \1\ YTD spending remaining -----------------------------------
Target: 0% Target: 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUNDED POSITIONS.............................................. 27.0 ................ 27.0 0.0 100.0
Salaries...................................................... 2,203,433.0 ................ 2,203,433 0.0 100.0
Benefits...................................................... 484,755 ................ 484,755 0.0 100.0
Overtime...................................................... ................ ................ ................ 0.0 0.0
Awards........................................................ 25,545 ................ 25,545 0.0 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 71234]]
Subtotal, Personnel....................................... 2,713,733 ................ 2,713,733 0.0 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel........................................................ 7,500 ................ 7,500 0.0 0.0
Transportation................................................ ................ ................ ................ 0.0 0.0
Rents, Comm. & Utilities...................................... 1,920 ................ 1,920 0.0 100.0
Printing & Reprodution........................................ ................ ................ ................ 0.0 0.0
Other Services................................................ 46,560 ................ 46,450 0.0 100.0
Supplies...................................................... 7,585 ................ 7,585 0.0 100.0
Equipment..................................................... 2,880 ................ 2,880 0.0 100.0
Other......................................................... ................ ................ ................ 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Non-Personnel................................... 66,445 ................ 66,445 0.0 100.0
Grand Total............................................... 2,780,178 ................ 2,780,178 0.0 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Financial plan reflects the current financial plan.
Office of Financial Management Division
Budget Analyst: Angela Brown
Telephone : 622-1032
[FR Doc. 03-31397 Filed 12-19-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-M