Language Access Plan for Limited English Proficiency Persons

Language Access Plan for Limited English Proficiency Persons

BBC Note: This was adapted from the Indiana Office of Community & Rural Affairs LAP, updated with recent data on the presence of limited English proficiency persons and extended to include Indiana Housing & Community Development Authority.

Background and Purpose

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the federal law which protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of their race, color, or national origin in programs that receive federal financial assistance. Although persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) are not a protected class, there is a nexus between LEP and national origin. If a housing provider bases a housing decision on the ability to speak English well, this decision may be a violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) due to intentional discrimination or disparate impact.[1] Similarly, if an agency administering federal funds for housing programs does not create equal access of those funds to FHA protected classes, this could violate Title VI due to the LEP and national origin nexus.

Therefore, persons who, as a result of national origin, do not speak English as their primary language and who have limited ability to speak, read, write, or understand English may be entitled to language assistance under Title VI to receive a particular service, benefit, or encounter.

In 2000, an Executive Order was issued to improve access to improve access to services funded by the federal government. This Executive Order requires federal agencies to examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with LEP, and develop and implement a system to provide those services to LEP persons can have meaningful access.[2]

In Compliance with Executive Order 13166, the Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs (OCRA) and the Indiana Housing & Community Development Authority (IHCDA) have conducted a four factor analysis and developed the following Language Access Plan (LAP) for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons.

Four Factor Analysis

According to federal guidance, the first step in evaluating the extent of an entity’s obligation to provide LEP services 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 in 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.

This evaluation, known as the four factor analysis, is intended is to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons to critical services while not imposing undue burdens on small business, small local governments, or small nonprofit entities.[3]

The remainder of this section documents the results of the four-factor analysis for OCRA and IHCDA. The analysis will serve as the guide for determining which language assistance measures the state will undertake to guarantee access to the state’s HUD programs by LEP persons. Additionally, all future fund recipients will be required to use the same four-factor analysis prior to the release of funds.

Factor 1: Number or proportion of LEP persons served or encountered in the eligible service population.[4] According to the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS), there are just over 200,000 Indiana residents (3% of all residents) who speak English “less than very well.” Of those, 120,000 speak Spanish, 35,500 speak Other Indo-European languages, 37,500 speak Asian and Pacific Island languages and 7,000 speak other languages.

Figure 1 displays the number and proportion of LEP persons by county for the State of Indiana. Data are based on 2011-2015 ACS estimates of the population five years or older who speak English “less than very well.” Language groups that meet HUD’s safe harbor threshold for providing written language assistance are highlighted in blue.

HUD’s safe harbor rules suggest written translation of vital documents where the size of a language group is 1,000 or more in number or more than 5 percent of the eligible population and more than 50 in number. HUD has not published safe harbors for oral interpretation services.

As shown in the figure, aggregated nonentitlement areas do not fall within the safe harbor threshold.[5] However, individual counties—many of which are small, rural counties—do trigger translation under the safe harbor threshold. These counties include: Adams and LaGrange (Indo-European languages) and Bartholomew, Cass, Clinton, Dubois, Kosciusko, Noble, and Porter (Spanish).

Figure 1.
LEP Persons by County, State of Indiana, 2014

Note: LEP individuals are those who speak English less than very well (self-reported).

Source: 2011-2015 American Community Survey.

Figure 1 (continued).
LEP Persons by County, State of Indiana, 2015

Note: LEP individuals are those who speak English less than very well (self-reported).

Source: 2011-2015 American Community Survey.

Figure 2 provides additional detail on the specific languages spoken by LEP persons in the State of Indiana overall and in the state excluding HUD entitlement areas. Spanish is by far the single most common household language among LEP people (120,062 residents), followed by Chinese (15,188). The most common Indo-European language is German (7,142).

Figure 2.
LEP Population by Language, State of Indiana, 2015

Note: LEP individuals are those who speak English less than very well (self-reported).

Source: 2011-2015 American Community Survey.

There are 31 counties in the State of Indiana with more than 1,000 LEP persons; however only 22 of those counties have a specific language group that meets the 1,000-person threshold. The language groups meeting the threshold for each of those counties are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3.
Language Group(s) with 1,000 or more People by County, 2015

Note: LEP individuals are those who speak English less than very well (self-reported).

Source: 2011-2015 American Community Survey.

It should be noted that the LEP population totals provided in this analysis reflect all LEP persons, not just those who might be eligible for services, which may be restricted by age, tenure and/or income. OCRA and IHCDA have taken this broad approach to help ensure full consideration of all possible LEP populations.

Factor 2: The frequency with which the LEP persons come into contact with the program. The more frequent the contact with a particular language group, the more likely the need for enhanced language services in that language. According to HUD’s guidance it is important to consider both the expected frequency of contact and the different types of language contacts:

¾  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… 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[6].

¾  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 extensive assistance in Spanish. Less frequent contact with different language groups may suggest a different and less intensified solution[7].

For OCRA, encounters with LEP persons are infrequent. OCRA does not provide direct assistance to individuals; OCRA funds are awarded to units of local government or nonprofits (owner occupied funds using CDBG are administered by IHCDA). As a result, LEP persons rarely come into contact with the CDBG program at the State level. Direct contact with the public is typically in the form of residents contacting OCRA by phone for general information. In addition, some citizen participation may be directed to the state.

IHCDA does administer programs directly to individuals and is therefore more likely to have contact with LEP persons. Historical contact and an analysis of eligible populations suggest that IHCDA is most likely to have frequent contact with Spanish speaking LEP households.

Factor 3: The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the program. Program importance is directly linked to the possible impact on LEP individuals and therefore should be considered in determining what language services might be necessary. For example, a different standard may be reasonable for translating/interpreting recreation center offerings versus communicating eviction rights.

IHCDA’s programs that directly serve residents carry high importance, as they ensure access to safe and quality housing. As such, those programs for which residents apply directly and which require a financial or residency commitment by beneficiaries should be translated into the appropriate LEP languages.

Factor 4: The resources available and costs to the recipient. OCRA and IHCDA use the dedicated administrative portion of CDBG and HOME funds to cover the administration of their HUD programs. These funds are allocated to a variety of administrative activities, including language assistance for LEP populations and fulfilling the other regulatory requirements of HUD programs.

Cost for translation and interpretation vary widely depending on the service required, content and method of delivery. OCRA and IHCDA make use of existing resources with limited or no cost when possible. Examples include using bilingual employees for translation/interpretation, referring LEP persons to HUD’s website and using free online translation tools.

The LAP measures described in the remainder of this document have been determined to be reasonable given the resources available to OCRA and IHCDA.

Language Access Plan

Based on the four factor analysis, IHCDA and OCRA developed the following language access plan to address the needs of the LEP service population. The plan is structured around the key elements of a LAP as outlined in HUD’s final rule guidance.

¾  Method of identifying LEP persons who need language assistance and the specific language assistance that is needed. IHCDA and OCRA will continue to use ACS data and the four factor analysis to identify LEP persons and the languages they speak. The four factor analysis conducted for this LAP identifies Spanish speaking households as a priority for language access efforts in select counties. Other groups—namely Chinese and German speakers—may also have some language assistance needs, although those vary more by geographic area.

¾  Identifying the points and types of contact the agency and staff may have with LEP persons. As identified in the four factor analysis, the most common points of contact with LEP persons are XXX.

¾  Identifying ways in which language assistance will be provided. IHCDA and OCRA will provide language assistance according to the following protocols:

Ø  Maintain a list of staff members proficient in languages other than English that are willing to provide interpretive services;

Ø  For LEP callers, OCRA and IHCDA staff will use a commercially available telephonic voice interpretation service (e.g., Language Line) or contact a staff member proficient in the needed language to provide interpretation;

Ø  Provide Spanish interpretation at public meetings as requested;

Ø  Translate vital documents into Spanish. These include: Annual Action Plans, the Executive Summaries of the Five-year Consolidated Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing, Powerpoints and comment forms at Public Hearings for associated events, and XXX

Ø  Offer online translation of website through plug-in such as google translate or similar;

Ø  Include a clause in Spanish on all public notices for Consolidated Plan meetings and on the OCRA and IHCDA websites that indicates the state’s desire to accommodate LEP persons and provides contact information to access language assistance services; and

Ø  Include weblinks to HUD resources provided in other languages (https://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/lep.xml)on the IHCDA and OCRA websites.

¾  Outreaching effectively to the LEP community. OCRA and IHCDA have posted this LAP and the four factor analysis on their respective websites and provided notification of the updated LAP to stakeholders that frequently work with LEP populations. Outreach materials for specific programs and community input opportunities include information about the availability of translation/interpretation services along with contact information on how access those services.

¾  Training staff. Part of an effective LAP includes training staff on their obligations to provide meaningful access to information and services for LEP persons. IHCDA and OCRA include an overview of LEP policies and procedures in new employee’s orientation and training. Staff most likely to have contact with the public is given additional training to work effectively with LEP persons and understand the tools IHCDA and OCRA use to provide language assistance.

¾  Determining which documents and informational materials are vital. According to HUD guidance a vital document is “any document that is critical for ensuring meaningful access to the recipients’ major activities and programs by beneficiaries generally and LEP persons specifically. 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.”

OCRA and IHCDA have determined the following documents to be “vital” and will provide translation into Spanish for each of these documents: These include: Annual Action Plans, the Executive Summaries of the Five-year Consolidated Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing, Powerpoints and comment forms at Public Hearings for associated events, and XXX

OCRA and IHCDA will also include in public notices a clause in Spanish indicating the availability of language assistance services to encourage and accommodate participation in community meetings and public hearings among LEP persons.

¾  Plan for translating informational materials in identified language(s) that detail services and activities provided to beneficiaries and plan for providing appropriately translated notices to LEP persons. As discussed above, OCRA and IHCDA will translate vital documents into Spanish. Translation of additional documents and requests for translation of vital documents into different languages will be evaluated as requested. The state wishes to ensure meaningful access to services for LEP persons while balancing requests with the high cost of translation. As such, the state will rely on the four factor analysis to determine the most appropriate response to translation requests. This may include oral interpretation of short documents as an alternative to translation and/or translated summaries for non-vital documents.