[Federal Register: December 19, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 70967-70980]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19de03-147]
[[Page 70967]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Department of Housing and Urban Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Guidance to Federal Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI
Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited
English Proficient Persons; Notice
[[Page 70968]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-4878-N-01]
Notice of Guidance to Federal Assistance Recipients Regarding
Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting
Limited English Proficient Persons
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: HUD is publishing proposed ``Guidance to Federal Financial
Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National
Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons''
(Guidance) as required by Executive Order 13166, which addresses
assistance to recipients of federal financial assistance who have
limited English proficiency.
DATES: Comment Due Date: January 20, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
this notice to the Regulations Division, Office of the General Counsel,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 10276, 451 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications should refer to
the above docket number and title. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not
acceptable. A copy of each communication submitted will be available
for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at
the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela D. Walsh, Director, Program
Standards Division, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 5226, 451 Seventh
Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-2000, telephone (202) 708-2904 (this
is not a toll-free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may
access the telephone number listed in this section through TTY by
calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (Title VI) and implementing regulations, recipients of federal
financial assistance have a responsibility to ensure meaningful access
to their programs and activities by persons with limited English
proficiency (LEP). Executive Order 13166, reprinted at 65 FR 50121
(August 16, 2000), directs each federal agency that extends assistance
subject to the requirements of Title VI to publish guidance for its
respective recipients clarifying that obligation. Because this guidance
(42 U.S.C. 2000d) (Title VI) must adhere to the federal-wide compliance
standards and framework detailed in the model LEP Guidance of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) issued on June 18, 2002, HUD specifically
solicits comments on the nature, scope, and appropriateness of the HUD-
specific examples set out in this guidance explaining and/or
highlighting how those consistent federal-wide compliance standards are
applicable to recipients of federal financial assistance through HUD.
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 seven
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
percent of all Spanish speakers, 29.9 percent of all Chinese speakers,
and 28.2 percent of all Vietnamese speakers reported that they spoke
English ``not well'' or ``not at all'' in response to the 1990 census.
Language for LEP persons 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 programs, services, and activities
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 and regulatory 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 programs, services, and activities. HUD recognizes
that many recipients had language assistance programs in place prior to
the issuance of Executive Order 13166. This 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 and Title VI
regulations against national origin discrimination. 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 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. The
policy guidance is not a regulation but rather a guide. Title VI and
its implementing regulations require that recipients take responsible
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 LEP
individuals. These are the same criteria HUD will use in evaluating
whether recipients are in compliance with Title VI and Title VI
regulations.
As with most government initiatives, guidance on LEP requires
balancing several principles. While this Guidance discusses that
balance in some detail, it is important to note the basic principles
behind that balance. First, HUD 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, HUD must achieve this goal while finding constructive
methods to reduce the costs of LEP
[[Page 70969]]
requirements on small businesses, small local governments, or small
nonprofits 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, HUD plans to continue to provide assistance
and guidance in this important area. In addition, HUD plans to work
with representatives of state and local governments, public housing
agencies, assisted housing providers, fair housing assistance programs,
and other HUD recipients, and LEP persons to identify and share model
plans, examples of best practices, and cost-saving approaches.
Moreover, HUD 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 nonprofits. 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 persons who commented on the DOJ's proposed LEP guidance which
was published January 16, 2001 (66 FR 3834), later published for
additional public comment on January 18, 2002 (67 FR 2671), and
published in final form on June 18, 2002 (67 FR 41455), have noted that
some in the public have interpreted the case of Alexander v. Sandoval,
532 U.S. 275 (2001), as implicitly 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. DOJ and HUD have taken the position that this is not the
case, for the reasons explained below. Accordingly, HUD will strive to
ensure that federally-assisted programs and activities work in a way
that is effective for all eligible beneficiaries, including those with
LEP.
II. Legal Authority
Section 601 of Title VI 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).
HUD regulations promulgated pursuant to section 602 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'' (24 CFR 1.4).
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974),
interpreted regulations promulgated by the former Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, including a regulation similar to that of HUD,
24 CFR 1.4, 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, ``Improving Access to
Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,'' was issued and
published on August 16, 2000, at 65 FR 50121. 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 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.''
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 Order. The DOJ document is titled,
``Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 National
Origin Discrimination Against Persons With Limited English
Proficiency,'' (DOJ LEP Guidance) published on August 16, 2000, at 65
FR 50123.
Subsequently, federal agencies raised questions regarding the
requirements of the Order, especially in light of the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001). On
October 26, 2001, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights
Division, issued a memorandum for ``Heads of Departments and Agencies,
General Counsels and Civil Rights Directors,'' that clarified and
reaffirmed the DOJ LEP Guidance in light of Sandoval. This Guidance
noted that some have interpreted Sandoval as implicitly striking down
the disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI that form
the basis for the part of Executive Order 13166 that applies 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.''). This
Guidance, however, makes clear that the DOJ disagreed with this
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. 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 HUD policy is published pursuant to Title VI, Title VI
regulations, and Executive Order 13166. It is consistent with the
DOJ's, ``Policy Guidance Document on Enforcement of National Origin
Discrimination Against
[[Page 70970]]
Persons with Limited English Proficiency,'' published on August 16,
2000, at 65 FR 50123, and the DOJ LEP Guidance issued on June 18, 2002,
and published on June 18, 2002, at 67 FR 41457.
III. Who Is Covered?
HUD's regulation, 24 CFR part 1, ``Nondiscrimination in Federally
Assisted Programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development--
Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,'' requires
all recipients of federal financial assistance from HUD to provide
meaningful access to LEP persons. Pursuant to Executive Order 13166,
the meaningful access requirement of the Title VI regulations and the
four-factor analysis set forth in this LEP Guidance are to additionally
apply to the programs and activities of federal agencies, including
HUD. Federal financial assistance includes grants, training, use of
equipment, donations of surplus property, and other assistance.
Recipients of HUD assistance include, for example:
[sbull] State and local governments;
[sbull] Public housing authorities;
[sbull] Assisted housing providers;
[sbull] Profit and nonprofit organizations; and
[sbull] Other entities receiving funds directly or indirectly from
HUD.
Subrecipients likewise are covered when federal funds are passed
through from one recipient to a subrecipient (e.g., Entitlement
Community Development Block Grant, State Block Grant, State Community
Development Block Grant, and HOME Recipients' subrecipients are
covered).
Coverage extends to a recipient's entire program or activity,
(i.e., to all parts of a recipient's operations). This is true even if
only one part of the recipient receives the federal assistance.
Example: HUD provides assistance to a state government's Department
of Community Development to improve a particular public facility. All
of the operations of the entire state Department of Community
Development--not just the particular facility--are covered. However, if
a federal agency were to decide to terminate federal funds based on
noncompliance with Title VI or its regulations, only funds directed to
the particular program or activity that is out of compliance would be
terminated (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1). Finally, some recipients operate in
jurisdictions in which English has been declared the official language.
Nonetheless, these recipients continue to be subject to federal non-
discrimination requirements, including those applicable to the
provision of federally-assisted services to LEP persons.
IV. Who Is a Limited English Proficient Individual?
Persons who do not speak English as their primary language and who
have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English can
be 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 HUD
recipients and should be considered when planning language services
include, but are not limited to:
[sbull] Persons who are seeking housing assistance from a public
housing agency or assisted housing provider or are current tenants in
such housing;
[sbull] Persons seeking assistance from a state or local government
for a rehabilitation grant for their home;
[sbull] Persons who are attempting to file a housing discrimination
complaint with a local Fair Housing Assistance Program grantee;
[sbull] Persons who are seeking supportive services to become
first-time homebuyers;
[sbull] Persons seeking housing related social services, training,
or any other assistance from HUD recipients; and
[sbull] Parents and family members of the above.
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 balances the
following four factors: (1) The number or proportion of LEP persons
eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by the program or
grantee; (2) the frequency with which LEP persons come into contact
with the program; (3) the nature and importance of the program,
activity, or service 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.
After applying the 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 and/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. HUD 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.
A. 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 HUD as the recipient's jurisdiction or service area.
However, where, for instance, a public housing project serves a large
LEP population, the appropriate service area for LEP services is most
likely the public housing project neighborhood, and not the entire
population served by the public housing agency. 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. Appendix A provides
examples to assist in determining the relevant service area. When
considering the number or proportion of LEP persons in a service area,
recipients should consider LEP parent(s) when their English-proficient
or LEP minor children and dependents encounter the recipient.
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
[[Page 70971]]
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. 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 LEP persons. When using
demographic data, it is important to focus in on the languages spoken
by those who are not proficient in English. Community agencies, school
systems, grassroots and faith-based 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.
B. The Frequency With Which LEP Individuals Come Into Contact 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.
C. 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
persons, the more likely language services are needed. The obligations
to communicate rights to a person who is being evicted differ, for
example, from those to provide recreational programming. A recipient
needs to determine whether denial or delay of access to services or
information could have serious or even life-threatening implications
for the LEP individual. Decisions by HUD, another federal, state, or
local entity, or the recipient to make a specific activity compulsory
in order to participate in the program, such as filling out particular
forms, participating in administrative hearings, or other activities,
can serve as strong evidence of the program's importance.
D. 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. Recipients
should carefully explore the most cost-effective means of delivering
competent and accurate language services before limiting services due
to resource concerns. Small recipients with limited resources may find
that entering into a bulk telephonic interpretation service contract
will prove cost effective. 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.
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. For instance, a public
housing provider in a largely Hispanic neighborhood may need immediate
oral interpreters available and should give serious consideration to
hiring some bilingual staff. (Of course, many have already made such
arrangements.) In contrast, there may be circumstances where the
importance and nature of the activity and number or proportion and
frequency of contact with LEP persons may be low and the costs and
resources needed to provide language services may be high--such as in
the case of a voluntary public tour of a recreational
[[Page 70972]]
facility--in which pre-arranged language services for the particular
service may not be necessary. 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:
1. 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-
identification as bilingual. Some bilingual staff and community
volunteers, for instance, may be able to communicate effectively in a
different language when communicating information directly in that
language, but not be competent to interpret in and out of English.
Likewise, they may not be able to do written translations.
Competency to interpret, however, does not necessarily mean formal
certification as an interpreter, although certification is 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 and
understand and follow confidentiality and impartiality rules to the
same extent the recipient employee for whom they are interpreting or to
the extent their position requires or both. 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 courtroom or legal terms and the interpreter
should be so 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; and
[sbull] Understand and adhere to their role as interpreters without
deviating into a role as counselor, legal advisor, or other roles
(particularly in court, administrative hearings, or law enforcement
contexts).
Some recipients may have additional self-imposed requirements for
interpreters. Where individual rights depend on precise, complete, and
accurate interpretation or translations, the use of certified
interpreters is strongly encouraged. For those languages in which no
formal accreditation or certification currently exists, recipients
should consider a formal process for establishing the credentials of
the interpreter. 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 an abused woman's shelter, for example, must be
extraordinarily high, while the quality and accuracy of language
services in a recreational program 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
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. For example, when the timeliness of services is
important, such as with certain activities of HUD recipients providing
housing, health, and safety services, and when important legal rights
are at issue, a recipient would likely not be providing meaningful
access if it had one bilingual staff person available one day a week to
provide the service. Such conduct would likely result in delays for LEP
persons that would be significantly greater than those for English
proficient persons. 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.
2. Hiring Bilingual Staff
When particular languages are encountered often, hiring bilingual
staff offers one of the best, and often most economical, options.
Recipients can, for example, fill public contact positions, such as
persons who take public housing or Section 8 applications, with staff
who are bilingual and competent to communicate directly with LEP
persons in their own language. If bilingual staff is 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
intake specialist would probably not be able to perform effectively the
role of an administrative hearing interpreter and intake specialist at
the same time, even if the intake specialist were a qualified
interpreter). Effective management strategies, including any
appropriate adjustments in assignments and protocols for using
bilingual staff, can ensure that bilingual staff is 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.
3. 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.
[[Page 70973]]
4. 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.
5. Using Telephone Interpreter Services
Telephone interpreter service lines often offer speedy interpreting
assistance in many different languages. They may be particularly
appropriate where the mode of communicating with an English proficient
person would 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 or legal terms specific to a particular program
that may be important parts of the conversation. Nuances in language
and non-verbal communication can often assist an interpreter and cannot
be recognized over the phone. Video teleconferencing may sometimes help
to 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.
6. 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. 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.
7. 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 interpretation.
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 persons may feel uncomfortable revealing or describing
sensitive, confidential, or potentially embarrassing medical, law
enforcement (e.g., sexual or violent assaults), family, or financial
information to a family member, friend, or member of the local
community. For example, special circumstances may raise additional
serious concerns regarding the voluntary nature, conflicts of interest,
and privacy issues surrounding the use of family members and friends as
interpreters, particularly where an important right, benefit, service,
disciplinary concern, or access to personal or law enforcement
information is at stake. In addition to ensuring competency and
accuracy of the interpretation, recipients should take these special
circumstances into account when determining whether a beneficiary makes
a knowing and voluntary choice to use another family member or friend
as an interpreter. Furthermore, such informal interpreters may have a
personal connection to the LEP person or an undisclosed conflict of
interest, such as the desire to protect themselves or another
perpetrator in a domestic violence or other criminal matter. For these
reasons, when oral language services are necessary, recipients should
generally offer competent interpreter services free of cost to the LEP
person. For HUD recipient programs and activities, this is particularly
true in a courtroom, an administrative hearing, or situations in which
health, safety, or access to important housing benefits and services
are at stake, or when credibility and accuracy are important to protect
an individual's rights and access to important services.
An example of such a case is when a property manager/or housing
authority security or local police respond to a domestic disturbance.
In such a case, use of family members or neighbors to interpret for the
alleged victim, perpetrator, or witnesses may raise serious issues of
competency, confidentiality, and conflict of interest and is thus
inappropriate. While issues of competency, confidentiality, and
conflict of interest in the use of family members (especially children)
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. An example of this is a
voluntary tour of a community recreational facility built with
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds offered to the public.
There, the importance and nature of the activity may be relatively low
and unlikely to implicate issues of confidentiality, conflict of
interest, or the need for accuracy. In addition, the resources needed
and costs of providing language services may be high. In such a
setting, an LEP person's use of family, friends, or others may be
appropriate.
If the LEP person voluntarily chooses to provide his/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 for legal reasons,
[[Page 70974]]
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). It should be kept in mind that many LEP persons may
not be able to read their native languages and back-up availability of
oral interpretation is always advantageous.
1. 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] Consent and complaint forms;
[sbull] Intake forms with the potential for important consequences;
[sbull] Written notices of rights, denial, loss, or decreases in
benefits or services, and other hearings;
[sbull] Notices of eviction;
[sbull] Notices advising LEP persons of free language assistance;
[sbull] Leases and tenant rules; and/or
[sbull] Applications to participate in a recipient's program or
activity or to receive recipient benefits 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. For instance, applications for certain recreational
activities should not generally be considered vital documents, whereas
applications for housing could be considered vital. 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 persons meaningful access. Thus, where a 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, grassroots and faith-
based organizations, 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 may also be
the case when the title and a 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.
2. Into What Languages Should Documents Be Translated?
The languages spoken by the LEP persons with whom the recipient has
contact determine the languages into which vital documents should be
translated. A distinction should be made, 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 a one-time expense, consideration
should be given to whether the upfront 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.
3. 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 recipients
regarding the requirements for translation of written materials. A
``safe harbor'' means 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) does 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. Therefore, these paragraphs merely
provide a guide for recipients that would like greater certainty of
compliance than can be
[[Page 70975]]
provided by a fact-intensive, four-factor analysis.
Example: Even if the safe harbors are not used, if written
translation of a 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.
The following actions will be considered strong evidence of
compliance with the recipient's written-translation obligations:
(a) The HUD recipient provides written translations of vital
documents for each eligible LEP language group that constitutes 5
percent or 1,000 persons, 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 5 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 persons through competent oral interpreters
where oral language services are needed and are reasonable. For
example, housing facilities should, where appropriate, ensure that
leases have been explained to LEP residents, at intake meetings, for
instance, prior to taking adverse action against them.
4. Competence of Translators
As with oral interpreters, translators of written documents should
be competent. Many of the same considerations apply. However, the skill
of translating 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 legal or other 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. 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.
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 ``back
translation.''
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. For instance, there may be languages that
do not have an appropriate direct translation of some English language
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 of similar material by the 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, legal, or other
technical concepts helps avoid confusion by LEP persons and may reduce
costs.
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 legal or other consequence for LEP persons who
rely on them may require translators that are less skilled than
important documents with legal or other information upon which reliance
has important consequences (including, e.g., information or documents
of HUD recipients regarding certain safety issues and certain legal
rights or programmatic or other obligations). 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 Language 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 HUD 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, grassroots and faith-based
organizations, community groups, and groups working with new immigrants
can be very helpful in providing important 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
[[Page 70976]]
individuals eligible to be served or encountered and the frequency of
encounters. This requires recipients to identify LEP persons with whom
they have 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 Vietnamese and English, 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 persons who have in-person contact
with recipient staff; and
[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; and
[sbull] Staff having contact with the public is trained to work
effectively with in-person and telephone interpreters.
Recipients may want to include this training as part of their
orientation for new employees. It is important to ensure that all
employees in public contact positions (or having contact with those in
a recipient's custody) 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 an agency has decided, based on the four factors, that it will
provide language services, it is important for the recipient to let LEP
persons know that those services are available and that they are free
of charge. Recipients should provide this notice in a language that LEP
persons will understand. Examples of notification that recipients
should consider include:
[sbull] Posting signs in common areas, offices, and anywhere
applications are taken. When language assistance is needed to ensure
meaningful access to information and services, it is important to
provide notice in appropriate languages in initial points of contact so
that LEP persons can learn how to access those language services. This
is particularly true in geographic areas with high volumes of LEP
persons seeking access to the recipient's major programs and
activities. For instance, signs in offices where applications are taken
could state that free language assistance is available. The signs
should be translated into the most common languages encountered. The
signs should explain how to receive language assistance. The Social
Security Administration has made such signs available at http://www.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 grassroots and faith-based community
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; and
[sbull] Presentations and/or notices at schools and grassroots and
faith-based organizations.
(5) Monitoring and Updating the LEP Plan
Recipients should, where appropriate, have a process for
determining, on an ongoing basis, whether new documents, programs,
services, and activities need to be made accessible for LEP persons,
and they may want to provide notice of any changes in services to the
LEP public and to employees. 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 that the plan serves.
In their reviews, recipients may want to consider assessing changes
in:
[sbull] Current LEP populations in the housing jurisdiction
geographic 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; and
[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 enforced and implemented by HUD through the
procedures identified in the Title VI regulations. These procedures
include complaint
[[Page 70977]]
investigations, compliance reviews, efforts to secure voluntary
compliance, and technical assistance.
The Title VI regulations provide that HUD will investigate whenever
it receives a complaint, report, or other information that alleges or
indicates possible noncompliance with Title VI or its regulations. The
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is responsible for
conducting the investigation to ensure that recipients are in
compliance with civil rights related programs requirements. If the
investigation results in a finding of compliance, HUD will inform the
recipient in writing of this determination, including the basis for the
determination. HUD uses voluntary methods to resolve most complaints.
However, if a case is fully investigated and results in a finding of
noncompliance, HUD must 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 must attempt to secure voluntary compliance through
informal means. If the matter cannot be resolved informally, HUD must
secure compliance through the termination of federal assistance after
the HUD 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. HUD
engages in voluntary compliance efforts and provides technical
assistance to recipients at all stages of an investigation. During
these efforts, HUD proposes reasonable timetables for achieving
compliance and consults with and assists recipients in exploring cost-
effective ways of coming into compliance. In determining a recipient's
compliance with the Title VI regulations, HUD'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 persons, HUD acknowledges that the implementation
of a comprehensive system to serve LEP persons 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,
HUD 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, HUD recipients should ensure that the provision of
appropriate assistance for significant LEP populations or with respect
to activities having a significant impact on the housing, 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.
IX. Application to Specific Types of Recipients
Appendix A of this Guidance provides examples of how the meaningful
access requirement of the Title VI regulations applies to HUD-funded
recipients. It further explains how recipients can apply the four
factors to a range of situations to determine their responsibility for
providing language services in each of these situations. This Guidance
helps recipients identify the population they should consider when
determining the extent and types of services to provide. For instance,
it gives examples on how to apply this guidance in situations like:
[sbull] Holding public meetings on the Consolidated Plans for
Community Planning and Development Programs (CDBG, HOME, Housing
Opportunity for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA), and Emergency Shelter Grants
(ESG));
[sbull] Interviewing victims of housing discrimination;
[sbull] Helping applicants to apply for public housing units;
[sbull] Explaining lease provisions; and
[sbull] Providing affirmative marketing housing counseling
services.
Dated: November 10, 2003.
Carolyn Peoples,
Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
Appendix A: Application of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Guidance
for HUD Recipients
Introduction
A wide range of entities receives federal financial assistance
through HUD. HUD provides assistance to the following types of
recipients, among others: assisted housing providers; public housing
agencies; state and local governments; nonprofit organizations,
including housing counseling agencies and grassroots community-based
and faith-based organizations; state and local fair housing
agencies; and providers of a variety of services. All HUD-funded
recipients are required to certify to nondiscrimination and
affirmatively furthering fair housing, either through the Office of
Community Planning and Development's (CPD's) Consolidated Plan, (24
CFR 91.225 (a)(1) and (b)(6), 91.325(a)(1), 91.425(a)(i)); the
public housing agency plans processes (24 CFR 903.7(o)); or the
certifications required in the competitive programs funded through
the Super Notice of Funding Availability (SuperNOFA). [Note: HUD
publishes the SuperNOFA on an annual basis. The non-discrimination
and the affirmative furthering fair housing requirements are found
in the General Section of the SuperNOFA]. The website for the
SuperNOFA is: http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf18/supernofa/index.cfm.
This LEP Guidance does not change current civil rights
related program requirements contained in HUD regulations.
This Appendix provides examples of how HUD recipients might
apply the four-factor analysis described in the general guidance.
The Guidance and examples in this Appendix are not meant to be
exhaustive and may not apply in some situations. CPD's citizen
participation plan requirement, in particular, specifically
instructs jurisdictions that receive funds through the Consolidated
Plan process to take appropriate actions to encourage the
participation of ``* * * non-English speaking persons * * *'' (24
CFR 91.105(a)(2)(ii), 91.115(a)(2)). Such recipients may, therefore,
have processes in place to address the needs of their LEP
beneficiaries that already take into consideration the four-factor
analysis and meet the Title VI and regulatory requirements described
in this Guidance.
This Guidance does not supplant any constitutional, statutory,
or regulatory provisions that may require LEP services. Rather, this
Guidance clarifies the Title VI and regulatory obligation to
address, in appropriate circumstances and in a reasonable manner,
the language assistance needs of LEP persons beyond those required
by the Constitution or by statutes and regulations other than Title
VI and the Title VI regulations.
Tribes and tribally-designated housing entities (TDHEs) are
authorized to use federal housing assistance made available under
the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of
1996 (NAHASDA, 25 U.S.C. 4101-4212) for low-income housing programs
or activities for the specific benefit of tribal members or other
Native Americans. Programs or activities funded in whole or in part
with federal assistance made available under NAHASDA are exempt from
Title VI and Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Although
Title VI may not apply to housing programs undertaken by these
entities under NAHASDA, this Guidance may be a helpful technical
assistance tool in determining whether and to what degree language
assistance may be appropriate to ensure meaningful access by
otherwise eligible low-income Native Americans.
For many members of the public, exposure to housing and social
service programs
[[Page 70978]]
begins and ends with their interactions with HUD recipients that are
responding to a request for services or assistance or are conducting
education and community outreach activities. The common thread
running through interactions between the public and HUD recipients
is the exchange of information. Recipients of HUD assistance,
dependant on circumstances, have an obligation to provide
appropriate types and levels of language services to LEP persons to
ensure that they have meaningful access to, and choice of, housing
and other HUD-funded programs. Language barriers can, for example,
prevent persons from learning of housing opportunities or applying
for and receiving such opportunities, learning of environmental or
safety problems in their communities and of the means available for
dealing with such problems, or effectively reporting housing
discrimination to the local fair housing agency or HUD, thus
hindering investigation of these allegations.
Many recipients already provide language services in a wide
variety of circumstances to obtain information effectively and help
applicants obtain suitable housing or support services. For example,
public housing agencies may have leases available in languages other
than English as well as interpreters available to inform LEP persons
of their rights and responsibilities. In areas where significant LEP
populations reside, agencies may have forms and notices in languages
other than English or they may employ bilingual intake personnel,
housing counselors, and support staff. Such recipients may therefore
have processes in place to address the needs of their LEP
beneficiaries that meet the Title VI and regulatory requirements
described in this Guidance. Such existing processes and their
observed results can form a strong basis for applying the four-
factor analysis and complying with the Title VI regulations.
General Principles
The touchstone of the four-factor analysis is reasonableness
based upon: (a) The specific needs and capabilities of the LEP
population among the beneficiaries of HUD programs (tenants,
applicants, community residents, complainants, etc.); (b) the
program purposes and capabilities of the HUD-funded recipients
providing the services to the LEP population; and (c) local housing,
demographic, and other community conditions and needs. Accordingly,
the analysis cannot provide a single uniform answer on how service
to LEP persons must be provided in all programs or activities in all
situations or whether such service need be provided at all. Each HUD
recipient's evaluation of the need and level of LEP services for
each process in its services must be highly individualized.
Before giving specific program examples, several general points
should assist the wide variety of HUD recipients in applying this
analysis.
Factors (1) and (2): Target Audiences
In evaluating the target audience, the recipient should take
into account the number and proportion of LEP persons served or to
be served in the target population as well as the frequency with
which this target audience will or should be served.
Factor (1): For most recipients, the target audience is defined
in geographic rather than programmatic terms. In many cases, even if
the overall number or proportion of LEP persons in the local area is
low, the actual number of LEP persons served by the program may be
high.
HUD recipients are required to reach out to, educate, and
affirmatively market their services to potential beneficiaries in
the geographic area who are least likely to apply for or receive the
benefits of the program without such affirmative marketing (24 CFR
200.625, 24 CFR 92.351, 24 CFR 903. 2(d)(1) and (2)). In many cases,
those least likely to apply for a benefit are LEP persons. In
addition, in some cases where there are few LEP persons in the
immediate geographic area, affirmative marketing may require
marketing to residents of adjoining areas, communities, or
neighborhoods (24 CFR 200.625, 24 CFR 92.351, 903.2(d)(1) and (2)).
The programs of many recipients require public meetings and
input (24 CFR 91, subpart B; 24 CFR 903.13 (a); 24 CFR, part 964).
Even within the large geographic area covered by a city government,
certain target areas may have concentrations of LEP persons. These
persons may be those who might be most affected by the issue being
discussed.
In addition, some programs are specifically targeted to reach a
particular audience (e.g., persons with HIV, the elderly, residents
of high crime areas, persons with disabilities, and minority
communities). In some communities, these populations may
disproportionately be LEP persons.
Factor (2): Frequency of contact should be considered in light
of the specific program or the geographic area being served. Some
education programs or complaint processing may only require a single
or limited interaction with each LEP individual served. Housing,
counseling, and supportive services programs require on-going
communication. In the former case, the type and extent of LEP
services may be of shorter duration, even for a greater number of
LEP persons, than in the latter case and decisions must be made
accordingly.
Factor (3): Importance of Service/Information/Program/Activity
Given the critical role housing plays in maintaining quality of
life, housing and complementary housing services rank high on the
critical/non-critical continuum. However, this does not mean that
all services and activities provided by HUD recipients must be
equally accessible in languages other than English. For example,
while clearly important to the quality of life in the community,
certain recreational programs provided by a HUD recipient may not
require the same level of interpretive services as does the
recipient's underlying housing service. Nevertheless, the need for
language services with respect to these programs should be
considered in applying the four-factor analysis.
Factor (4): Costs vs. Resources and Benefits
The final factor that must be taken into account is the cost of
providing various services as opposed to the resources available to
the HUD recipient providing the service.
Type of Program: There are some programs for which translation
and interpretation are an integral part of the funded program such
that services should be provided in some way to any client that
requires them. In important programs or activities (i.e., tenant
selection and assignment, homeownership counseling, fair housing
complaint intake, conflict resolution between tenant and landlords,
etc.) that require one-on-one contact with clients, written
translation and verbal interpretation services should be provided
consistent with the four-factor analysis used earlier. Recipients
could have competent bilingual or multilingual employees or
community translators or interpreters to communicate with LEP
persons in languages prevalent in the community. In some instances,
a recipient may have to contract or negotiate with other agencies
for services for LEP persons.
Outreach: Affirmative marketing activities, as described above,
require, at a minimum, written materials in other languages (24 CFR
200.625, 24 CFR 92.351, 24 CFR 903.2 (d)(1) and (2)). As with
counseling, affirmative marketing in large LEP communities could be
fruitless without translation of outreach materials. Preferably,
outreach workers would speak the language of the people to whom they
are marketing.
Size of Program: A major issue for deciding on the extent of
translation/interpretation services is the size of the program. A
large public housing agency (PHA) may be expected to have
multilingual employees representing the LEP persons who may reside
in the communities they serve. These employees may be involved in
all activities: affirmative marketing, taking and verifying
applications, counseling, explaining leases, holding tenant
meetings, and on-going tenant contact, as well as translating
documents into applicable languages. Similarly, a funded recipient
receiving millions of dollars in CDBG Program money may be expected
to provide translation/interpretation services in major local
languages and have bilingual staff in those languages. Recipients
with limited resources (i.e., PHAs with a small number of units, or
small nonprofit organizations) should not be expected to provide the
same level and comprehensiveness of services to the LEP population,
but should consider reasonable steps, under the four-factor
analysis, they can take in order to provide meaningful access.
Relevance of Activity to the Program: A program with monthly
information sessions in a community with many LEP persons speaking
the same language should consider employing a bilingual employee who
can hold these sessions in the LEP language. Alternatively, if a
community's major LEP language does not have many applicants for the
program, having an interpreter at sessions only when needed may be
sufficient. (For example, the program could announce in major
languages in any public notice of the meeting that anyone in need of
an interpreter should call a certain number before the
[[Page 70979]]
meeting to request one--and ensure that someone at that number can
communicate with the person.)
Availability/Costs of Services: In a community with very few LEP
persons speaking a particular language, interpretation/translation
into a specific language and a HUD recipient with very few
resources, the provision of service should be targeted at the most
important activities. Recipients may decide, as appropriate, to
provide those services through agreements with competent translators
and interpreters in community-based organizations or through
telephonic interpretation services.
Services Provided: HUD recipients have a variety of options for
providing language services. Under certain circumstances, when
interpreters are required and recipients should provide competent
interpreter services free of cost to the LEP person, LEP persons
should be advised that they may choose either to use a competent
interpreter provided free by the recipient or, at their own expense,
secure the assistance of an interpreter of their own choosing. If
the LEP person decides to provide his or her own interpreter, the
provision of this choice to the LEP person and the LEP person's
election should be documented in any written record generated with
respect to the LEP person. Although LEP persons may sometimes look
to bilingual family members or friends or other persons with whom
they are comfortable for language assistance, there are many
situations where an LEP person might want to rely upon recipient-
supplied interpretative services. Family and friends may not be
available when and where they are needed, or they may not have the
ability to interpret program-specific technical information.
Alternatively, an individual may feel uncomfortable revealing or
describing sensitive, confidential, or potentially embarrassing
medical, family, or financial information to a family member,
friend, or member of the local community.
Similarly, there may be situations where a HUD recipient's own
interests justify program provision of an interpreter regardless of
whether the LEP individual also provides his or her own interpreter.
For example, where precise, complete, and accurate interpretation of
information is critical for lease enforcement, or at group meetings
dealing with vital issues, such as pending displacement, a recipient
might provide its own, independent interpreters, regardless of what
recipients choose. This should ensure that information has been
interpreted completely and is legally accurate.
In emergency situations that are not reasonably foreseeable, the
recipient may have to rely temporarily on non-professional language
services. However, reliance on children is especially discouraged
unless there is an extreme emergency and no language proficient
adults are available.
While all language services need to be competent, the greater
the potential consequences, the greater the need to monitor
interpretation services for quality. For example, it is important
that interpreters of legal concepts be highly competent to translate
legal and lease enforcement concepts as well as be extremely
accurate in their interpretation when discussing relocation and
displacement issues. It may be sufficient, however, for a desk clerk
who is fully bilingual, but not skilled at interpreting, to help an
LEP person complete an application in the language the LEP person
and bilingual person have in common.
Applying the Four-Factor Analysis
While all beneficiaries are important, the four-factor analysis
requires prioritizing so that language services are targeted where
most needed because of the nature and importance of the particular
activity involved in relation to the costs of providing the service.
This section provides examples of promising practices in which
recipients may engage. Grantees or funded recipients are responsible
for ensuring meaningful access to all portions of their program or
activity, not just the portions to which HUD funds are targeted. So
long as the language services are accurate, timely, and appropriate
in the manner outlined in this guidance, the types of promising
practices summarized below can assist recipients in meeting the
meaningful access requirements of Title VI and the Title VI
regulations.
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
The Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP): FHAP provides funds
to state and local agencies that administer fair housing laws that
are substantially equivalent to the federal Fair Housing Act.
A local FHAP serves a small metropolitan area that has a
population that is 3 percent Korean speaking, 25 percent Spanish-
speaking, and 72 percent English speaking. One of the FHAP agency's
primary responsibilities is to process fair housing discrimination
complaints. The FHAP office has many Hispanic complainants who are
LEP and Spanish-speaking; therefore, it has hired a Hispanic intake
clerk who is bilingual in Spanish and English. The Fair Housing
Poster and the complaint form have been translated into Spanish. The
office has a contract with a nonprofit Hispanic organization for
interpreters on an as-needed basis its education and outreach
activities to the Hispanic community. FHAP organizations are small
and have limited resources. In competing for the available
resources, the FHAP chose not to translate the material into the
language of the Korean population this year. However, it has plans
to translate material into the Korean language in coming years to
address the accessibility needs of the LEP population.
The Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP): FHIP assists fair
housing activities that increase compliance with the Fair Housing
Act and with the substantially equivalent fair housing laws
administered by state and local government agencies under the Fair
Housing Assistance Program (FHAP). FHIP awards funds competitively,
and these funds enable the recipients to carry out activities to
educate and inform the public and housing providers of their fair
housing rights and responsibilities.
A community organization in a large metropolitan area had
received FHIP funds to develop an education curriculum to assist
newly arrived immigrants. Data showed that non-English speaking
persons were having difficulty in applying and securing housing in
the area. The organization had identified a large Hispanic clientele
in the area that needed this service. It had a well-developed
program for this LEP population. However, the community's population
was changing. The recipient found that there was also a large
community of recent immigrants from Cambodia who were also in need
of language services. To address this need, the FHIP partnered with
Asian Action Network, a community-based social service agency, to
translate materials and to present free seminars at the local public
library. In addition, if needed, the Asian Action Network had on its
staff a Cambodian-speaking counselor who was able to provide
interpretation services.
Office of Public and Indian Housing
HOPE VI: The HOPE VI Revitalization of Distressed Public Housing
Program provides revitalization and demolition-only grants on a
competitive basis for eligible PHAs that operate public housing
units. During the HOPE VI lifecycle, PHAs are required to
communicate with all tenants, including LEP tenants, through
informational meetings that describe both the proposed project and
the rights of the tenants during every stage of the application and
implementation process. All residents need to be educated about both
the HOPE VI project, and their right to be relocated into decent,
safe and sanitary housing, and how they can return to the new
project once it is completed.
A PHA is planning to demolish a 400-unit public housing project
and construct a 375-unit HOPE VI mixed-finance development and other
amenities on the site. The 400-unit building is still occupied by a
tenant population of which 55 percent are Spanish-speaking families.
For a number of years, the PHA had in place bilingual employees in
its occupancy office, as well as leases and other written documents
translated into Spanish. Under the new requirements, the PHA now
needs to translate public notices and other documents into Spanish,
since many of the families are newly arrived immigrants from Latin
America.
Public Housing: There are approximately 3,400 PHAs in the United
States that provide a majority of the housing to low and very low-
income families. For example, a PHA in a large metropolitan area has
Hispanic, Chinese, and Vietnamese tenants. All tenants sign a lease
before they can live in public housing. The lease details the rules
and requirements that the PHA and tenants must follow and ensures
that the PHA and tenants are provided all the protections to which
they are entitled. Additionally, the written lease ensures that all
tenants are treated fairly. The PHA makes every effort to ensure
that tenants understand the rules and requirements. The PHA has its
lease and rental notices translated into Spanish, Chinese, and
Vietnamese and it has a procedure to access interpreters for these
languages if oral discussions of the lease are necessary.
Housing Choice Voucher Program: The Housing Choice Voucher
Program is the
[[Page 70980]]
federal government's major program for assisting very low-income
families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and
sanitary housing in the private market.
For example, a PHA administers a Housing Choice Voucher Program
and has recently received an additional 100 vouchers. The PHA
affirmatively markets the availability of the housing choice
vouchers to all families living in its jurisdiction. It places a
public service announcement in English, Spanish, Chinese, or
Vietnamese in the local general circulation, Spanish, Chinese, or
Vietnamese newspapers and radio and TV stations, as applicable.
Office of Community Planning and Development
Consolidated Plan: Consolidated Planning is a strategy for
holistic community planning. Each community's Consolidated Plan is
built upon public participation and input. When planning the
required public hearings, jurisdictions must also identify how the
needs of LEP residents will be met in the case of public hearings
where a significant number of LEP residents can be reasonably
expected to participate (24 CFR 91, Subpart B, ``Citizen
Participation and Consultation''). Other activities surrounding
public hearings should also be made available to persons with LEP,
such as (a) publication of translated notification of the public
hearings, and (b) translation of draft and final action and
consolidated plans and dissemination of these documents to persons
and appropriate organizations in the LEP community.
The State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is
designed to assist small communities and rural areas in funding a
wide variety of activities intended to promote community economic
development. In the State CDBG program, HUD makes grants to states,
which then distribute funds to units of general local government.
All eligible activities in the State CDBG program must meet one
of three statutory objectives specified in the CDBG authorizing
legislation: principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons,
aid in the prevention of elimination of slums or blight, or meet
other community development needs having a particular urgency.
State CDBG grant recipients are encouraged to reach out to LEP
persons through local alternative language newspapers. In addition,
expenses associated with providing interpretive services to LEP
persons may be considered program delivery or administration costs
and, therefore, may be paid with CDBG funds. For instance, one state
CDBG grant recipient chooses to provide case management services to
homeless families and individuals, and allocates part of these funds
to provide advocacy and interpretative services for LEP persons.
Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA): HOPWA is a
tenant-based rental voucher program specifically designed for
persons who are HIV positive or who have AIDS. A major city has been
operating services affecting persons with AIDS and such services
have been an integral part of its Consolidated Plan. However, it
recently learned from a national study that 20 percent of its 2,000
HIV-infected persons are LEP persons. The city previously had not
contacted these people about their needs. In formulating its
Consolidated Plan, the city's Community Development Department
contacted both the Department of Health and the city's leading AIDS-
related service provider for assistance in reaching out to this
population. The city offered to allocate additional sums from its
HOPWA formula grant to fund bilingual interpreters and health
outreach workers who would contact the LEP persons living with HIV
and minister to their housing-related needs. Also, as part of its
citizen participation plan, the city offered to conduct a
multilingual meeting at which institutions involved in AIDS-related
housing and services would participate.
HOME Investment Partnership Program: In general, under the HOME
Investment Partnerships Program, HUD allocates funds by formula
among eligible state and local governments to strengthen public-
private partnerships and to expand the supply of decent, safe,
sanitary, and affordable housing. Families, including LEP families,
may obtain homeownership and rental housing opportunities from
participating jurisdictions (PJs). Under the program requirements,
PJs are required to implement affirmative marketing strategies,
under which they identify groups within the eligible population that
are least likely to apply and conduct special outreach efforts
through advertising in local media, including media targeted at LEP
citizens (24 CFR 92.351).
A small HOME participating jurisdiction is using its HOME funds
to implement a tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) program. Under
TBRA, the assisted tenant may move from a dwelling unit, but retains
the right to continued assistance. The TBRA assistance also includes
the security deposit. The HOME PJ, as part of its affirmative
marketing strategy, has submitted advertising to the local Spanish
language newspapers and radio station that serve the community's
small but growing Hispanic population. Since the costs of
implementing the affirmative marketing strategy are eligible costs
under the program regulations, the PJ is increasing its budget to
train occupancy staff to address issues faced by LEP applicants and
to hire a bilingual staff member.
Office of Housing
Single-Family Housing Counseling Program: HUD provides funds to
housing counseling agencies that assist persons and families in
specific geographic areas to enable them to buy homes and to keep
homes they already have purchased. This requires one-on-one and
group counseling on home-selection skills, understanding mortgages,
understanding legal ramifications of various documents, establishing
a budget, housekeeping and maintenance skills, understanding fair
housing rights, etc.
In a majority-Hispanic community, La Casa has been the only HUD-
funded counseling agency, providing these services for many years.
It has bilingual staff to serve the largely Hispanic population.
Frequently clients from a neighboring low-income community, which is
primarily African-American, also uses its services, since the agency
is well-known in the area. However, over the past few years, many
low-income Iranians have been moving into the neighboring community.
A housing counseling agency is required to provide one-on-one
counseling services as the nature of its program. It is also
required to outreach to those potential beneficiaries who are least
likely to apply for its services. As a relatively small agency, La
Casa should employ at least one person or have regular access to a
person who can interpret between English and Farsi. This person
should be visiting the Iranian communities, and contacting and
working through the local agencies to affirmatively market La Casa's
program. This person should also arrange to get key materials
translated and provide counseling and interpretation services, as
needed.
Supportive Housing for the Elderly: The Section 202 Supportive
Housing for the Elderly Program funds the construction of
multifamily projects that serve elderly persons. Project sponsors
are required to affirmatively market their services and housing
opportunities to those segments of the elderly population that are
identified as least likely to apply for the housing without special
outreach. Even more importantly, many LEP elderly may require care
from bilingual medical or support services staff, and recipients may
devote considerable financial and other resources to provide such
assistance.
The sponsor of a Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly
project identifies in its Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan
the city's large numbers of East and South Asian immigrants as least
likely to apply for the new housing without special outreach. After
examining census and other data and consulting with the city's
Office of Immigrant Affairs, the sponsor learns that the 1,000 of
the 5,000 South and East Asian families have at least one elderly
relative that may be eligible for the new units. The sponsor hires
translators fluent in Hindi, Urdu, Dari, Vietnamese, and Chinese to
translate written materials and advertising for the local press in
those languages. The recipient also partners with community-based
organizations that serve the city's East and South Asian immigrants
to arrange for interpreters at meetings.
[FR Doc. 03-31267 Filed 12-18-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-28-P
Fatal error: Call to a member function end() on a non-object in /www/htdocs/crt/cor/lep/hudrecipientlepguidancefinal.php on line 1773