[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 251 (Tuesday, December 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79675-79685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31302]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding
Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting
Limited English Proficient Persons
AGENCY: Department of Defense.
ACTION: Final guidance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Defense (DoD) publishes this Final Guidance
to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI
Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited
English Proficient Persons (DoD Recipient LEP Guidance). The DoD
Recipient LEP Guidance derives from the prohibition against national
origin discrimination in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in
the context of individuals with limited English proficiency.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Beatrice Bernfeld at
[email protected] or (703) 571-9336. Arrangements to
receive the policy in an alternative format may be made by contacting
the named individual.
[[Page 79676]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d, et seq. (Title VI), and DoD regulations
implementing Title VI, recipients of Federal financial assistance from
DoD (``recipients'') have a responsibility to ensure that individuals
are not unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of race, color or
national origin, which includes are requirement to provide for
meaningful access by persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) to
their programs and activities. See 32 CFR Part 195. Executive Order
13166, signed August 11, 2000 and published at 65 FR 50121 (August 16,
2000), directs each Federal agency that extends assistance subject to
the requirements of Title VI to publish, after review and approval by
the Department of Justice (DOJ), guidance for its recipients clarifying
that obligation. The Executive Order also directs that all such
guidance be consistent with the compliance standards and framework set
forth by DOJ.
On March 14, 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Report to Congress titled ``Assessment of the Total Benefits and
Costs of Implementing Executive Order No. 13166: Improving Access to
Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.'' Among other
things, the Report recommended the adoption of uniform guidance across
all Federal agencies, with flexibility to permit tailoring to each
agency's specific recipients. Consistent with this OMB recommendation,
the DOJ published LEP Guidance for DOJ recipients which was drafted and
organized to also function as a model for similar guidance by other
Federal grant agencies. See 67 FR 41455 (June 18, 2002). This final DoD
Guidance is based upon of the model June 18, 2002, DOJ LEP Guidance for
Recipients.
The primary focus of this Guidance is on entities that receive
Federal financial assistance from DoD, either directly or indirectly,
through a grant, cooperative agreement, contract or subcontract, and
operate programs or activities or portions of programs or activities in
the United States and its territories.
In connection with the issuance of this Guidance, each DoD
component is encouraged to review their current programs and activities
to determine whether they provide the type of external assistance to a
recipient which is subject to Title VI. If Title VI is determined to be
applicable to one or more program or activity, the administering
component should consider developing a program-specific Appendix to
this Guidance. The Appendix should explain how the component's
recipients may ensure meaningful linguistic access consistent with the
principles and compliance standards set out in DoD's LEP Guidance for
Recipients below. Any future Appendix must be submitted to DOJ for
review and approval prior to publication in the Federal Register.
It has been determined that the Guidance does not constitute a
regulation subject to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C Sec. 533. It has also been determined that
this Guidance is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12866.
A. Response to Comments
DoD interim final guidance on DoD recipients' obligations to take
reasonable steps to ensure access by LEP persons was published on
February 15, 2012. See 77 FR 8828. The comment period was open until
March 16, 2012. DoD received one comment representing one organization
in response to its publication of draft guidance on DoD recipients'
obligations to take reasonable steps to ensure access to programs and
activities by LEP persons. The comment expressed concern about use of
the disparate impact approach to enforce Title VI of the Civil Right
Acts of 1964. DoD addresses this issue in section II, Legal Authority,
of this guidance.
The text of the complete proposed Guidance document appears below.
Dated: December 24, 2013.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
I. Introduction
Most individuals living in the United States read, write, speak and
understand English. There are many individuals, however, for whom
English is not their primary language. For instance, based on the 2000
census, over 26 million individuals speak Spanish and almost 7 million
individuals speak an Asian or Pacific Island language at home. If these
individuals have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand
English, they are limited English proficient, or ``LEP.'' The 2000
census indicates that 28.1% of all Spanish-speakers, 28.2% of all
speakers of Chinese languages, and 32.3% of all Vietnamese-speakers
reported that they spoke English ``not well'' or ``not at all.''
Language for LEP individuals can be a barrier to accessing
important benefits or services, understanding and exercising important
rights, complying with applicable responsibilities, or understanding
other information provided by federally funded programs and activities.
The Federal Government funds an array of services that can be made
accessible to otherwise eligible LEP persons. The Federal Government is
committed to improving the accessibility of these programs and
activities to eligible LEP persons, a goal that reinforces its equally
important commitment to promoting programs and activities designed to
help individuals learn English. Recipients should not overlook the
long-term positive impacts of incorporating or offering English as a
Second Language (ESL) programs in parallel with language assistance
services. ESL courses can serve as an important adjunct to a proper LEP
plan. However, the fact that ESL classes are made available does not
obviate the statutory 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 services.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DoD 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
population it encounters, and its prior experience in providing
language services in the community it serves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This policy Guidance clarifies existing legal requirements for LEP
persons by providing a description of the factors recipients should
consider in fulfilling their responsibilities to LEP persons.\2\ These
are the same criteria DoD has been and will continue to use in
evaluating whether recipients are in compliance with Title VI and Title
VI regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This 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 individuals who are limited English proficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In certain circumstances, failure to ensure that LEP persons can
effectively participate in or benefit from federally assisted programs
and activities may violate the prohibition under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, and Title VI regulations against
national origin discrimination. The purpose of this policy Guidance is
to assist recipients in fulfilling their responsibility to provide
meaningful access to LEP persons under existing law.
[[Page 79677]]
As with most government initiatives, this policy Guidance 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, we must ensure that federally assisted
programs aimed at the American public do not leave some behind simply
because they face challenges communicating in English. This is of
particular importance because, in many cases, LEP individuals form a
substantial portion of those encountered in federally assisted
programs. Second, we must achieve this goal while finding constructive
methods to reduce the costs of LEP requirements on small businesses,
small local governments, or small non-profits that receive Federal
financial assistance.
In addition, many DoD recipients also receive Federal financial
assistance from other Federal agencies, such as the Department of
Education or the Department of Health and Human Services. While
guidance from those Federal agencies is consistent with this Guidance,
recipients receiving assistance from multiple agencies should review
those agencies' guidance documents at http://www.lep.gov for a more
focused explanation of how the standards apply in portions of programs
or activities that are the focus of funding from those agencies.
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, DoD plans to continue to provide assistance
and guidance in this important area. In addition, DoD plans to work
with representatives of research and defense-related institutions,
grant organizations, administrative agencies, other Federal entities,
and LEP persons to identify and share model plans, examples of best
practices, and cost-saving approaches. Moreover, DoD intends to explore
how language assistance measures, resources and cost-containment
approaches developed with respect to its own Federally conducted
programs and activities can be effectively shared or otherwise made
available to recipients, particularly small businesses, small local
governments, and small non-profits. An interagency working group on LEP
developed a Web site, www.lep.gov, to assist in disseminating this
information to recipients, Federal agencies, and the communities being
served.
II. Legal Authority
Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 2000d, provides that no person shall ``on the ground of race,
color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.'' Section 602 of Title
VI, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d-1, 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.''
DoD 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 respect individuals of a particular race, color, or
national origin.'' 32 CFR Sec. 195.4(b)(2).
The Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974),
interpreted regulations promulgated by the former Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, including a regulation similar to that of DoD,
45 CFR 80.3(b)(2), 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.
Executive Order 13166, ``Improving Access to Services for Persons
with Limited English Proficiency,'' 65 FR 50121 (August 16, 2000) was
issued on August 11, 2000. Under that Executive 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 Executive Order. ``Enforcement of Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 National Origin Discrimination Against
Persons With Limited English Proficiency,'' 65 FR 50123 (August 16,
2000) (``DOJ LEP Guidance'').
Subsequently, Federal agencies raised questions regarding the
requirements of the Executive Order, especially in light of the Supreme
Court's decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001). On
October 26, 2001, the Civil Rights Division of DOJ issued a memorandum
clarifying and reaffirming the DOJ LEP Guidance in light of
Sandoval.[1] 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. Mindful of the limitations on
bringing a private action to enforce Title VI regulations addressing
disparate impact, DoD is committed to vigorously enforcing the
requirements of Title VI and its implementing regulations on behalf of
LEP beneficiaries and other LEP persons encountered by DoD assisted
agencies and entities.
This Guidance document is therefore published at the direction of
Executive Order 13166 and pursuant to Title VI and the Title VI
regulations. It is consistent with the relevant DOJ Guidance. 67 FR
41455 (June 18, 2002) (also available at www.lep.gov).
III. Who is covered?
All entities that receive Federal financial assistance from DoD,
either directly or indirectly, through a grant, cooperative agreement,
contract or subcontract, and operate programs or activities or portions
thereof in the United States and its territories, are covered by this
Guidance. Title VI applies to all Federal financial assistance, which
includes but is not limited to awards and loans of Federal funds,
awards or donations of Federal
[[Page 79678]]
land or property, details of Federal or Federally funded personnel, or
any agreement, arrangement or other contract that has as one of its
purposes the provision of assistance.
Examples of recipients of DoD assistance covered by this Guidance
include, but are not limited to:
--State and local government agencies and any other entities that
receive DoD-donated land or land that is sold at or below-market rate;
and
--Organizations and institutions, such as nonprofit organizations or
educational institutions, receiving grants to conduct scientific,
medical, environmental or other research.
Title VI prohibits discrimination in any program or activity that
receives Federal financial assistance. In most cases, when a recipient
receives Federal financial assistance for a particular program or
activity, all operations of the recipient are covered by Title VI, not
just the part of the program that uses the Federal assistance. Thus,
all parts of the recipient's operations would be covered by Title VI,
even if the Federal assistance were used only by one part.\3\ Sub-
recipients likewise are covered when Federal funds are passed through
from one recipient to a sub-recipient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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 persons with limited English proficiency.
IV. Who is a limited English proficient individual?
Individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and
who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English
can be limited English proficient, or ``LEP,'' entitled to language
assistance with respect to a particular type of service, benefit, or
encounter.
Examples of populations likely to include LEP persons who are
encountered and/or served by DoD recipients and should be considered
when planning language services include, but are not limited to:
--Persons who are included in DoD-funded medical studies;
--Persons who participate in support groups that are funded by DoD;
--Persons who encounter or who are eligible to receive benefits or
services from a state or local agency that is a recipient of DoD
assistance;
--Persons who encounter or are eligible to participate in portions of
programs or activities of an institution of higher learning that
receives DoD assistance;
--Persons who are served by programs or activities run by recipients of
DoD-donated land;
--Persons who attend community meetings or other public meetings
organized by DoD recipients; \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For additional guidance on providing meaningful access to
LEP individuals at public hearings or meetings, see 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, 68 FR 70980 (Dec. 19, 2003) (available at http://www.lep.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Other LEP persons who encounter or are eligible to receive benefits
or services from DoD recipients; and
--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
activity or portion thereof; (2) the frequency with which LEP
individuals come in contact with the program or activity or portion
thereof; (3) the nature and importance of the program, activity,
service, benefit, or information provided by the recipient 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 above four-factor analysis, a recipient may
conclude that different language assistance measures are sufficient for
the different types of encounters. For instance, some portions of a
recipient's program or activity 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. DoD recipients should apply
the following four factors to the various kinds of contacts that they
have with the public to assess language needs and decide what
reasonable steps they should take to ensure meaningful access for LEP
persons.
(1) The Number or Proportion of LEP Persons Served or Encountered in
the Eligible Service Population
One factor in determining what language services recipients should
provide is the number or proportion of LEP persons from a particular
language group served or encountered in the eligible service
population. The greater the number or proportion of these LEP persons,
the more likely language services are needed. Ordinarily, persons
``eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by'' a recipient's
program or activity are those who are served or encountered in the
eligible service population. This population will be program-specific,
and includes persons who are in the geographic area that has been
approved by a Federal grant agency as the recipient's service area.
However, where, for instance, a regional office of a nonprofit that
provides support services for cancer survivors serves a large LEP
population, the appropriate service area is most likely the regional
office of the nonprofit organization, and not the entire population
served by the non-profit. 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. In addition, there may be circumstances in
which recipients appropriately identify English language skills as an
eligibility criterion, such as in the case of a university English
language masters program. But other portions of the program, such as a
university daycare or clinic open to the public, or various public
community events, cultural exchanges, campus security, or other
portions of a recipient's operations, may have a more significant LEP
population that may be encountered or is eligible to participate. When
considering the number or proportion of LEP individuals in a service
area, recipients should consider LEP parent(s) when their English-
proficient or LEP minor children and dependents encounter the
recipient's program or activity.
[[Page 79679]]
Recipients should first examine their prior experiences with LEP
encounters and determine the breadth and scope of language services
that were needed. In conducting this analysis, it is important to
include language minority populations that are eligible for their
programs or activities but may be underserved because of existing
language barriers.
Other data in addition to prior experiences 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.\5\
Community agencies, school systems, religious organizations, legal aid
entities, and others can often assist in identifying populations for
whom outreach is needed and who would benefit from the recipients'
programs and activities were language services provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The focus of the analysis is on lack of English proficiency,
not the ability to speak more than one language. Note that
demographic data may indicate the most frequently spoken languages
other than English and the percentage of people who speak that
language who speak or understand English less than well. Some of the
most commonly spoken languages other than English may be spoken by
people who are also overwhelmingly proficient in English. Thus, they
may not be the languages spoken most frequently by limited English
proficient individuals. When using demographic data, it is important
to focus in on the languages spoken by those who are not proficient
in English.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The Frequency With Which LEP Individuals Come in 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.
(3) The Nature and Importance of the Program, Activity, or Service
Provided by the Program
The more important the activity, information, service, or program,
or the greater the possible consequences of the contact to the LEP
individuals, the more likely language services are needed. A recipient
needs to determine whether denial or delay of access to services or
information could have serious, economic, safety, education or even
life-threatening implications for the LEP individual. For instance, the
obligations of a federally assisted entity providing medical advice or
services differ from those of a federally assisted program providing
purely recreational activities (however, if a language barrier could
result in denial or delay of access to important benefits, services, or
information, or have a serious implication for a LEP person who
participates in the recreational activity, the legal obligation to
provide language services in that circumstance would be higher).
Decisions by a Federal, state, or local entity to make an activity
compulsory or required in order to maintain or receive an important
benefit or service or preserve a right, such as access to medical care,
appeals procedures, or compliance with rules and responsibilities, can
serve as strong evidence of the program's importance.
(4) The Resources Available to the Recipient and Costs
A recipient's level of resources and the costs that would be
imposed on it may have an impact on the nature of the steps it should
take. Smaller recipients with more limited budgets are not expected to
provide the same level of language services as larger recipients with
larger budgets. In addition, ``reasonable steps'' may cease to be
reasonable where the costs imposed substantially exceed the benefits.
Resource and cost issues, however, can often be reduced by
technological advances; the sharing of language assistance materials
and services among and between recipients, advocacy groups, and Federal
grant agencies; and reasonable business practices. Where appropriate,
training bilingual staff to act as interpreters and translators,
information sharing through industry groups, telephonic and video
conferencing interpretation services, pooling resources and
standardizing documents to reduce translation needs, using qualified
translators and interpreters to ensure that documents need not be
``fixed'' later and that inaccurate interpretations do not cause delay
or other costs, centralizing interpreter and translator services to
achieve economies of scale, or the formalized use of qualified
community volunteers, for example, may help reduce costs.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Small recipients with limited resources may find that
entering into a telephonic interpretation service contract will
prove cost effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recipients should carefully explore the most cost-effective means
of delivering competent and accurate language services before limiting
services due to resource concerns. Large entities and those entities
serving a significant number or proportion of LEP persons should ensure
that their resource limitations are well-substantiated before using
this factor as a reason to limit language assistance. Such recipients
may find it useful to be able to articulate, through documentation or
in some other reasonable manner, their process for determining that
language services would be limited based on resources or costs.
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 job
training center that was
[[Page 79680]]
created three years ago after DoD donated land from a former military
base serves a large Hispanic population. The job training center may
need immediate oral interpreters to be available and should give
serious consideration to hiring some bilingual staff if they have not
done so already. By contrast, the center may be able to rely on a
telephonic interpretation service to assist those LEP individuals who
speak a language that is not commonly encountered by the center.
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
Academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, and other
recipients of DoD funds have a long history of interacting with people
with varying language backgrounds and capabilities. In fact, many DoD
recipients choose not only to provide interpretation and translation
services, but also to provide English-language training for LEP
individuals. This approach is consistent with the purpose of Executive
Order 13166. DoD's goal is to continue to encourage these efforts and
to encourage the sharing of such promising practices among recipients,
as well as to ensure meaningful linguistic access for LEP individuals.
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:
--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:
--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);
--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; \7\ and understand
and follow confidentiality and impartiality rules to the same extent
the recipient employee for whom they are interpreting and/or to the
extent their position requires;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Many languages have ``regionalisms,'' or differences in
usage. For instance, a word that may be understood to mean something
in Spanish for someone from Cuba may not be so understood by someone
from Mexico. In addition, because there may be languages which do
not have an appropriate direct interpretation of some terms, the
interpreter or translator should be so aware and be able to provide
the most appropriate interpretation. The interpreter should 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Understand and adhere to their role as interpreters without deviating
into a role as counselor, legal advisor, or other roles, particularly
in a formal context such as a hearing.
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 provided during the medical screening of a LEP
individual must be extraordinarily high, while the quality and accuracy
of language services provided at a university's social 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 DoD recipients providing
health, economic, educational, and safety services on DoD-donated land,
a recipient would likely not be providing meaningful access if it had
one bilingual staffer 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.
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 receptionists, guards, or social workers, with staff
who are bilingual and competent to communicate directly with LEP
persons in their language. If bilingual staff are also used to
interpret between English speakers and LEP persons, or to orally
interpret written documents from English into another language, they
should be competent in the skill of interpreting. Being bilingual does
not necessarily mean that a person has the ability to interpret. In
addition, there may be times when the role of the bilingual employee
may conflict with the role of an interpreter. Effective management
strategies, including any appropriate adjustments in assignments and
protocols for using bilingual staff, can ensure that bilingual staff
are fully and appropriately utilized. When bilingual staff cannot meet
all of the language service obligations of the recipient, the recipient
should turn to other options.
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.
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
[[Page 79681]]
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.
Using Telephone Interpreter Lines. 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
appropriate or 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.
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.
Use of Family and Friends and Informal 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,
friend, or other person) 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. 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. 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
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), friends, or other informal interpreters
are not competent to provide quality and accurate interpretations.
Issues of confidentiality, privacy, or conflict of interest may also
arise. LEP individuals may feel uncomfortable revealing or describing
sensitive, confidential, or potentially embarrassing information to a
family member, friend, or member of the local community. In addition,
such informal interpreters may have a personal connection to the LEP
person or an undisclosed conflict of interest. For these reasons, when
oral language services are necessary, recipients should generally offer
competent interpreter services free of cost to the LEP person. For DoD
recipient programs and activities, this is particularly true in
situations in which health, safety, economic livelihood, or access to
important benefits and services are at stake, or when mistakes in
interpretation or translation could have other serious consequences to
the LEP person.
While issues of competency, confidentiality, and conflict of
interest in the use of family members, friends, or other informal
interpreters 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 educational tour of a DoD facility 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, and the number or
proportion and frequency of LEP encounters may be quite low. In such a
setting, an LEP person's use of family, friends, or others to interpret
may be appropriate. However, children should not be used as
interpreters.
B. Written Language Services (Translation)
Translation is the replacement of a written text from one language
(source language) into an equivalent written text in another language
(target language).
What Documents Should Be Translated? After applying the four-factor
analysis, a recipient may determine that an effective LEP plan for its
particular program or activity includes the translation of vital
written materials into the language of each frequently-encountered LEP
group eligible to be served and/or likely to be affected by the
recipient's program.
Such written materials could include, for example:
--Consent, application, and complaint forms.
--Intake forms with the potential for important consequences.
--Written notices of rights, denial, loss, or decreases in benefits or
services, and other hearings.
--Notices advising LEP persons of free language assistance.
--Written tests that do not assess English language competency, but
test competency for a particular license, job, or skill for which
knowing English is not required.
--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
[[Page 79682]]
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, a flyer announcing a soccer program run by a city
agency at a former military base that was donated to that agency would
not generally be considered vital, whereas written information about
the application process for new affordable housing provided by the
agency at that same base should likely 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.
Categorizing a document as vital or non-vital is sometimes
difficult, especially in the case of outreach materials like brochures
or other information on rights and services. Awareness of rights or
services is an important part of ``meaningful access.'' Lack of
awareness that a particular program, right, or service exists may
effectively deny LEP individuals meaningful access. Thus, where 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, and religious and
community organizations to spread a message.
Sometimes a document includes both vital and non-vital information.
This may be the case when the document is very large. It 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 and/or the language of the recipient is not known. Thus,
vital information may include, for instance, the provision of
information in appropriate languages other than English regarding where
a LEP person might obtain an interpretation or translation of the
document.
Into What Languages Should Documents be Translated? The languages
spoken by the LEP individuals with whom the recipient has contact
determine the languages into which vital documents should be
translated. A distinction should be 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, for
although recent technological advances have made it easier for
recipients to store and share translated documents, such an undertaking
could 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.
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)
below 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. Thus, these paragraphs merely provide a
guide for recipients that would like greater certainty of compliance
than can be provided by a fact-intensive, four-factor analysis.
Example: Even if the safe harbors are not used, if written
translation of a 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.
When determining whether to provide translated documents or oral
language services, recipients should consider the literacy rates of the
LEP communities they serve. For example, certain languages (e.g.,
Hmong) until recently have been oral and not written, thus a high
percentage of such LEP speakers may be unable to read translated
documents or written instructions. Data analysis, utilizing information
from a range of community groups and other sources, may provide a
recipient with insight into whether translation of vital documents
meets the goal of providing meaningful access, or whether it makes more
sense to focus those resources on oral, and, where appropriate,
graphics- or visually-based information exchange.
Safe Harbor. The following actions will be considered strong
evidence of compliance with the recipient's written-translation
obligations:
(a) DoD recipient provides written translations of vital documents
for each eligible LEP language group that constitutes five percent or
1,000, whichever is less, of the population of persons eligible to be
served or likely to be affected or encountered. Translation of other
documents, if needed, can be provided orally; or
(b) If there are fewer than 50 persons in a language group that
reaches the five percent trigger in (a), the recipient does not
translate vital written materials but provides written notice in the
primary language of the LEP language group of the right to receive
competent oral interpretation of those written materials, free of cost.
These safe harbor provisions apply to the translation of written
documents only. They do not affect the requirement to provide
meaningful access to LEP individuals through competent oral
interpreters where oral language services are needed and are
reasonable. For example, even when there is only one LEP individual who
is participating
[[Page 79683]]
in a medical study, vital information should be provided orally in a
language that person understands, even if it is not translated in
writing.
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.\8\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For those languages in which no formal accreditation
currently exists, a particular level of membership in a professional
translation association can provide some indicator of
professionalism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translators should understand the expected reading level of the
audience and, where appropriate, have fundamental knowledge about the
target language group's vocabulary and phraseology. Sometimes direct
translation of materials results in a translation that is written at a
much more difficult level than the English language version or has no
relevant equivalent meaning. Community organizations may be able to
help consider whether a document is written at an appropriate level for
the audience. Also, there may be languages which do not have an
appropriate direct translation of some terms. The translator should
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. Likewise, consistency in the words and phrases used to
translate terms of art, legal, or other technical concepts helps avoid
confusion by LEP individuals and may reduce costs. Creating or using
already-created glossaries of commonly-used terms may be useful for LEP
persons and translators and cost effective for the recipient. Providing
translators with examples of previous accurate translations of similar
material by the recipient, other recipients, or Federal agencies may be
helpful.
While quality and accuracy of translation services is critical, the
quality and accuracy of translation services is nonetheless part of the
appropriate mix of LEP services required. For instance, documents that
are simple and have no legal or other consequence for LEP persons who
rely on them may call for 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 DoD recipients regarding certain health, economic, education, and
safety services). 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 DoD recipients,
such as recipients serving very few LEP persons and recipients with
very limited resources, may choose not to develop a written LEP plan.
However, the absence of a written LEP plan does not obviate the
underlying obligation to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons to a
recipient's program or activities. Accordingly, in the event that a
recipient elects not to develop a written plan, it should consider
alternative ways to articulate in some other reasonable manner a plan
for providing meaningful access. Entities having significant contact
with LEP persons, such as schools, religious organizations, community
groups, and groups working with new immigrants 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 individuals eligible to
be served or encountered and the frequency of encounters. This requires
recipients to identify LEP persons with whom it has contact.
One way to determine the language of communication is to use
language identification cards (or ``I speak cards''), which invite LEP
persons to identify their language needs to staff. Such cards, for
instance, might say ``I speak Spanish'' in both Spanish and English,
``I speak Vietnamese'' in both English and Vietnamese, etc. To reduce
costs of compliance, the Federal government has made a set of these
cards available on the Internet. The Census Bureau ``I speak card'' can
be found and downloaded at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/13166.htm and
www.lep.gov. 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:
--Types of language services available.
--How staff can obtain those services.
--How to respond to LEP callers.
--How to respond to written communications from LEP persons.
--How to respond to LEP individuals who have in-person contact with
recipient staff.
--How to ensure competency of interpreters and translation services.
[[Page 79684]]
(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:
--Staff know about LEP policies and procedures.
--Staff having contact with the public (or those in a recipient's
custody) are trained to work effectively with in-person and telephone
interpreters.
Recipients may want to include this training as part of the
orientation for new employees. It is important to ensure that all
employees in public contact positions (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 LEP
persons will understand. Examples of notification that recipients
should consider include:
Posting signs in intake areas and other entry points. When language
assistance is needed to ensure meaningful access to information and
services, it is important to provide notice in appropriate languages in
intake areas or initial points of contact so that LEP persons can learn
how to access those language services. This is particularly true in
areas with high volumes of LEP persons seeking access to certain
health, educational, safety, or economic services or activities run by
DoD recipients. For instance, signs in intake offices could state that
free language assistance is available. The signs should be translated
into the most common languages encountered. They should explain how to
get the language help.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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.
--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.
--Working with community-based organizations and other stakeholders to
inform LEP individuals of the recipients' services, including the
availability of language assistance services.
--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.
--Including notices in local newspapers in languages other than
English.
--Providing notices on non-English-language radio and television
stations about the available language assistance services and how to
get them.
--Presentations and/or notices at schools and religious organizations.
(5) Monitoring and Updating the LEP Plan
Recipients should, where appropriate, have a process for
determining, on an ongoing basis, whether new documents, programs,
services, and activities need to be made accessible for LEP
individuals, and they may want to provide notice of any changes in
services to the LEP public and to 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.
In their reviews, recipients may want to consider assessing changes
in:
--Current LEP populations in service area or population affected or
encountered.
--Frequency of encounters with LEP language groups.
--Nature and importance of activities to LEP persons.
--Availability of resources, including technological advances and
sources of additional resources, and the costs imposed.
--Whether existing assistance is meeting the needs of LEP persons.
--Whether staff knows and understands the LEP plan and how to implement
it.
--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 DoD through the
procedures identified in the Title VI regulations. These procedures
include complaint investigations, compliance reviews, efforts to secure
voluntary compliance, and technical assistance.
The Title VI regulations provide that DoD will investigate whenever
it receives a complaint, report, or other information that alleges or
indicates possible noncompliance with Title VI or its regulations. If
the investigation results in a finding of compliance, DoD will inform
the recipient in writing of this determination, including the basis for
the determination. DoD uses voluntary mediation to resolve most
complaints. However, if a case is fully investigated and results in a
finding of noncompliance, DoD 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, DoD must
secure compliance through the termination of Federal assistance after
DoD 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. DoD
engages in voluntary compliance efforts and provides technical
assistance to recipients at all stages of an investigation. During
these efforts, DoD 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, DoD's primary concern is to
ensure that the recipient's policies and procedures provide meaningful
access for LEP persons to the recipient's programs and activities.
While all recipients must work toward building systems that will
ensure access for LEP individuals, DoD
[[Page 79685]]
acknowledges that the implementation of a comprehensive system to serve
LEP individuals is a process and that a system will evolve over time as
it is implemented and periodically reevaluated. As recipients take
reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to federally assisted
programs and activities for LEP persons, DoD 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, DoD
recipients should ensure that the provision of appropriate assistance
for significant LEP populations or with respect to activities having a
significant impact on the health, safety, legal rights, education,
economic status, 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.
[FR Doc. 2013-31302 Filed 12-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P