Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of	 
DOT's Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited	 
English-Proficient Populations (02-NOV-05, GAO-06-52).		 
                                                                 
More than 10 million people in the United States are of limited  
English proficiency (LEP), in that they do not speak English at  
all or do not speak English well. These persons tend to rely on  
public transit more than English speakers. Executive Order 13166 
directs federal agencies to develop guidance for their grantees  
on making their services accessible to LEP persons. The 	 
Department of Transportation (DOT) issued its guidance in 2001,  
with revised guidance pending issuance. This report reviews (1)  
the language access services transit agencies and metropolitan	 
planning organizations have provided, and the effects and costs  
of these services; (2) how DOT assists its grantees in providing 
language access services; and (3) how DOT monitors its grantees' 
provision of these services.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-52						        
    ACCNO:   A40837						        
  TITLE:     Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and	      
Oversight of DOT's Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for	 
Limited English-Proficient Populations				 
     DATE:   11/02/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Cost analysis					 
	     Customer service					 
	     Evaluation criteria				 
	     Federal regulations				 
	     Foreign language publications			 
	     Foreign languages					 
	     Mass transit					 
	     Monitoring 					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Population statistics				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Transportation					 
	     Non English speaking				 
	     Translating and interpreting			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-52

     

     * Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Banking, Housing,
       and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
          * November 2005
     * TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
          * Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT's Guidance Could Lead
            to Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient Populations
     * Contents
          * Results in Brief
          * Background
          * Several Types of Language Access Services Are Provided, but
            Little Is Known about the Effects and Costs of Services
               * Types and Level of Language Access Services Varied, Although
                 Core Services Are Offered in Spanish by Most Agencies We
                 Visited
                    * Bilingual or Multilingual Telephone Services
                    * Translated Printed Service Information
                    * Bilingual or Multilingual Signs and Service Change
                      Notices
                    * In-Person Language Assistance
                    * Bilingual or Multilingual Television, Radio, and
                      Newspaper Advertisements
                    * Bilingual or Multilingual Translated Materials on Web
                      sites
                    * Translated Recorded Announcements and Electronic Signs
                    * Bilingual or Multilingual Electronic Ticket Machines
                    * Communicating Directly with LEP Communities or
                      Community and Advocacy Groups Representing LEP Persons
               * Effects of Language Access Services on Meeting Needs Are Not
                 Well Known
               * Costs May Not Be Burdensome at the Current Level of
                 Activity, but They Could Escalate with Additional Languages
                 and Services
          * DOT Assists Grantees on Language Access Services through Its
            Guidance and Other Activities, but These Resources Are Not Often
            Accessed by Local Agencies
               * DOT's LEP Guidance Provides Steps to Meaningful Access, but
                 DOT Took Limited Steps to Make Grantees Aware of Guidance
               * Other Federal Resources Address Language Access Issues to
                 Varying Degrees, but They Are Not Frequently Used by
                 Grantees
                    * DOT's Workshops at Conferences and Federal Web Sites
                      Provide Some Assistance on DOT's LEP Guidance
                    * Other DOT Resources Have Few Language Access Activities
                      or Touch on Language Issues in a Broader Context
                    * Other Available Federal Resources Are Rarely Used by
                      Grantees
          * Three Review Processes Provide Limited Monitoring of Language
            Access Activities, and Criteria for Finding a Deficiency Are
            Inconsistent
          * Conclusions
          * Recommendations for Executive Action
          * Agency Comments
     * Scope and Methodology
     * Resources Available on Providing Language Access for Transportation
       Services
          * Provision of Language Access Services
          * Community Involvement in Transportation Planning
     * GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
     * PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf
          * Order by Mail or Phone

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate

November 2005

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

  Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT's Guidance Could Lead to Improved
               Access for Limited English-Proficient Populations

                                       a

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT's Guidance Could Lead to
Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient Populations

  What GAO Found

Transit agencies and metropolitan planning organizations provide a variety
of language access services, predominantly in Spanish, but the effects and
costs of these services are largely unknown. Types of services provided
included, among other things, translated brochures and signs; multilingual
telephone lines; bilingual drivers; and interpreters at public meetings.
However, few agencies we visited had conducted an assessment of the
language needs in their service areas, or had conducted an evaluation of
their language access efforts. As a result, it is unclear whether
agencies' efforts are comprehensive enough to meet the needs of LEP
persons, and community groups in the areas we visited saw important gaps
in agencies' services. In addition, although those costs are largely
unknown, several agencies saw providing language access as a cost of doing
business, not as an additional cost. However, if efforts were to be
expanded to include additional services or languages, agency officials
told us that costs could become prohibitive.

DOT assists grantees in providing language access through its guidance and
other activities, but DOT has made limited efforts to ensure that grantees
are aware of the available assistance, which was not often accessed by the
agencies we visited. This assistance includes DOT's guidance-which
provides a five-step framework for how to provide meaningful language
access-as well as workshops and peer-exchange programs that include
language access practices, and training courses that touch on language
issues. DOT also participates in a federal LEP clearinghouse, www.lep.gov.
However, few agencies we visited had accessed these resources. Several
local officials stated that easily accessible training and assistance
specific to language access and examples of how to implement DOT's
guidance could help them more effectively provide access to LEP
populations.

Transit agencies' and metropolitan planning organizations' provision of
language access services are monitored through in-depth civil rights
compliance reviews and two broader reviews-triennial reviews of transit
agencies and planning certification reviews. However, these reviews do not
have consistent criteria for determining whether an agency is deficient in
providing such services. Furthermore, these reviews do not fully reflect
Executive Order 13166 or DOT's guidance. Without thorough and consistent
monitoring that takes into account the guidance, local agencies'

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

  Letter 1

Results in Brief 6 Background 9 Several Types of Language Access Services
Are Provided, but Little

Is Known about the Effects and Costs of Services 12 DOT Assists Grantees
on Language Access Services through Its

Guidance and Other Activities, but These Resources Are Not

Often Accessed by Local Agencies 38 Three Review Processes Provide Limited
Monitoring of Language

Access Activities, and Criteria for Finding a Deficiency Are

Inconsistent 47 Conclusions 54 Recommendations for Executive Action 56
Agency Comments 57

  Appendixes

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 59

Appendix II: Resources Available on Providing Language Access for
Transportation Services 67 Provision of Language Access Services 67
Community Involvement in Transportation Planning 69

    Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 70

Table 1:

  Tables

Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5:

FTA and FHWA Reviews 47 Language Access Deficiencies Found through Title
VI Compliance Reviews 49 Results of the Pilot LEP Review of the
Brownsville Urban System in Texas 51 Census Data on Language Ability and
Transit Use for Seven Site Visit Locations 59 Transit Agencies, MPOs, and
Community and Advocacy Groups Interviewed 62

Figure 1: LEP Population in 2000, by County 2

  Figures

Figure 2: Percentage Growth of LEP Populations between 1990 and 2000, by
County 3

    Page i GAO-06-52 Language Access to Transportation Services

Contents

Figure 3:  Percentage of Transit Agencies and MPOs We Visited That   
              Make These Types of Language Access Services Available    
              in at Least Spanish                                          14 
Figure 4:  English and Spanish Versions of the Los Angeles County    
              Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Rider's Guide        17 
Figure 5:  Seven-Language Bus Stop Sign in Oakland, California          20 
Figure 6:  Meeting Notice Posted on a Bus in San Francisco,          
              California, in English and Chinese                           22 
Figure 7:  Posters in Orange County, California, in English and      
              Spanish                                                      23 
Figure 8:  Golden Gate Transit's Spanish Phrase Guide for            
              Drivers                                                      25 
Figure 9:  Spanish Version of the Ozark Regional Transit's Web Site  
              Home Page                                                    29 

                                 Abbreviations

DOJ        Department of Justice                
DOT        Department of Transportation         
FHWA       Federal Highway Administration       
FTA        Federal Transit Administration       
LEP        limited English proficiency          
MPO          metropolitan planning organization 
NHI        National Highway Institute           
NTI        National Transit Institute           

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

A

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

November 2, 2005

The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes Ranking Minority Member Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs United States Senate

Dear Senator Sarbanes:

The United States has a highly diverse population representing cultures
from all over the world. English is not the primary language of many
people living in the United States, and significant numbers have little or
no English skills. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, more than 10 million
people reported that they do not speak English at all, or do not speak
English well. These persons of limited English proficiency (LEP), like
English speakers, may depend on government for a wide range of services,
including public transportation. For many LEP persons, public transit is a
key means of achieving mobility. According to the 2000 Census, more than
11 percent of LEP persons aged 16 years and over reported using public
transit as their primary means of transportation to work, compared with
about 4 percent of English speakers.

The number of persons reporting that they do not speak English at all or
do not speak English well grew by 65 percent from 1990 to 2000. As figures
1 and 2 demonstrate, while LEP populations tend to be largest in counties
in border and coastal states, the largest growth in these populations is
occurring in the Midwest and the South. Among limited English speakers,
Spanish is the language most frequently spoken, followed by Chinese
(Cantonese or Mandarin), Vietnamese, and Korean.

Clinton in 2000,2 sought to clarify the responsibilities of federal
agencies and their grant recipients under Title VI to make their programs
and activities accessible to LEP populations, and it required federal
agencies to issue guidance to their funding recipients to avoid
discriminating on the basis of national origin. The Department of
Transportation (DOT) issued guidance in 2001, which discusses strategies
for providing services to LEP persons, based on guidelines put forth by
the Department of Justice (DOJ). This guidance, while in effect for
grantees since 2001, was subsequently revised by DOT after public comments
were received on it. The revised guidance was approved by DOJ on August
25, 2005, and DOT is preparing to publish and release this revised
guidance.

Advocacy organizations and others have raised concerns over the extent to
which DOT's guidance to its funding recipients is being implemented. A
lack of English skills has the potential to hinder many LEP persons from
fully utilizing public transit services and meaningfully participating in
the transportation planning process. The inability to effectively access
public transit services can result in an array of harmful consequences for
LEP persons, including a reduction in employment opportunities, increased
difficulty in accessing other needed services, the perpetuation of social
isolation, and the diminishment of overall quality of life. In light of
these issues, this report discusses (1) the types of language access
services that transit agencies and metropolitan planning organizations
(MPO) have provided to the LEP populations in their service areas, and the
effects and costs of these services; (2) how DOT and its modal
administrations assist grantees in providing language access services for
LEP populations; and (3) how DOT and the responsible modal administrations
monitor grantees' provision of language access services for LEP
populations.

To determine the types of language access services that transit agencies
and MPOs provided to LEP populations, we visited seven metropolitan
statistical areas3 in Arkansas, California, Illinois, North Carolina, and

2Executive Order 13166, "Improving Access to Services for Persons with
Limited English Proficiency." 65 Fed. Reg. 50121 (Aug. 16, 2000).

3A metropolitan statistical area is a core area containing a substantial
population nucleus, together with adjacent communities, having a high
degree of social and economic integration with that core. Metropolitan
statistical areas comprise one or more entire counties. The Office of
Management and Budget defines metropolitan statistical areas for the
purposes of collecting, tabulating, and publishing federal data.
Metropolitan statistical area definitions result from applying published
standards to U.S. Census Bureau data.

Texas.4 We used census data to select these site visit locations on the
basis of the size, proportion, and growth of the LEP population, the
number of languages spoken, and the extent of public transit use.5 We
conducted semistructured interviews with officials from 20 transit
agencies, 7 MPOs, and 16 community and advocacy groups and reviewed
various documents and other information. We complemented these case
studies and interviews with findings from a 2004 study, conducted for the
New Jersey Department of Transportation, which included a survey of 32
transit agencies around the country, and surveys and focus groups with LEP
persons in New Jersey.6 To understand how DOT assists transit agencies and
MPOs in providing language access services, we interviewed DOT officials
with knowledge of the resources available on language access. We reviewed
and analyzed the assistance provided by DOT as well as other federal
resources related to language access. To document how DOT's Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
monitor transit agencies' and MPOs' provision of language access services,
we interviewed FTA officials responsible for Title VI compliance reviews
and triennial reviews, FTA and FHWA officials responsible for planning
certification reviews, and regional officials in the areas we visited. We
reviewed the documentation and results of these three review processes and
analyzed the extent to which language access is considered by the reviews
and norms have been developed for reviewers to use in identifying
deficiencies related to language access. Furthermore, we reviewed the
status and outcomes of LEP complaints that were made to FTA against
transit agencies and MPOs. We conducted our work from February 2005
through October 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Appendix I contains more information about our scope
and methodology.

4The metropolitan statistical areas we visited were as follows: (1) Los
Angeles/Riverside/Orange County, California; (2) San Francisco/Oakland/San
Jose, California; (3) Chicago/Gary/Kenosha, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin;
(4) Austin/San Marcos, Texas; (5) Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers,
Arkansas; (6) Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, North Carolina; and (7)
Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point, North Carolina.

5We did not include in our site visits, areas that recently had in-depth
reviews by FTA as well as agencies that had been highlighted in a recent
report prepared for the New Jersey Department of Transportation, in order
to broaden the limited amount of research and data available in this area.

6Dr. Rongfang (Rachel) Liu, Mobility Information Needs of Limited English
Proficiency (LEP) Travelers in New Jersey (December 2004). Dr. Liu
prepared this study for the New Jersey Department of
Transportation/Federal Highway Administration. The results of this study
cannot be generalized to all transit agencies or to all LEP persons.

  Results in Brief

Transit agencies and MPOs provided a variety of types and levels of
language access services, predominantly in Spanish, with the effects and
costs of these services largely unknown, although the cost burden of these
services currently does not seem significant. The types of language access
that these agencies provided included a wide variety of communication
strategies, such as translated information brochures and signs,
multilingual telephone services, translated Web sites, bilingual drivers
and customer service staff, translated recorded announcements, and
interpreters at public and community meetings. Almost all of the 27
transit agencies and MPOs we visited provided some materials and services
in at least one language other than English, typically Spanish, although
few agencies we visited regularly provided much material or service in
other languages. For example, although most of the transit agencies we
visited had at least Spanish-speaking operators available through their
telephone information lines, only 7 transit agencies utilized multilingual
telephone lines to provide service in languages other than English and
Spanish. The effects of the language access services provided by transit
agencies and MPOs on meeting the needs of LEP communities are not well
known or understood. Few agencies we visited had conducted an explicit
assessment of the needs of the LEP communities in their service areas, or
an evaluation of the effectiveness of their language access efforts, even
though DOT's LEP guidance recommends such activities. As a result, it is
unclear whether those agencies' language access activities are
comprehensive enough to meet the needs of LEP persons, and community and
advocacy groups in the areas we visited perceived important gaps in
agencies' language access activities. For example, 1 group told us that
information on service changes is not consistently provided in languages
other than English, which can result in LEP individuals waiting for buses
that were rerouted. Furthermore, our case studies suggested that a lack of
proactive agency outreach and publicizing of agency services to LEP
communities may limit the impact and utilization of the materials and
services provided, whereas more proactive agency outreach and publicizing
to these communities might result in increased utilization of the services
and benefits, such as enhanced public support for the agency and increased
ridership. For example, although several transit agencies provided
multilingual telephone services, community groups we spoke with often were
not aware of the existence of such services. While costs related to
providing language access services are largely unknown, we found that
several agencies perceive providing language access as a cost of doing
business, not as an additional cost, at the current level of activity.
However, if the agencies were to significantly expand their efforts to
include additional languages beyond English and Spanish, additional
materials, or additional services, agency officials told us that costs
could become prohibitive.

DOT and its modal administrations assist grantees in providing language
access through DOT's guidance and other activities, but they have made
limited efforts to ensure that grantees are aware of this available
assistance, which was not often accessed by the transit agencies and MPOs
we visited. The most extensive assistance DOT provides is the LEP guidance
itself, which provides grantees with a five-step framework for how to
provide meaningful access to LEP populations, along with some information
on how to implement such a framework. DOT's LEP guidance was published in
the Federal Register, but was not publicized through any other direct
methods, and the majority of transit agencies and MPOs we visited were not
aware of it. In part, this lack of awareness may be due to staff turnover
within agencies since the initial release of the guidance, although a DOT
official told us that they have done little to promote the guidance since
its release. Of the 9 transit agencies and 3 MPOs we visited that were
aware of the guidance, only 3 had changed their language access activities
in response to it, and only 1 transit agency appeared to have fully
implemented the five-step framework. In part, this is because most transit
agencies and MPOs told us that they already had been providing language
access services for many years prior to the executive order and DOT's LEP
guidance. In addition, FTA and FHWA have given workshops at a few annual
conferences that specifically addressed the framework in the guidance and
provided information on how to implement portions of it, but few agencies
we visited had reported attending these workshops. DOT also participates
in the Federal Interagency Working Group on Limited English Proficiency,
which provides information and technical assistance to federal grantees
through an on-line clearinghouse at http://www.lep.gov, although most of
the Web site's information is not specific to transportation. Other DOT
resources, such as peer-exchange programs hosted by FTA and FHWA, have a
few postings that discuss language access activities. Training curricula
offered through FTA's National Transit Institute and FHWA's National
Highway Institute touch on language access services through a broader
context, such as the transportation planning process, and not all of these
curricula specifically mention the guidance. Several transit agencies and
MPOs we visited stated that better training and technical assistance that
is easily accessible and specific to language access and on how to
implement DOT's LEP guidance could provide them with ways to more
effectively provide access to LEP populations.

Transit agencies' and MPOs' provision of language access services for LEP
populations is monitored through FTA's in-depth Title VI compliance
reviews and two broader reviews-FTA's triennial reviews of transit
agencies and planning certification reviews conducted jointly by FTA and
FHWA. However, these reviews do not assess grantees' activities according
to the framework in DOT's guidance and do not have consistent criteria for
determining whether an agency is deficient in providing such services.
While the framework and suggestions contained in DOT's LEP guidance are
not requirements, they serve as a useful guide for ensuring that grantees'
provision of language access services to LEP persons is in compliance with
federal requirements under Title VI. However, the Title VI compliance
reviews and the planning certification reviews do not incorporate the LEP
guidance, and the triennial reviews have only a few specific questions
referencing the LEP guidance. Deficiencies regarding language access, to
the extent they exist, are rarely identified during these review
processes. Furthermore, the criteria that are used in these review
processes to identify a deficiency in providing language access services
are inconsistent and unclear. For example, under triennial reviews, a
deficiency is only determined if a complaint has been made against the
local agency, although under the other reviews, a complaint need not be
made for a deficiency to be found. As a result, what constitutes a
deficiency under one review may not constitute a deficiency under another,
although agencies under review may be providing the same level of service.
In addition to the three review processes, FTA investigates Title VI
complaints filed by the public alleging national origin discrimination
against LEP persons. FTA's investigations focus on whether a recipient has
taken reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to LEP persons. To
date, FTA has received only one complaint related to language access. In
that case, FTA found that the agency under question should have provided
language access to its planning process. Without more thorough and
consistent monitoring that takes into account DOT's guidance, agencies'
language access activities are likely to remain varied and inconsistent
and may leave agencies open to further complaints.

We are making recommendations in this report that the Secretary of
Transportation take actions to ensure that DOT grantees are made fully
aware of the agency's LEP guidance and their related responsibilities,
that transit agencies and MPOs are provided with useful assistance in
developing and improving their language access services, and that
mechanisms are in place for clear and consistent oversight and monitoring
of transit agencies' and MPOs' language access activities. In commenting
on a draft of this report, DOT generally concurred with the findings and

                                   Background

recommendations and offered a number of technical comments, which were
incorporated as appropriate.

The statutory and regulatory framework for improving access to services
for LEP persons stems from Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,7 an
executive order, DOJ regulations and guidance, and DOT regulations and
guidance. 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."8 Section 602
of Title VI directs federal agencies to implement section 601 of the act
by issuing rules, regulations, or orders.9 In its efforts to implement
section 601, DOJ has issued regulations that bar unjustified disparate
impact on the basis of national origin.10

On August 11, 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13166 to
improve access to federally conducted and federally assisted programs and
activities for persons who, as a result of national origin, are limited in
their English proficiency.11 The order encouraged all federal agencies to
take steps to ensure that any recipients of federal financial assistance
under their purview provide meaningful access to their LEP applicants and
beneficiaries. The order further requires that each federal agency
providing federal financial assistance to prepare guidance specifically
tailored to its recipients. The agencies' guidance must then be reviewed
and approved by DOJ before being issued.

742 U.S.C. S: 2000d et. seq.

842 U.S.C. S: 2000d.

942 U.S.C. S: 2000d-1.

10Disparate impact claims involve practices that are facially neutral in
their treatment of different groups but that, in fact, fall more harshly
on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity.
Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (2003). Under the disparate impact
theory of discrimination, a facially neutral practice may be deemed
illegally discriminatory without evidence of subjective intent to
discriminate, which is required in disparate-treatment cases.

1165 Fed. Reg. 50121.

DOJ released guidance12 in 2000 that set forth general principles for
federal agencies to apply to ensure that their programs and activities
provide reasonable access to LEP persons and, thus, do not discriminate on
the basis of national origin. The DOJ guidance explains that, with respect
to federally assisted programs and activities, Executive Order 13166 "does
not create new obligations, but rather, clarifies existing Title VI
responsibilities." Although Title VI and its implementing regulations
require that recipients take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access
by LEP persons, federal agencies' LEP guidance recognize that each
situation is fact-specific, and that it would not make sense for the
guidance to mandate specific approaches to comply with Title VI. Rather,
the purpose of federal agencies' guidance is to provide recipients with a
framework for assessing their obligations under Title VI, while
maintaining flexibility for the recipients to determine how best to comply
with those obligations. Thus, the guidance outlines steps federal-funds
recipients can take to avoid administering programs in a way that results
in discrimination on the basis of national origin, which would be in
violation of Title VI regulations.13 In general, the test for assessing
the existence of national origin discrimination on the basis of language
under Title VI is to determine whether the failure to provide a service in
a language that a recipient understands will prevent the recipient from
receiving essentially the same level of service benefit as an English
speaker.

1265 Fed. Reg. 50123. Additionally, DOJ developed its own guidance
document for its funding recipients, which was initially issued on January
16, 2001. 66 Fed. Reg. 3834. Revised guidance was issued on June 18, 2002,
after revising the guidance to reflect public comments. 67 Fed. Reg.
41455.

13In Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), the Supreme Court interpreted
regulations similar to the DOJ regulations, and held that Title VI
prohibits conduct that has a disproportionate effect on LEP persons
because such conduct constitutes national-origin discrimination. The Court
held that 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. In Alexander v.
Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), a non-English-speaking applicant for a
driver's license brought a lawsuit challenging Alabama's requirement that
driver's license examinations be conducted only in the English language.
The plaintiff claimed that this violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 by discriminating against non-English speakers on the basis of
their national origin. Without addressing the merits of the claim, the
Supreme Court held that a private individual was not entitled to file a
lawsuit to enforce DOJ regulations on disparate impact under Title VI. DOJ
has emphasized that the Court did not invalidate its regulations under
Title VI or Executive Order 13166, and that those remain in force. See the
October 26, 2001, Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies General
Counsels and Civil Rights Directors from Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Rights Division.

DOJ's guidance established a four-factor analysis to help determine the
extent of a funding recipient's obligation to provide LEP services. These
four factors are (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 to people's lives of the program, activity, or
service provided by the grantee; and (4) the resources available to the
grantee and costs. According to DOJ, the intent of the analysis is to
suggest a balance that ensures meaningful access by LEP persons to
critical services, while not imposing undue burdens on small businesses,
local governments, or nonprofits.

DOT issued its guidance in 2001. This guidance was generally consistent
with DOJ's guidance but included three additional factors, as well as the
four factors previously outlined, suggesting that funding recipients
should also consider (1) the level of services provided to fully
English-proficient people; (2) whether LEP persons are being excluded from
services, or are being provided a lower level of services; and (3) whether
the agency has adequate justification for restrictions, if any, on special
language services. The guidance states that such restrictions would be
accepted only in rare circumstances. On the basis of public comments, DOT
subsequently revised its guidance, and the revised guidance was approved
by DOJ on August 25, 2005. DOT is currently preparing to publish and
release its revised guidance.

In addition to describing factors that funding recipients should consider
in assessing their obligations to provide LEP services, DOT's guidance
outlines several key components to an effective language access program,
stating that grantees should (1) conduct an assessment of the language
groups within their service areas and the language needs of these groups;

(2) develop and implement written plans outlining their strategies for
ensuring access to services for LEP populations; (3) make staffs aware of
the LEP access plan, and train the staffs and provide them with the tools
necessary to carry out the plan; (4) ensure that language access services
are actually provided in a consistent manner, and that LEP populations are
aware of the services; and (5) develop monitoring programs that allow
grantees to assess the success of their LEP access programs and to
identify needed modifications. These five steps are designed to help DOT
grantees ensure that they are not administering their programs in a way
that results in discrimination in violation of Title VI.

  Several Types of Language Access Services Are Provided, but Little Is Known
  about the Effects and Costs of Services

Several offices within DOT, particularly the Office of Civil Rights within
FTA, have responsibility for ensuring that transit operators and
transportation planning entities receiving DOT funds are in compliance
with Title VI and responsibility for monitoring and overseeing their
language access activities.

The types of language access services provided by the transit agencies and
MPOs we visited included translated service brochures, multilingual
telephone lines, translated Web sites, bilingual customer service staffs,
and a host of other services. However, the effects and costs of these
services are largely unknown. The extent of language access provided
varied across the areas we visited during our case studies, and services
provided often varied across agencies within the same metropolitan area.
Almost all of the transit agencies and MPOs we visited provided at least
some language access services in Spanish, the largest LEP language group,
and some agencies provided services in other languages. Little is known
about the effects of these services on improving access to public
transportation and the transportation planning and decision-making process
for LEP populations, but community and advocacy groups in the areas we
visited identified several gaps in the language access services provided
by agencies, such as a lack of awareness in the community about the
services available. Given such problems, community groups told us that
more proactive agency outreach to LEP communities to determine specific
needs and advertise existing services might improve the effectiveness of
language access services, whereas a lack of outreach and poor publicizing
of available services could likely reduce the impact and utilization of
the materials and services provided. One agency cited the positive
benefits it received by improving its outreach to non-English-speaking
populations, including increased ridership and enhanced public support for
the agency. Little is also known about the costs of providing such
services, and most agencies saw the language access they provide as a cost
of doing business as opposed to an additional cost; however, agencies told
us that costs could become prohibitive if services were substantially
expanded or provided in several additional languages.

    Types and Level of Language Access Services Varied, Although Core Services
    Are Offered in Spanish by Most Agencies We Visited

During our case studies, we found that providing language access to LEP
populations can be incorporated into all of the different ways in which
transit agencies and MPOs communicate with the public, not only regarding
the transportation services they provide but regarding how agencies
provide LEP communities with access to the transportation planning and
decision-making process. Transit riders and potential transit riders may
need a variety of different types of information to plan their trips, use
the transit system, and participate in the transportation planning and
decision-making process. For example, potential riders may need to know
about the existence of available services, destinations, and travel
options, and about time schedules, route options, and transfer policies.
When in the transit system, riders may need to know where stops are
located, whether service changes have occurred, about available fare and
payment options, and about emergency and safety information. Riders may
also need confirmation that they are on the right route or are exiting at
the correct stop. To participate in the transportation planning and
decision-making process, individuals need to know how the process works,
what is the purpose and effect of their participation, and when and where
public meetings are being held, in addition to needing to be able to
understand the proceedings of public meetings and to make statements and
participate in those discussions.

To provide such access to LEP populations, transit agencies and MPOs
employed a host of different communication strategies, including the
following: providing bilingual or multilingual telephone services;
translating written materials; translating signs or notices posted at
stations, at stops, or on vehicles; providing in-person language
assistance through drivers, interpreters, or multilingual customer service
staffs; advertising in other languages on television, on radio, or in
newspapers; translating materials on their Web sites; translating recorded
announcements or electronic signs; or making ticket machines accessible in
other languages. In providing language access, the agencies in each of the
areas we visited faced different challenges. In North Carolina and
northwest Arkansas, agencies are facing a substantial recent growth in the
size of the Spanish-speaking population. (See app. I for more information
on the size and growth of LEP populations in these two areas.) In parts of
California-the San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles and Orange
County areas- and in Chicago, Illinois, the predominance of a number of
Asian and other language groups, in addition to a large percentage of
Spanish-speakers, presents further challenges. Agencies in Austin, Texas,
have also experienced growth in Asian languages spoken in the area. Figure
3 shows the percentages of the transit agencies and MPOs we visited that
provided services in at least Spanish for each of these communication
strategies. However, in some cases, agencies may not utilize these
communication strategies, even in English, and these agencies are not
included in the percentage calculation.

Figure 3: Percentage of Transit Agencies and MPOs We Visited That Make
These Types of Language Access Services Available in at Least Spanish

Language Access Services                             
Bilingual or multilingual telephone services                           95  
Translated printed service informationa                             82 
               Translated signs and notices                            80 
In-person language assistancea                                      78 
Bilingual or multilingual television, radio, and                    78 
newspaper advertisementsa                                              
Bilingual or multilingual translated materials on             52       
Web sitesb                                                             
Translated recorded announcements and electronic        33             
signsc                                                                 
Bilingual or multilingual electronic ticket          20                
machinesd                                                              
                                                      0 20    40    60 80 100 
                                             Percentage                   
Source: GAO analysis of site visit data.                               

Note: Some agencies provide information and services in other languages,
in addition to English and Spanish. We visited 20 transit agencies during
our site visits.

aIncluded in this percentage are 20 transit agencies and 7 MPOs.

bIncluded in this percentage are 20 transit agencies and 7 MPOs. Four
transit agencies and 1 MPO posted translated information to their Web
sites without indication that the translated material was available.

cIncluded in this percentage are just the 12 transit agencies that have
recorded announcements or electronic signs.

dIncluded in this percentage are just the 5 transit agencies that utilize
electronic ticket machines.

The following sections discuss transit agency and MPO activities within
each of the broad categories shown in figure 3, and highlight examples
from the seven metropolitan statistical areas we visited. Following the
discussion of these activities, we further discuss agencies' community

Bilingual or Multilingual Telephone Services

outreach activities related to LEP populations and to the community and
advocacy groups that represent them.

All but 1 of the 20 transit agencies we visited had at least some
telephone operators who were bilingual in English and Spanish, but the
availability of telephone information in other languages varied. In
contrast, a survey of 32 transit agencies conducted for the New Jersey
Department of Transportation found that only one-half of responding
agencies used multilingual telephone lines or bilingual or multilingual
persons in call centers.14 A few transit agencies we visited in highly
diverse areas, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, had operators fluent
in other languages. For example:

     o The Metropolitan Transportation Authority in Los Angeles and San
       Francisco's Municipal Transportation Agency have operators that speak
       Tagalog and Chinese.
     o The Bay Area Rapid Transit has Chinese-speakers available in its call
       center.

In other cases, telephone services were not language accessible. For
example, the San Francisco Bay Area's 511 traveler information line, which
provides information on all of the transportation options available in the
area, is currently only accessible in English.

Transit agencies in Chicago; Los Angeles; Orange County; and Greensboro,
North Carolina, had access to a three-way call translation service in
numerous languages. While this service is available through these
agencies' general transit information lines, which are advertised on most
agency materials, the fact that translation services are available through
the three-way call service is not well publicized. Therefore, LEP persons
may not be aware of these translation services. For example,
representatives of a Chinese community center in Chicago were not aware
that Chinese translators were available through the Chicago Regional
Transportation Authority's language line, although those representatives
said they often assist new Chinese immigrants in learning how to use the
transit system. In addition, the New Jersey study found, through its
surveys and focus groups with LEP persons, that awareness of the existence
of the translation services available in New Jersey was very low, although
the study found

14Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 32.

Translated Printed Service Information

such services to be valued by LEP persons.15 Some community groups also
pointed to the availability of bilingual or multilingual operators as one
of the most critical and useful services that agencies can provide to LEP
persons. Without such services, LEP persons must rely on family, friends,
or other transit riders who speak their language to provide assistance.

Transit agencies told us that complaints in other languages could also be
taken through their bilingual or multilingual telephone services; many
agencies had received complaints in languages other than English,
primarily in Spanish. However, specific complaints about language access
were rare, with only 1 agency reporting such a complaint in relation to a
rider's having trouble communicating with a driver.

In some areas we visited, other nontransportation agencies receiving
federal financial assistance also had contracts for multilingual telephone
translation services. Because those agencies also are subject to the
executive order and federal agency LEP guidance, the existence of such
contracts presents an opportunity for local agencies to coordinate in
order to more efficiently provide such services. Few of the transit
agencies or MPOs we visited had coordinated with any other
nontransportation agencies in their service areas in this regard. However,
in North Carolina, transit agencies in Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, and
Greensboro all have relationships with other city departments that can
assist with language access needs, such as sharing bilingual operators.

All but 2 of the 20 transit agencies we visited printed at least some
schedules and maps, how-to-ride guides, applications for specialized
transportation, or other service information materials in Spanish, and
many transit agencies provided extensive amounts of printed materials in
Spanish. (See fig. 4 for a sample of a translated service information
brochure.) In addition, the New Jersey survey of 32 transit agencies found
that two-thirds of responding agencies provided translated timetables and
route maps.16 However, officials at 3 transit agencies indicated that they
often do not translate the language on maps and schedules because most of
the information consists of numbers, which are universal.

15Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 29. 16Liu, Mobility
Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 32.

Page 16 GAO-06-52 Language Access to Transportation Services

Figure 4: English and Spanish Versions of the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Rider's Guide

Source: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Seven transit agencies we visited also provided selected guides and maps
in languages other than Spanish that are prevalent in their service areas,
and 4 agencies are able to provide translated materials upon request. Some
examples include the following:

     o The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District in the San Francisco Bay
       Area regularly prints service information in Spanish and Chinese.
     o Also in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Bay Area Rapid Transit's
       rider's guide is printed in Spanish and Chinese.
     o On request, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
       Authority can provide information in several other languages, although
       the agency acknowledged that such requests were very rare. The agency
       also produced informational brochures in Chinese to advertise the
       opening of its Gold Line light-rail service, which passes through
       Chinatown in downtown Los Angeles.

Some community groups we spoke with indicated that, if service information
materials are not translated, many LEP transit riders will likely learn to
use the system from family, friends, or others in their community.
However, a lack of translated printed materials may discourage use of the
system or participation in the transportation planning and decision-making
process by affected language groups. Officials at 1 agency told us that
providing information in the language the community is most comfortable
with sends a message that they are welcome on the system and in the
planning process, while not doing so may send the message that they are
unwelcome. Community groups also told us that more translated service
information could encourage greater ridership and make the system more
welcoming to LEP persons. In addition, the New Jersey study found that,
next to having a staff person speaking their native language, LEP groups
most preferred to have timetable, schedule, and other information in their
native language.17

While MPOs can serve a variety of functions and may provide a wide variety
of services related to transportation, we specifically focused on
informational materials related to transportation planning and public
involvement provided by MPOs we visited. Three of the 7 MPOs we visited
had translated a summary of their transportation plan into Spanish, with 1
MPO, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay
Area, also translating the document into Chinese. Two MPOs had translated
a citizen's guide to participation in the transportation planning process
into Spanish. Another MPO had translated a transportation needs survey
into Spanish.

17Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 28.

Bilingual or Multilingual Signs and Service Change Notices

Transit agencies we visited provided several different types of translated
signs in vehicles or at stations and stops. Of the 4 agencies out of 20
that did not have such signs, 2 were primarily paratransit operators whose
vehicles are operated by contractors. The types of translated signs
provided included basic service information on bus stop signs, postings of
service changes, fare box signs, emergency exit and priority-seating
signs, public meeting notices, and posters for informational campaigns.
Without translated postings of service changes, bus stop closures, or fare
policies, LEP persons are at a disadvantage in accessing the transit
system. One community group cited an instance of LEP persons waiting at a
bus stop that had been closed due to a city event. This situation occurred
because the transit agency had not posted translated notices at the bus
stop announcing the closures.

Of the transit agencies we visited, 8 had some basic service information
signs at rail stations or bus stops available in languages other than
English, and 1 agency we visited had such information available in
languages other than Spanish at selected bus stops. For example,
Transportation Authorities in Orange County and Los Angeles provide some
information at some bus stops in Spanish (such as the direction of travel
and information on their telephone lines). One agency, the Alameda-Contra
Costa Transit District in Oakland, estimates that approximately 750 of its
1,200 signs are translated in Chinese and Spanish, with signs in bus
shelters in the city of Oakland, California, now being replaced with
seven-language signs, an example of which is shown in figure 5.

Figure 5: Seven-Language Bus Stop Sign in Oakland, California

                 Source: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District.

Officials at 3 transit agencies stated that they had not translated street
signs, or did not translate the entire sign, because much of the
information is numeric and because including several languages on such
signs would become unwieldy for transit riders to effectively use. Agency
officials also indicated that cost could become an issue in replacing all
of the signs throughout their systems, and some agencies were looking into
utilizing more pictograms in order to avoid the use of multiple languages
while providing more universal access. However, some community group
representatives told us that, although the use of pictograms can be a
useful way to communicate with non-English speakers, some translated
language may need to accompany the pictograms in order for the information
to be communicated effectively.

Several of the transit agencies we visited posted or provided, in
languages other than English, information on service changes or closures
at rail stations, at bus stops, and in vehicles. Some examples include the
following:

     o The Orange County Transportation Authority puts service change flyers
       in English and Spanish in vehicles on affected bus routes.
     o The Golden Gate Transit in San Francisco posts Spanish and English
       service change notices at its central transit hub.
          * The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District provides service change
            brochures in Chinese and Spanish.
          * Ten transit agencies had on-board signs that included information
            on fares or emergency exits and priority-seating signs for
            elderly and disabled persons, and 10 agencies posted public
            meeting notices on their vehicles, translated into at least
            Spanish. A few agencies also provided fare information or posted
            public meeting notices on buses or in stations in other
            languages. For example:
     o The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and the
       Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District both provide fare information in
       Chinese and Spanish.
     o The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency posts some meeting
       notices on its vehicles in Chinese and English, as shown in figure 6.

Figure 6: Meeting Notice Posted on a Bus in San Francisco, California, in
English and Chinese

Source: The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.

In addition, some transit agencies we visited had translated other types
of signs, such as posters in English and Spanish, generally designed under
the auspices of new initiatives or information campaigns. For example,
METRA Commuter Rail in Chicago and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority both placed posters in English and Spanish that
highlight safety issues on those systems. Orange County Transportation
Authority officials credit the wide acceptance of the agency's new "no
pennies" fare policy to the bilingual "Hasta Luego Pennies" campaign, as
shown in figure 7.

                         In-Person Language Assistance

     Figure 7: Posters in Orange County, California, in English and Spanish

While all but 3 of the transit agencies we visited had bilingual drivers
on staff, some agency officials noted that those drivers are generally not
required or instructed to make announcements in other languages and are
generally not assigned to routes where their language skills may be
useful. Some agency officials indicated that union rules allow drivers to
select preferred routes on the basis of seniority. Therefore, there is no
indication of the number of bilingual drivers that are utilizing their
languages skills, although agency officials knew of individual
occurrences. Three agencies we visited-Golden Gate Transit in California;
Capital Metro in Austin, Texas; and Chapel Hill Transit in North
Carolina-had provided their drivers with useful phrase or word guides in
Spanish, an example of which is shown in figure 8. A few other agencies,
including the Capital Area Rural Transportation System and the Capital
Metro in Austin, Texas, and the Ozark Regional Transit in northwest
Arkansas, have bilingual employees available to translate over the radio
on the bus.

        Figure8: Golden Gate Transit's Spanish Phrase Guide for Drivers

Source: Golden Gate Transit.

Many of the transit agencies reported that they had some bilingual staffs
in customer information booths or ticket offices, although agencies tended
not to look for bilingual customer service staffs in particular. Agency
officials in several areas stated that customer service personnel have
language skills because their employees reflect the ethnic and language
diversity of their region. For public meetings related to the
transportation planning and decision-making process, 12 transit agencies
and 4 MPOs had Spanish interpreters or bilingual employees or board
members available if needed at most public meetings, while 6 transit
agencies and 3 MPOs had Spanish interpreters available by request. In
areas where there is a preponderance of other languages spoken,
interpreters in languages other than Spanish were generally provided on a
"by-request" basis, although 1 agency reported that it regularly provided
Chinese translators.

While 16 transit agencies we visited had cultural sensitivity included in
their staff training, only 9 provided training or technical assistance to
their employees that directly related to LEP issues. The New Jersey survey
of transit agencies found that only one-quarter of the responding agencies
had training for customer service employees that was specific to LEP
service.18 Five agencies we visited offered free Spanish classes to
employees. For instance, Chapel Hill Transit hired a contractor to teach
conversational Spanish to supervisors, dispatchers, and those employees
who answer telephones during work hours. The agency has not been able to
offer the course to drivers because of budgeting issues, since attending
the course would be considered part of the drivers' work week and they
would have to be paid overtime. However, the town of Chapel Hill does
offer tuition reimbursement to drivers who want to take Spanish classes on
their own time.

Community groups regularly pointed out the importance of having as many
bilingual bus drivers and customer service staff as possible. At a
community meeting in Aurora, Illinois, held by the Chicago Area
Transportation Study, the need for more bilingual bus drivers was
highlighted as a community transportation need. The New Jersey focus
groups with LEP travelers also found that the inability to communicate
with bus drivers was one of the chief complaints of the LEP travelers in
New Jersey.19 In terms of the availability of interpreters at public
meetings,

18Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 32. 19Liu, Mobility
Information Needs of LEP Travelers, pp. 27-28.

Page 26 GAO-06-52 Language Access to Transportation Services

Bilingual or Multilingual Television, Radio, and Newspaper Advertisements

Bilingual or Multilingual Translated Materials on Web sites

community groups we met with criticized the fact that interpreters are
frequently only provided on a "by-request" basis. Agencies generally
require that requests be made 3 days in advance of the meeting, but
community groups told us that if an agency is advertising the meeting in
different languages, as many of the agencies we visited did, they should
be prepared to provide access to the proceedings of the meeting in those
languages, rather than relying on the public to request translation.

Fourteen transit agencies and 6 MPOs we visited posted notices of public
meetings in newspapers printed in languages other than English-with 10
posting notices in more than one language. A few agencies posted such
notices in as many as five different language newspapers. For example, the
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority publishes its
"Metro Briefs," which includes notices of public meetings and other
information, in Thai, Korean, Chinese, Armenian, and Spanish language
newspapers. Spanish radio and television advertisements were also placed
by several agencies, sometimes in relation to ongoing information
campaigns, such as rail safety campaigns. For example, METRA Commuter Rail
in Chicago advertised its rail safety campaign on television and radio in
Spanish.

Eleven of the 20 transit agencies we visited had some information on their
Web sites that was available in other languages; however, 4 of the 11 made
no indication on their home pages that translated materials were
available. Of the 7 MPOs we visited, 3 had such translated information
posted on their Web sites, and 2 had links on their home pages indicating
that translated materials were available. Some examples of translated Web
sites include the following:

     o The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District's Web site provides basic
       rider information in Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese-the three
       largest LEP populations in its service area-that is directly
       accessible through links in those languages on the home page.
     o The Regional Transportation Authority in Chicago, and the Bay Area
       Rapid Transit and the Golden Gate Transit in San Francisco, have basic
       transit information available in seven and eight other languages,
       respectively, indicated by country flag icons on the agencies' home
       pages. The languages chosen are not fully reflective of the major LEP
       groups in these areas, however, because these Web sites also serve
       tourism purposes. For example, in Chicago, the Regional Transportation
       Authority's Web site is translated into French, German, and Japanese,

although these are not major LEP groups in the city. However, the site is
not accessible in Chinese, although Chinese is the third largest LEP
population in Chicago.

Four transit agencies and 1 MPO had posted translated materials to their
Web sites but did not indicate on the home pages that those materials were
available. For example, materials translated into Spanish are posted on
the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Web site,
but a user must navigate through links that are in English to get to them.
Also, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has part of its
Title VI plan translated into Spanish and Chinese, but the user must
navigate through at least two links in English to find the translations.
Only 1 agency we visited, the Ozark Regional Transit, a small urban
operator in northwest Arkansas managed by First Transit, had made its
entire Web site accessible in another language, Spanish, as seen in figure
9. A link in Spanish on the home page leads to a fully translated version
of the Web site. Furthermore, while many agencies have Web-based trip
planners, none of the agencies we visited had made that function fully
available in other languages.20

20Two examples of agencies with language-accessible trip planners are the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority, which makes that
function available in several languages, and the Tri-Met in Portland,
which makes that function available in Spanish. We did not visit these
agencies.

Page 28 GAO-06-52 Language Access to Transportation Services

  Figure 9: Spanish Version of the Ozark Regional Transit's Web Site Home Page

Source: Ozark Regional Transit, a public transit system managed by First
Transit.

Translated Web sites were not frequently identified by community groups as
being particularly useful for LEP persons because LEP persons often do not
have access to the Internet, according to the community group
representatives we met with. In addition, the New Jersey study found that
LEP focus groups did not often rate translated Web sites as a major
resource in addressing mobility needs.21 However, providing translated
information on an agency Web site without indication in that language that
it is available is likely to reduce the usefulness of that information to
those LEP persons who do have Internet access.

21Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 29.

Translated Recorded Announcements Only 3 of the transit agencies we        
and Electronic Signs              visited had recorded announcements in    
                                     other languages on their vehicles or at  
                                     their facilities, although many agencies 
                                     do not utilize recorded announcements at 
                                     all. Also, although a few transit        
                                     agencies employ electronic media, such   
                                     as televisions or ticker-tape style      
                                     displays, only 1 provided translated     
                                     information on its ticker-tape display.  
                                     Examples of translated recorded          
                                     announcements include the following:     
                                     o  The Capital Metro in Austin provides  
                                     recorded announcements on its buses in   
                                     English and Spanish, which are also      
                                     broadcast outside the bus at bus stops.  
                                     o  The Bay Area Rapid Transit has        
                                     Spanish and Chinese announcements        
                                     recorded and available for use in the    
                                     event of an emergency in its train       
                                     stations or on its trains.               
                                     o  The Gold Line light-rail line in Los  
                                     Angeles has recorded announcements of    
                                     stops and rider instructions in English  
                                     and Spanish.                             
Bilingual or Multilingual         Of the transit agencies that utilize     
Electronic Ticket Machines        electronic ticket machines for rail      
                                     services-the Chicago Transit Authority,  
                                     the METRA Commuter Rail in Chicago, the  
                                     Los Angeles County Metropolitan          
                                     Transportation Authority, the Bay Area   
                                     Rapid Transit, and the San Francisco     
                                     Municipal Transportation Agency-only the 
                                     Los Angeles County Metropolitan          
                                     Transportation Authority had some        
                                     machines accessible in English and       
                                     Spanish. This agency has installed       
                                     ticket machines that are accessible in   
                                     Spanish on a newer light-rail line that  
                                     passes through a predominantly Hispanic  
                                     neighborhood, and officials told us they 
                                     were considering replacing all ticket    
                                     machines with machines that will be      
                                     accessible in six to eight languages.    
                                     One group we met with pointed out that,  
                                     without translated information on fare   
                                     discounts and without ticket machines    
                                     that                                     
                                     are language accessible, LEP persons may 
                                     not be aware of the fare options         
                                     available to them in the same manner     
                                     that English speakers would be,          
                                     potentially leading to LEP persons'      
                                     paying more than needed for their trips. 
Communicating Directly with LEP   Almost all of the transit agencies and   
Communities or Community and      MPOs we visited had made at least some   
Advocacy Groups Representing LEP  effort to communicate more directly with 
Persons                           communities and to conduct outreach with 
                                     LEP communities and the community and    
                                     advocacy groups that serve LEP persons.  
                                     For example, in Greensboro, the city     
                                     recently started a new program with      
                                     Lutheran Family Services, a community    
                                     group that works with many LEP persons,  
                                     to provide an orientation for recent     
                                     immigrants and refugees to the area.     
                                     Under the                                

program, city departments identified as having the most public interaction
with LEP persons, make an interactive presentation of services provided.
These presentations are given in English and simultaneously translated
into several languages, including Spanish, Vietnamese, Arabic, and
Russian, depending on the availability of translators. The city is also
producing a video on its services, including public transit, which will be
translated into Spanish and into other languages upon request. In Orange
County, the Orange County Transportation Authority conducts a program that
includes visiting Spanish-speaking senior centers to inform seniors about
the agency and its services. As part of the program, the agency will bring
a bus to the centers and walk the seniors through every step of riding the
bus, including getting on, paying the fare, and exiting. In addition, 2
agencies reported holding information sessions at bus terminals when
service changes or fare adjustments are about to occur. For example, the
Durham Area Transit Authority publicizes such information sessions in the
Spanish community, and then has translators on hand at bus terminals to
explain service changes and answer any questions.

In terms of transportation planning and decision making, federal law and
regulations require transit agencies and MPOs to involve the public in
transportation planning and decision-making processes,22 and Title VI, as
well as DOT's guidance, suggests that agencies should also make this
process accessible to non-English speakers. Providing language access to
planning and decision making can include all of the communication
strategies used by transit agencies and MPOs in this process. Some
communication strategies for public participation will fall into the
strategies previously outlined, such as providing interpreters at public
meetings and posting translated notices of community or public meetings on
Web sites, at stations, in vehicles, in newspapers, or on television or
radio. Some agencies also employed more direct tactics to include LEP
groups in the planning process. For example, several transit agencies and
MPOs we visited mailed out notices of community and public meetings to
community and advocacy groups representing LEP persons, although in some
cases, these notices were not sent out in languages other than English. In
addition, several agencies we visited distributed translated public
meeting notices in various establishments throughout the community. For
example, the Golden Gate Transit in the Bay Area distributes meeting
notices in Spanish at convenience stores, restaurants, and laundromats in
predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods. Some transit

22For example, see 23 U.S.C. S: 134 (i)(5) and 23 C.F.R. S: 450.316(b).

agencies and MPOs also kept in regular contact with community and advocacy
groups representing LEP persons or created specific advisory boards that
occasionally influenced language access activities. For example, the
Orange County Transportation Authority created a citizen's advisory
committee that pushed for the agency to provide translated notices of
service changes. In addition, some agencies reached out directly to LEP
communities with regard to the planning and decision-making process. For
example, Capital Metro in Austin started an outreach campaign that
involved sending teams of staff and volunteers, many of whom were
bilingual, into the community to provide information on new transportation
projects face-to-face. Capital Metro found that this outreach resulted in
greater public support for the agency and in increased ridership.

Despite some of these efforts, community group representatives we spoke
with were often critical that agencies' outreach efforts related to
planning and decision making were generally not proactive and inclusive of
LEP persons. For example, one representative we spoke with told us that
attendance at a public meeting on transportation projects in a
predominantly Chinese-speaking neighborhood was not well attended by
members of that community, and that no Chinese translator was on hand at
the meeting. This representative believed that better outreach to that
community to encourage community involvement would have led to higher
attendance. A representative of another group explained that community
meetings are often very difficult to access for Spanish-speaking members
of the community, and that the local MPO tends to work with elected
officials rather than working more directly with members of the community.

In the New Jersey surveys and focus groups of LEP travelers, some LEP
groups in New Jersey indicated that a lack of adequate transportation
services was the biggest impediment to their mobility.23 Without access to
and involvement with local transit agencies and planning entities, the
needs of this community are not likely to be heard by these agencies.
Furthermore, failing to provide language access to decision making can
lead to complaints of discrimination. FTA has received one complaint that
LEP persons were not given adequate access to the planning and
decision-making process.

23Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 28.

    Effects of Language Access Services on Meeting Needs Are Not Well Known

The efficacy of the LEP access services provided is largely unknown due to
a lack of data. Most transit agencies and MPOs we visited could provide
only limited information about the utilization or effectiveness of their
language access services. Furthermore, few of the agencies we visited had
conducted a formalized assessment of the needs of the LEP populations in
their service areas, or had assessed the success of their language access
activities in meeting these needs, although DOT's LEP guidance recommends
that they do so. Data limitations were present in analyzing the effects of
all types of LEP access services. For example, although some transit
agencies print thousands of translated brochures, they do not keep track
of how many brochures are placed on buses or in stations. In addition,
because many brochures are printed with English and another language in
the same booklet, it is impossible to know whether the language accessible
section is being utilized. Data on the utilization of bilingual or
multilingual telephone operators were also generally not available for the
majority of the transit agencies because they do not formally track calls
received in languages other than English. In those instances where calls
were tracked, they were predominantly in Spanish, and calls in other
languages were generally not common. For 1 transit agency, of the 378
calls in languages other than English that were received in 2004, 90
percent of them were in Spanish. For another, just 3 percent of calls were
in languages other than English and Spanish. One agency in Los Angeles did
receive a relatively large percentage of calls in Russian, Farsi, and
Armenian to its language line. For Web sites, data on the utilization of
multilingual pages were only available in some instances. Even when
tracked, these Web site data were often inconclusive regarding how often
the translations were accessed relative to English portions of the sites.
Finally, information on the effectiveness of translated signs was not
determined by any of the transit agencies or MPOs we visited.

Although little effort had been made by the transit agencies and MPOs we
visited to closely examine the impact of their LEP activities, a few
agencies were considering language issues as part of their more
comprehensive assessments of ongoing communication and outreach efforts.
For example, the Regional Transportation Authority in Chicago has started
a long-term study of the overall communication strategies of all the
transit agencies in Chicago, including language access issues. Part of the
study's methodology was for a researcher to ride along with a LEP rider to
identify areas where communication was lacking and the rider encountered
problems. The study found that language barriers made it difficult to
understand changes to schedules or service, or changes in how to navigate
through the system.

The study is looking at an increased use of pictograms as one potential
solution to making access easier for LEP populations.

Despite the lack of supporting data, most agencies felt that they were
adequately responding to the demand for language access services in their
areas. Agency officials believed that because no complaints had been
recorded concerning the level of language access provided, and because
they generally did not receive many requests for translated materials or
interpreters, they were doing a reasonable job of providing such access.
Several agency officials did state that there was still room for
improvement, and some were considering providing more information in
languages other than Spanish. Agency officials also recognized the need
for greater outreach efforts in general, especially for ethnic communities
that may have language barriers, since turnout at public meetings by these
groups is typically low. However, some agency officials told us that
agencies may lack the needed staff to regularly conduct proactive
community outreach activities.

By contrast, community and advocacy groups we met with generally saw
several shortcomings in the provision of language access services,
sometimes within the larger context of how transit agencies and MPOs
communicate with the public in general. In their opinion, a lack of
complaints regarding LEP issues did not necessarily mean that transit
agencies were doing a satisfactory job, but rather might reflect the fact
that many LEP persons were not likely to complain about the provision of
language access services, due to cultural differences and wariness about
interacting with government agencies. Many community group representatives
we spoke with complained of a lack of knowledge in the community about the
materials and services that were available, and a lack of materials in
languages other than Spanish. Even in areas where transit agencies do
provide translated materials, representatives of community groups stated
that these materials were often not readily available or easy to locate.
In addition, many community groups were unaware of the existence of
multilingual telephone lines, or they complained that Spanish-speaking
operators were often not available when they called.

In addition to questioning the level of service information available to
LEP populations, community groups cited concerns about the lack of actual
transit services available to certain communities where large LEP
populations reside, as well as concerns about a lack of effective
involvement of these communities in the planning and decision-making
process, as previously discussed in this report. Many representatives we
spoke with were unaware of public meetings held by transit agencies and
MPOs, and they complained about the lack of ongoing communication with
them and the communities they represent. Furthermore, representatives of
community groups told us that these agencies rarely used them as a
resource or consulted with them on LEP transportation issues.

These representatives made several suggestions regarding how language
access services could be improved, and which types of activities would
likely be most effective in meeting community needs. Several suggestions
involved facilitating the inclusion of ethnic communities, including LEP
persons, in the planning process. For example, representatives from one
group stated that public meetings should have agendas that are clear,
specific, and of value to the community, and that these communities should
be sought out and included early in the process. Other representatives
stated that established community and advocacy groups should be used more
effectively as a conduit to the community. Regarding language access
services, community group representatives recommended having ticket
machines and discount fare information available in other languages so
that LEP communities could take advantage of fare discounts. They also
said that having spoken announcements in other languages or having bus
drivers or other personnel available to communicate in other languages
would be highly effective in improving access for LEP persons.

The New Jersey survey and focus groups of LEP travelers provided some data
on the needs of LEP transit users. Like the community group
representatives, some LEP groups in this study reported that inadequate
service in their neighborhoods was their chief concern. In terms of travel
assistance needed, LEP groups most often cited having a driver or staff
person available to assist them in their own language. Reaction was split
among LEP travelers on whether multilingual telephone lines were helpful.
Some travelers felt they were helpful, and others felt that if the
information is prerecorded, it is not effective. While New Jersey Transit
does have a multilingual telephone line (not prerecorded), most of the
respondents in this study were not aware of the service, which was likely
due to a lack of advertising. Finally, LEP groups stated that Web sites
were also not particularly helpful because many of the respondents did not
have access to the Internet.24

24Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, pp. 28-29.

    Costs May Not Be Burdensome at the Current Level of Activity, but They Could
    Escalate with Additional Languages and Services

On the basis of our site visit data, we determined that agencies generally
did not believe that the costs for existing language access activities
were burdensome.25 Many transit agencies believed that providing services
to LEP populations makes sound business sense. Such agencies recognize
that LEP populations represent a significant portion of both their current
and their potential ridership. Thus, making services more accessible to
LEP persons could increase ridership. For instance, officials at Austin's
Capital Metro told us that their outreach efforts to LEP communities has
resulted in increased ridership and greater public support for the agency.

While several of the transit agencies we interviewed did not view LEP
language access costs as burdensome, the majority of agencies were unable
to provide much data on many of the costs associated with their LEP access
services. Sometimes these costs were simply not tracked because they were
spread out over several departments, or because LEP access activities were
not separated from broader costs. The New Jersey survey of transit
agencies also found little available data on costs, with only one-third of
respondents sharing cost information.26 Of the respondents to that survey
providing cost information, about one-half of them reported annual costs
of between $10,000 and $30,000; one-quarter reported costs of under
$5,000; and one-quarter reported costs greater than $100,000.

Transit agencies and MPOs were able to avoid incurring substantial
additional costs by utilizing existing staff. For instance, many agencies
stated that rather than contracting out for interpreters at public
meetings, they bring in bilingual staff members, use bilingual board
members, or rely on community groups or individuals to bring their own
interpreters as needed. A similar situation occurs in providing
interpreters for customer service telephone lines. While 7 transit
agencies have access to some form of a language line with formalized
services, many agencies have operators who are bilingual or who will
utilize various bilingual staff members

25Several different cost components can be associated with efforts to
provide access to public transit for LEP persons. These costs must be
differentiated from costs that would ordinarily be experienced by an
agency whether a service is provided in English or in another language.
Extra costs borne by an agency that are directly attributable to LEP
access activities include the following: outside translation and
interpreter costs, cost differentials for developing and printing
materials in other languages versus providing these services in English,
the creation of translated pages on Web sites, premiums paid to bilingual
employees, and software costs to provide multiple languages options at
ticket machines.

26Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 32.

throughout their operations to field LEP calls when needed. In terms of
printed documents and materials, many of the transit agencies and MPOs we
visited have their translations done in-house using bilingual staff
members. Often, translation is not part of these staff members' official
responsibilities, but it is done on a voluntary basis at no cost to the
agency beyond the use of staff time.

Although several transit agencies and MPOs did not report unduly
burdensome costs, the cost of providing LEP access has the potential to
increase significantly if agencies seek to undertake more comprehensive
programs.27 As we previously discussed, many agencies rely on existing
staff to do their translations of materials and to act as interpreters.
Utilizing existing staff becomes more difficult when an agency attempts to
provide access beyond just one or two languages. In that case, agencies
would likely have to contract out for translation and translator services,
or have to expend additional time and effort during the hiring process to
find qualified candidates fluent in the languages desired. Contracting out
for both translation and translator services can be costly. For example,
the Capital Metro in Austin estimates that it spends between $10,000 and
$15,000 a year for outside translations of materials. The Chicago Transit
Authority stated that it spent over $1,100 for interpreters at four public
hearings in 2004.

Costs will also rise for agencies if they seek to make more comprehensive
translated information about their services and programs available through
multiple sources. For example, only 1 agency we visited had developed a
comprehensively Web site. In addition to any translation costs incurred,
developing fully translated Web sites is likely to require modifications
to an agency's Web site architecture, which has the potential to be
costly. For instance, the Chicago Transit Authority estimated that the
initial costs of translating its Web site into Spanish, Chinese, and
Polish could potentially be between $74,000 and $99,000. In addition, the
ongoing costs for maintaining the translated sites could also be
substantial. Agency officials told us that the capability to update just
the Spanish section of a translated Web site on a regular basis would
require a new full-time employee and the purchase of additional software,
costing an estimated $47,000 to $60,000

27Cost considerations are one of the factors that federal agency guidance
suggests agencies consider when determining what constitutes reasonable
access. DOJ's guidance to federal agencies states that the resources
available to an agency may have an impact on the nature of the steps that
recipients must take. Smaller recipients with more limited budgets would
not be expected to provide the same level of services as larger recipients
with larger budgets. 67 Fed. Reg. 41455, 41460 (June 18, 2002).

Page 37 GAO-06-52 Language Access to Transportation Services

  DOT Assists Grantees on Language Access Services through Its Guidance and
  Other Activities, but These Resources Are Not Often Accessed by Local Agencies

annually. In addition, providing language line service that covers
multiple languages could raise costs significantly for transit agencies,
depending on the usage of the line. Costs for language line services vary,
depending on the provider as well as the language being translated, but
generally costs per minute range from $1.00 to $1.50, which can add up to
significant amounts. For example, the Chicago Regional Transportation
Authority's language line cost about $16,000 in 2004, and Access Services
in Los Angeles spent $3,500 in the first 3 months of 2005. In addition, to
the extent that agencies seek to provide printed materials in languages
other than Spanish, there would be increased typesetting and formatting
issues that would give rise to higher costs as well. This is especially
true with languages using non-Roman alphabets. For example, officials at
the Orange County Transportation Authority estimated that the cost of
producing materials in Chinese would be significantly more than for
Spanish materials. Finally, in terms of public outreach, a shift to more
proactive strategies may lead to higher costs. Transit agencies and MPOs
that take the initiative to actively reach out to various community groups
and LEP populations would likely need to dedicate a greater amount of
staff time and resources.

DOT's LEP guidance provides grantees with a five-step framework for how to
provide meaningful access to LEP populations, along with some information
on how to implement such a framework; however, officials at the majority
of the 20 transit agencies and 7 MPOs we visited were not aware of the LEP
guidance. Of the agencies that were aware of the guidance, only 3 had
changed their language access activities in response to it, and only 1
transit agency appeared to have fully implemented the five-step framework.
DOT and DOJ have also provided other types of assistance on language
access services-such as workshops, a DOJ-sponsored interagency Web site,
and other resources-but most of the transit agencies and MPOs we visited
had not accessed these resources. Officials at transit agencies and MPOs
we visited stated that training and technical assistance that is widely
available, and specific to language access and how to implement DOT's LEP
guidance, could help them more effectively provide access to LEP
populations.

    DOT's LEP Guidance Provides Steps to Meaningful Access, but DOT Took Limited
    Steps to Make Grantees Aware of Guidance

DOT's 2001 LEP guidance outlines five steps funding recipients should take
to provide meaningful access for LEP persons, including (1) conducting an
assessment of the language groups within their service areas and the
language needs of these groups; (2) developing and implementing written
plans outlining their strategies for ensuring access to services for LEP
populations; (3) making staff aware of the LEP access plan, training them,
and providing them with the tools necessary to carry out the plan; (4)
ensuring that language access services are actually provided in a
consistent manner and that LEP populations are aware of these services;
and (5) developing monitoring programs that allow agencies to assess the
success of their LEP access programs and to identify needed modifications.
The guidance gives some information on how to implement the framework and
examples of promising practices. For example, the guidance lists
components that a written plan should generally include, although it does
not provide examples of such a plan.

DOT made its guidance available to its funding recipients through the
Federal Register, its Web site,28 and the DOJ interagency Web site;
however, DOT headquarters officials did not distribute the guidance
through any other direct method to ensure that grantees were aware of it,
such as through a policy memorandum or other outreach to grantees.
According to a DOT official, DOT relies on its operating agencies to make
grantees aware of the guidance, and, in turn, these operating agencies may
rely on regional representatives to make grantees aware of the guidance.
In the areas we visited, however, FTA regional representatives had not
disseminated the guidance or made grantees in their areas aware of the
guidance. Staff turnover in DOT's agencies, as well as in local transit
agencies and MPOs, likely complicate agency awareness of the guidance,
since newer employees may not be aware of documents issued years earlier.
Although, according to a DOT official, DOT has not done much to reinforce
awareness of the guidance, or grantees' responsibilities under it, since
its original publication in the Federal Register in 2001.

As a result, the majority of officials we visited during our site visits
who are primarily responsible for implementing aspects of DOT's guidance
were not aware of the guidance. Some of the officials we visited who were
aware of the guidance had not made significant changes in response to it.
Rather

28DOT's guidance is available electronically on FTA's Web site under
"Transit Data & Info" and then "Title VI policy, Guidance & Procedures,"
and through FHWA's Civil Rights Office Web site under
"Non-Discrimination."

Page 39 GAO-06-52 Language Access to Transportation Services

than citing DOT's guidance, officials at the transit agencies and MPOs we
visited indicated that they provide language access activities in response
to their customer base and demographics, as a result of the Environmental
Justice initiative,29 or as a result of requests from community groups or
board members. Officials at many transit agencies and MPOs we visited said
they had been providing language access services for many years prior to
the executive order and DOT's guidance. Other officials indicated that
they were not sure what their responsibilities were under the guidance.

Of the 9 transit agencies and 3 MPOs we visited that were aware of DOT's
guidance, only 2 transit agencies and 1 MPO made changes to their
languages access activities as a result. Examples of agency responses to
the guidance include the following:

     o The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District developed an inventory of
       its language access activities, with several proposals for improving
       language access services that are now being implemented.
     o The Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay
       Area indicated that, while it had not significantly changed its
       practices as a result of the guidance, it had increased its efforts.
     o The Chicago Transit Authority formed a committee to examine LEP issues
       after the release of the guidance in 2001. This committee determined
       the languages spoken in its service area from Census data and has
       discussed the idea of implementing a survey to determine what language
       needs exist. No current plan or timeline for developing or
       implementing the proposed survey exists.

29Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," issued on February
11, 1994, directed every federal agency to make environmental justice part
of its mission by identifying and addressing the effects of all programs,
policies, and activities on "minority populations and low-income
populations." DOT's environmental justice initiatives accomplish this goal
by involving the potentially affected public in developing transportation
projects that fit harmoniously within their communities without
sacrificing safety or mobility. There are three fundamental environmental
justice principles, which are to (1) avoid, minimize, or mitigate
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations
and low-income populations; (2) ensure the full and fair participation by
all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making
process; and (3) prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay
in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations.

Officials from the California, North Carolina, and Texas state departments
of transportation reported that they had begun to monitor their small
urban and rural grantees' LEP activities as a result of the executive
order and DOT's guidance. As a result, some materials have been provided
to grantees about their responsibilities under the guidance.30

Some of the transit agencies and MPOs we visited told us that technical
assistance and information would be helpful in implementing DOT's
guidance, and 1 transit agency cited a lack of funds and time to conduct
an assessment of language access needs and to provide and evaluate
language access activities. For example, an MPO in North Carolina said it
would benefit from the ability to easily access practical resources on
language access services for LEP persons. In addition, agency officials at
a transit agency in California told us that an example of a needs
assessment-with estimates of the cost to conduct one and effective ways to
outreach to LEP persons-would be very helpful. A DOT official told us
that, in anticipation of issuing DOT's revised guidance, additional
training and assistance was being considered within DOT.

30The California Department of Transportation has developed a written
department policy for LEP persons. The intent of the policy is to ensure
departmental employees are aware that LEP persons shall be provided
meaningful access to the department's programs, activities, and services
that are normally provided in English. In addition to the draft policy for
LEP, the department is in the process of finalizing "standard" LEP office
procedures for the various program areas and districts to use. Finally,
the department developed an LEP training module, which includes
requirements under state law (Dymally-Alatorre Bi-lingual Services Act of
1973); federal law (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964); and
Executive Order 13166, "Improving Access to Services for Persons with
Limited English Proficiency." This training module will be used to inform
departmental staff of LEP requirements and assist them to ensure that the
regulatory requirements are met. Process reviews of program areas will be
conducted in conjunction with Title VI reviews to determine the level of
compliance; corrective action, if necessary; and best practices.

    Other Federal Resources Address Language Access Issues to Varying Degrees,
    but They Are Not Frequently Used by Grantees

DOT's Workshops at Conferences and Federal Web Sites Provide Some
Assistance on DOT's LEP Guidance

FTA and FHWA have hosted a few workshops at annual conferences31 that have
provided assistance on how to implement portions of the framework
described in the guidance.32 Presentations held by FTA and FHWA reviewed
the LEP executive order, and DOT's LEP guidance, and provided workshop
participants with real-world LEP information, including how to identify
LEP populations in their service areas. For example, workshops included
the following:

o  Strategies for Complying with FHWA LEP Requirements, was held at the
Southern Transportation Civil Rights Conference in Orlando in August
2005.33 This training identified strategies to ensure that LEP persons
have access to programs, services, and information through the application
of DOT's guidance. In addition to this presentation, a "train the trainer"
curriculum was developed regarding LEP awareness.34 Training attendees
were provided with a manual with resources on providing language access,
which included DOT's guidance, language

31Since 2003, FTA and FHWA have held workshops that specifically address
language issues in the context of the guidance at conferences held by the
Conference of Minority Transportation Officials, the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Community
Transportation Association of America.

32The North Carolina State Department of Transportation became aware of
DOT's LEP guidance through a 2-day workshop on Civil Rights and
Environmental Justice, which was given by FHWA at the department's
request.

33According to the FHWA official, the presentation should soon be
available on FHWA's Civil Rights Web site. Additionally, this official
told us the presentation will be shared with others via FHWA's internal
Community of Practice Web site.

34This curriculum was developed for Maryland state employees to assist
them in implementing a proposed law on language access. The Maryland State
Senate Bill requires state departments, agencies, or programs to take
reasonable steps to provide equal access to public services for LEP
individuals, which includes the translation of forms and documents
ordinarily provided to the public into any language spoken by any LEP
population that constitutes 3 percent of the overall population within the
geographic area served by a local office of a state department, agency, or
program.

identification flash cards, language statistical data, language assistance
self-assessment tools, and commonly asked questions and answers.

     o Fair Transportation: Incorporating Equity Concerns into Transit
       Planning and Operations, presented to the Conference of Minority
       Transportation Officials by FTA's Office of Civil Rights, occurred in
       July 2005. This presentation discussed the changing demographics and
       growing multicultural nature of the American population and the
       increase in the number of LEP persons nationwide. FTA staff summarized
       the requirements of DOT's LEP guidance, and recommended that transit
       agencies incorporate attention to the needs of LEP persons into
       elements of their routine planning and operations, such as their
       complaint procedures, marketing, customer surveys, and community
       outreach.
     o LEP: A Lesson in Redefining Public Involvement was given at the 2003
       Conference of Minority Transportation Officials National Meeting and
       Training Conference. This presentation provided information about the
       LEP executive order and DOT's guidance, and used real-world examples
       to illustrate the complications an agency may face as a result of not
       providing information to LEP populations during the planning process.
       The presentation also defined compliance with the LEP executive order
       by listing important components in DOT's guidance (i.e., a needs
       assessment, a written language assistance plan, language assistance,
       and monitoring).
     o How to Identify LEP Populations in Your Locality was given by FHWA at
       the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
       Officials' 2004 Civil Rights Conference. This presentation also
       provided information on the LEP executive order; DOT's guidance; and
       specific information about what resources can be used to identify LEP
       populations, which is the first step of conducting a needs assessment.
       For example, the presentation highlighted using Census and state
       departments of education data to identify the size and location of LEP
       populations. This presentation is available on FHWA's Civil Rights Web
       site.

Besides offering workshops, DOT also participates in the Federal
Interagency Working Group on Limited-English Proficiency, which provides
resources to federal grantees mainly through its Web site,
http://www.lep.gov. The resources available on the Web site are generally
not specific to transportation, with the exception of DOT's LEP guidance

Other DOT Resources Have Few Language Access Activities or Touch on
Language Issues in a Broader Context

and a multilingual video on using public transit, "Making Public Transit
Work for You," which was produced by the Contra Costa Commute Alternative
Network. The Web site, which is maintained by DOJ, serves as a
clearinghouse by providing and linking information; tools; and technical
assistance about LEP and language services for federal agencies,
recipients of federal funds, users of federal programs and federally
assisted programs, and other stakeholders. While most of the information
on the Web site is not specifically about transportation, some of it could
be applicable to transit agencies. For example, the Web site contains a
variety of tools- including a self-assessment-to help local agencies
assess their current language services and plan for the provision of
additional language assistance to LEP individuals. The Web site also
provides an overview of how to develop a language assistance plan, and it
contains performance measures, such as a measure of the extent of ongoing
feedback from the community, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of LEP
activities. In addition, there is a video on the Web site regarding LEP
access issues that could be used in training for customer service
personnel at transit agencies. FTA's Title VI Web page provides a link to
this Web site.

FTA and FHWA have two peer-exchange programs through which local agencies
can share innovative or effective practices on various topics that have
sometimes included language access. FTA's peer-exchange program, called
Innovative Practices for Increased Ridership, and FTA and FHWA's
collaborative peer-exchange program, called the Transportation Planning
Capacity Building Program, allow agencies to easily share information over
the Internet. FTA's Innovative Practices Web site serves as a central
information resource for innovative strategies on various topics.
Innovative practices are submitted by transit organizations and reviewed
by FTA, and these practices are then made available for other transit
organizations to search records, review innovations, and potentially
implement similar programs. A search of FTA's Innovative Practices Web
site revealed some assistance on language access issues. In one example, a
transit agency in Maine created a multilingual brochure that provided
basic information about riding its bus service in eight languages,
including Spanish, Serbo-Croatian, Russian, Khmer, Somali, Vietnamese,
French, and English, and plans to translate the brochure into six more
languages, including Farsi, Arabic, Acholi, Swahili, Chinese, and
Bulgarian. The transit agency credits this effort with increasing its
ridership.

The Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program35 provides resources
to local agencies through its Web site, where users can search various
topics to find out if any other agency has posted helpful information on
those topics. LEP resources are not directly available through an explicit
link on this Web site. However, a search of the program's Web site under
Title VI and Environmental Justice issues revealed some assistance on
language access. For example, the materials from a workshop called
Identifying and Engaging Low Literacy and Limited English Proficiency
populations in the Transportation Decision-making Process, which was held
in Atlanta in May 2004, was made available to users on the Web site. The
workshop refers to the LEP executive order and describes innovative and
effective practices that some agencies have employed to improve awareness
among communities and transportation planning agencies of the existence of
low-literacy and LEP populations in their areas.

FTA and FHWA also provide federal grantees with training and technical
assistance-through the National Transit Institute (NTI) and the National
Highway Institute (NHI), respectively-that address language access issues
to some extent in training on other subjects, such as public participation
in the transportation planning process. Funded by grants from FTA, NTI
provides training, education, and clearinghouse services in support of
public transportation. Representatives from NTI identified five training
courses in which language issues were discussed in the broader context of
other issues. 36 In addition, NTI is developing a course for transit
employees that will specifically address cross-cultural communications,
including tips for overcoming language barriers, such as speaking slowly,
being patient, and not using slang words. NHI also provides training,
resource materials, and technical assistance to the transportation
community, although, like NTI training, language issues are addressed as
they relate to the course content. An official from NHI identified two
training courses in which language issues were discussed. An example is
NHI's course called Fundamentals of Title VI/Environmental Justice, in
which LEP issues are woven into the course materials. The training gives
examples of outreach

35The Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program is designed to
help decision makers, transportation officials, and staffs resolve the
increasingly complex issues they face when addressing transportation needs
in their communities.

36In addition to the five courses identified, 1 transit agency in North
Carolina cited an NTI training course, entitled Customers, Conflicts, and
You: A Transit Operators Guide to Problem Solving, in which language was
discussed.

Page 45 GAO-06-52 Language Access to Transportation Services

Other Available Federal Resources Are Rarely Used by Grantees

done by various agencies, which includes providing meeting materials and
flyers in Spanish. Another course, entitled Public Involvement Techniques
for Transportation Decision Making, describes the importance of including
LEP populations in the planning process; provides suggestions on effective
ways to reach out to LEP populations, such as through community groups and
informal meetings; and outlines ways to continue communication with LEP
groups once a connection has been established. For example, the training
states that providing translated materials and interpreters at meetings is
essential in reaching non-English speakers. NHI and NTI representatives
told us that they are working to combine their relevant training courses
on public involvement in the transportation planning process into one
course.

The majority of transit agencies and MPOs we visited did not access the
federal resources previously discussed because many officials were unaware
that these resources exist. Only a few agencies we visited had reported
attending workshops held at annual conferences on language access
issues,37 and no agency we met with had reported accessing information
available through http://www.lep.gov. Furthermore, statistics on the
number of Internet users that accessed LEP resources on the Web-based
peer-exchange programs indicate that these resources are not accessed
often in comparison to other resources on those Web sites. A few transit
agencies we visited were aware of or had accessed the NTI training
entitled Public Involvement in Transportation Decision-Making, which
includes a section on ensuring that nontraditional participants-that is,
minority, low-income, and LEP populations-are included in the public
involvement process associated with transportation planning.

37We did not review overall attendance at these workshops to determine the
extent to which this information was accessed by transit agencies
nationwide, but rather we focused on whether the agencies we visited were
aware of the resources that DOT provides.

Page 46 GAO-06-52 Language Access to Transportation Services

  Three Review Processes Provide Limited Monitoring of Language Access
  Activities, and Criteria for Finding a Deficiency Are Inconsistent

                         Table 1: FTA and FHWA Reviews

Language access activities of transit agencies and MPOs are monitored
through three review processes-FTA's Title VI compliance reviews, FTA's
triennial reviews, and planning certification reviews conducted jointly by
FTA and FHWA (described in table 1). However, these reviews do not fully
take into account Executive Order 13166 or DOT's LEP guidance, and the
criteria for finding a deficiency with regard to providing language access
are inconsistent.

                      Type of review Description and scope

Title VI compliance A Title VI compliance review is conducted to determine
if the grantee's required efforts under Title VI of the Civil

review Rights Act of 1964 are represented to the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA). This review lasts 2 to 3 days and assesses
implementation of Title VI programs in areas such as general reporting
requirements, service standards and policies, and language access. This
review covers each agency's policies, procedures, and record keeping
related to Civil Rights and Title VI.

Triennial review  The triennial review is a periodic process review that   
                     is conducted at least once every 3 years for each        
                     formula grant recipient. The results of the triennial    
                     review are integrated into FTA's grant management        
                     functions and ultimately serve as the basic review of    
                     FTA's comprehensive oversight program. Although it is    
                     broad in scope, the triennial review is the only FTA     
                     review that is statutorily mandated.                     
Planning          The planning certification review occurs at least once   
certification     every 4 years in all Transportation Management Areas,    
review            which are metropolitan areas that have a population that 
                     exceeds 200,000 people. Unlike the aforementioned        
                     reviews, the planning certification review is conducted  
                     jointly by FTA and the Federal Highway Administration    
                     (FHWA). The objective of this review is to enhance the   
                     effectiveness of federal oversight of the transportation 
                     planning process. The planning certification review      
                     process includes a desk review, on-site interviews with  
                     all participants in the planning process, and input from 
                     the public. The review concludes with a final report of  
                     findings and recommendations, which is intended to       
                     provide an overview of the planning process and identify 
                     areas where FTA and FHWA need to provide guidance or     
                     direction to the process.                                

                                  Source: GAO.

The Title VI compliance review 38-an in-depth review of a limited number
of transit agencies, MPOs, and state DOTs-does not assess language access
activities using the LEP guidance, but rather assesses them using
guidelines in an FTA circular, which asks agencies to describe the
language access they provide.39 However, the circular does not provide
agencies with a framework, and does not have much specificity regarding
what agencies should provide in terms of language access. FTA officials
told us that the circular is used for the compliance review because it is
a requirement for agencies, while agencies are not required to implement
all aspects of DOT's LEP guidance. The officials further stated that they
have considered including more aspects of DOT's guidance in the compliance
review.

We reviewed Title VI compliance reviews completed between 2002 and 2004
and found that the scope of these reviews of language access activities
varied, and may not assess local agencies' language activities across the
entire breadth of communication strategies previously outlined in this
report. For example, in one review, an agency was found deficient because
it did not have safety and emergency information translated, yet in other
reviews it was unclear whether safety and emergency information was
included in the scope of the review. Furthermore, the scope of the
multilingual communications portions of the Title VI compliance reviews
has varied on the basis of the primary objective of the endeavor. Some of
these reviews considered only the extent to which language assistance was
provided to persons wanting to involve themselves in the transit system's
planning and decision-making processes because the scope of the reviews
focused solely on these processes. Other reviews evaluated only the extent
to which language assistance was provided to persons wanting to use the

38Since 2002, FTA has conducted roughly six compliance reviews per year of
transit providers, state DOTs, or MPOs, final reports from these reviews
are available on FTA's Title VI Web page. See
http://www.fta.dot.gov/16241_ENG_HTML.htm . FTA identifies recipients for
review on the basis of complaints against the recipient, media reports,
recommendations of regional civil rights officials, outstanding findings
on past triennial reviews, and FTA's desire to review both smaller and
larger grantees in areas around the country.

39Recipients of FTA funding assistance are subject to the Title VI
compliance conditions associated with the use of these funds pursuant to
FTA Circular 4704.1, "Title VI Program Guidelines for Grant Recipients,"
dated July 26, 1988; Part II, Section 117(a) of the FTA Agreement; and FTA
Circular 4702.1, "Title VI Program Guidelines for Federal Transit
Administration Recipients," dated May 26, 1988. The program guidelines of
FTA Circular 4702.1 define the components that must be addressed and
incorporated in the recipients' Title VI Program and are the basis for the
selection of compliance elements that are reviewed in FTA discretionary
reviews.

transit system. Table 2 provides examples of deficiency findings related
to language access from these Title VI reviews.

Table 2: Language Access Deficiencies Found through Title VI Compliance Reviews

Agency     Type of       Finding         Recommendation     Agency         
              review                                           response       
Chicago    Limited scope The agency did  The agency should  The agency     
Transit    review -      not adequately  improve its        pledged to     
Authority  Review of     communicate     community outreach establish a    
              Service/Fare  information at  efforts to ensure  public         
              Change        public meetings that minority      participation  
                            in other        residents are      process that   
                            languages.      heard.             increases the  
                                                               number of      
                                                               public         
                                                               meetings and   
                                                               outreach to    
                                                               community      
                                                               organizations. 
Metro St.  Limited scope Review found    Review recommended The agency     
Louis      review -      that language   that the agency    indicated that 
              Review of     access          evaluate whether   it would       
              Service/Fare  considerations  there is a need    prepare a      
              Change        may not have    for considering    written        
                            adequately been limited            assessment of  
                            taken into      English-proficient the need to    
                            account.        (LEP) persons when address LEP    
                                            disseminating      needs. The     
                                            information.       assessment     
                                                               will include   
                                                               targeted       
                                                               surveys of     
                                                               operators and  
                                                               customers on   
                                                               routes known   
                                                               to serve       
                                                               immigrant      
                                                               populations,   
                                                               as well as     
                                                               interviews     
                                                               with advocacy  
                                                               groups,        
                                                               community      
                                                               groups, and    
                                                               human service  
                                                               agencies that  
                                                               serve          
                                                               immigrant      
                                                               populations.   
New York   Full Title VI Sampling of     Within 90 days,    The agency     
City       compliance    vehicles and    the agency must    submitted its  
Transit    review        facilities      submit to the      draft policy,  
                            failed to       Federal Transit    which          
                            confirm the     Administration     indicated it   
                            consistent use  (FTA)              would          
                            of Spanish in   documentation that translate      
                            safety and      a Policy for       safety notices 
                            emergency       Translating        into Spanish,  
                            evacuation      Customer           and FTA        
                            procedures.     Information        accepted it.   
                                            Materials has been The agency     
                                            finalized and      also provided  
                                            implemented.       several        
                                                               examples in    
                                                               its quarterly  
                                                               progress       
                                                               reports of     
                                                               safety         
                                                               messages       
                                                               translated     
                                                               into Spanish.  

Source: GAO review of Title VI compliance reviews, 2002-2004.

In March of 2003, FTA's Office of Civil Rights conducted a pilot Title VI
compliance review of the Brownsville Urban System in Texas, specifically
looking at the extent to which the agency had implemented DOT's LEP
guidance. This pilot was initiated as part of a refocusing of Title VI
compliance reviews on more specific issues within Title VI, including
multilingual communications, fare increases, service changes, and
equitable allocation of resources. Brownsville was selected by FTA's
Office of Civil Rights for the pilot assessment for multilingual
communication because of its large Spanish-speaking community.40 The
assessment guidance used in the pilot incorporated sections of DOT's
guidance in

40FTA's Office of Civil Rights informed us that they have plans to conduct
a similar assessment of another entity in fiscal year 2006.

Page 49 GAO-06-52 Language Access to Transportation Services

addition to the multilingual facilities section of the FTA circular used
in other Title VI compliance reviews. The assessment focused on whether
the Brownsville system had ensured meaningful access to LEP persons by
assessing 11 different aspects of providing greater access to LEP persons.
For example, the review focused on whether the agency had a needs
assessment and a written language assistance plan; the agency's provision
of language services (e.g., oral interpretation; written translations; and
alternative, nonverbal methods); and its provision of language access to
its grievance or complaint procedures. Brownsville was found deficient in
5 of the 11 areas, as shown in table 3.

Table 3: Results of the Pilot LEP Review of the Brownsville Urban System
in Texas

Area examined               Result of review        Recommendation         
                               Deficiency - overall    Identify other         
Needs assessment            assessment not          language needs in the  
                               conducted               
                                                       community              
Assessment of               Deficiency - assessment Identify               
linguistically isolated     not conducted           linguistically         
                                                       isolated populations   
populations                                         during overall needs   
                                                       assessment             
Identification of barriers  Deficiency - not        Identify communication 
                               conducted               barriers during        
                                                       overall needs          
                                                       assessment             
Written language assistance Deficiency - language   Draft written language 
plan                        assistance plan not in  assistance plan        
                               writing                 
Availability of             Deficiency - reasonable Translate the hours of 
multilingual                efforts to provide      operation and          
communications              multilingual            remaining information  
                               communications;         on the route           
                               however, several        
                               items found only in     schedules and system   
                               English                 maps into Spanish      
Staff training              No deficiency - staff   None                   
                               aware of and understand 
                               language assistance     
                               plan                    
                               No deficiency -                                
Special language assistance adequate and effective  None
                               methods                 
                               for notification of     
                               language assistance     
Monitoring                  No deficiency - regular Use passenger survey   
                               oversight provided      for additional         
                                                       feedback               
                               No deficiency -         Consider the use of    
Types of language services  adequate mix of oral    alternative, nonverbal 
                               interpretation          
                               and written             methods of             
                               translations            communication          
Grievance or complaint      No deficiency -         Put complaint          
procedures                  adequate complaint      procedure in writing   
                               procedure in            
                               place                   
                               No deficiency -                                
Limited English-proficient  adequate community      None
                               outreach                
community outreach and                              
education                                           

Source: GAO review of the Brownsville Pilot Title VI Assessment on
Language Access.

FTA's Office of Civil Rights has also recently developed an initiative
that focuses on fare and service changes, but FTA's advice to agencies
related to this initiative has not always been consistent. While this
initiative is based on the Executive Order on Environmental Justice, it
does include an LEP component. In 2004, FTA developed and disseminated a
self-assessment (also posted on the FTA's Title VI Web site) to about 20
transit agencies considering fare and service changes. This assessment
included questions about the public involvement process and asked the
transit agency whether it believed outreach to the LEP population was
warranted, and, if so, what steps the transit agency had taken or was
planning to take to inform its LEP population about the service or fare
changes and to offer this population the chance to comment on the changes.
The majority of the agencies that returned this self-assessment reported
that they had taken steps to reach out to their LEP populations using
methods similar to those previously noted in this report, such as posting
information about the upcoming fare increases in multiple languages in
vehicles and stations, advertising the changes in other-language
newspapers, and including interpreters at public meetings established to
discuss the changes. Several of the transit agencies responding to this
initiative stated that they had not engaged in LEP outreach because the
number and proportion of LEP persons in their service areas were very
small (i.e., less than 1 percent). For 1 agency, FTA encouraged the agency
to conduct a further assessment of the LEP population, even though the
agency reported that only 119 residents in its service area (less than 
1/2 of 1 percent) did not speak English well. Yet, in another location,
where the agency reported that only  1/2 of 1 percent of the service area
population was LEP, FTA encouraged the transit agency to monitor
demographic trends to determine whether limited English proficiency may
become more relevant in the future, rather than conduct a further
assessment.

Another of the review processes, the triennial review, looks at whether
transit agencies that receive Urbanized Area Formula Grants have complied
with statutory and administrative requirements in 23 areas, one of which
is Title VI.41 Because this review covers a wide variety of activities and
federal requirements, it is not as in-depth with regard to Title VI as
Title VI compliance reviews. However, the triennial review serves as the
basic review of FTA's oversight program. Under the Title VI section of the
triennial review, specific questions make reference to DOT's LEP guidance:
"Has the grantee assessed and addressed the ability of persons with
limited English proficiency to use transit services? Are schedules and
other public information provided in languages other than English? If yes,
what other languages are provided?" In the triennial review, the grantee
is found deficient only if a complaint has been made and the grantee has
not conducted an assessment of the population and the need for LEP
materials. However, several community and advocacy groups we met with
indicated that there may be language barriers to making a complaint, and,
as we previously discussed, there may be different cultural or social
norms that preclude LEP persons from making complaints (i.e., some persons
may feel

41The triennial review focuses on compliance with statutory and
administrative requirements, and, should the review reveal a deficiency on
the part of the grantee to comply with Title VI-or any other of the 23
oversight topics-further and more detailed reviews will follow to ensure
continued adherence to federal standards. In addition, grantees found not
to be in compliance may have their funding reduced or eliminated. FTA
conducts this review with some of its own personnel, but it also uses
several contractors to complete the review.

that it is not their place to question the government, or may feel
uncomfortable doing so).

Because a deficiency is found only if a complaint has been made and the
agency has not conducted an assessment, findings of deficiencies are rare;
although our case studies and the New Jersey survey of transit agencies
suggest that most agencies have not conducted a language needs
assessment.42 We reviewed 34 triennial reviews conducted in fiscal year
2005 that identified one or more deficiencies in the area of Title VI and
found only one deficiency related to LEP. In 2005, the Fayetteville Area
System of Transit was found deficient for not conducting an assessment of
the extent to which there are LEP persons in its service area. Within 90
days, the agency was to provide FTA with documentation that it had
conducted an LEP assessment and with information on the steps it would
take to address any needs identified.

The third of the three review processes that monitor language access
activities is the planning certification review, which looks at how well
state and regional planning processes comply with DOT planning
regulations.43 This review is conducted jointly by FTA and FHWA and is
also not as in-depth with regard to Title VI as Title VI compliance
reviews. One section of the review guidelines is directed at LEP issues
with regard to public participation in the planning process, but the
review does not incorporate the LEP guidance. The section states that
agencies should "if necessary, make available communications for the
hearing impaired and provide sign and foreign language interpreters." It
is not clear what constitutes a deficiency in these reviews, and during
the past 2 years, there have been no deficiency findings regarding
language.

In addition to the review processes, FTA investigates Title VI complaints
filed by the public alleging national origin discrimination against LEP
persons. These investigations focus on whether a recipient has taken
reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to LEP persons. However,

42Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers, p. 32.

43DOT prepares review guidelines for reviewers at the regional level.
These reviewers may modify their review questions on the basis of regional
differences. Every state and regional planning process is reviewed every 3
years. Of the approximately 400 MPOs across the country, only the largest
one-third of them (in areas with populations over 200,000) is subject to
formal certification. The remaining agencies are required to self-certify.
Over a 3-year period, about 130 to 140 regional planning processes are
reviewed.

                                  Conclusions

FTA has received only one complaint related to language access to date.
The complaint-which was made by West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc.,44
against New York City Transit in November 2000-stated that no opportunity
had been given for community groups to comment on New York City Transit's
capital plan to construct additional bus parking facilities next to an
existing bus depot. The complaint further stated that the capital plan was
not published in Spanish and no monolingual Spanish-speaking resident of
northern Manhattan was afforded the opportunity to comment on the capital
plan. New York City Transit noted that since Executive Order 13166 and the
LEP guidance were issued after the development of its 20002004 capital
program, there was no requirement to issue the plan in any language other
than English at that time. FTA responded that although the executive order
and the LEP guidance were issued subsequent to the issuance of the plan,
New York City Transit should have provided language access under its 1988
Circular on Multilingual Facilities. In resolving the complaint, FTA
requested (1) copies of Spanish translations of public hearing notices and
summaries of the capital program and (2) a report on what steps New York
City Transit had taken to involve the public, including minority,
low-income, and LEP populations, in its 2005-2009 capital planning
process. FTA closed its investigation of this complaint in letters of
finding transmitted in January 2005.

Transit agencies and MPOs across the country are providing a wide variety
of language access services. Determining and providing reasonable and
effective language access to transportation services, however, is not a
clear-cut matter. To do so, an agency must have a strong understanding of
the size and location of the LEP community in its area as well as the
information needs of this community, although such assessments are rarely
done. The agency must then deal with a whole host of issues, such as
determining which language access services to provide and in what
quantity, how translations are to be accomplished, where such materials or
services are best distributed, and how such materials and services are
best publicized to the LEP communities. For agencies in very diverse
areas, the challenges grow exponentially. Specifically, some of the
questions they may need to address are as follows: How many languages
should materials and services be translated into? Is there a threshold
with regard to the size or

44West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc., is a nonprofit, community-based,
environmental justice organization dedicated to building community power
to fight environmental racism and improve environmental health,
protection, and policy in communities of color.

Page 54 GAO-06-52 Language Access to Transportation Services

proportion of different language groups before translations should be
provided? Will translated signs be too complex for transit users to
effectively use? Will the costs of translations, telephone, and Web
services be burdensome, given the relatively light use some of these
services may receive? Furthermore, providing language access is just one
part of a larger communication strategy for these agencies, which can
include determining how to provide useful information in English, how to
communicate with the hearing or sight impaired, or how to deal with
communication to persons with cognitive disabilities. One clear need in
all of these instances is for agencies to outreach to these various
communities and work in partnership to determine and meet a variety of
information needs.

DOT's LEP guidance, and many of the available federal resources, can
provide some assistance to transit agencies and MPOs when facing these
challenges and making decisions about the level of language access to
provide; however, the absence of local agency awareness of the existence
of these resources limits their usefulness. In addition, for some transit
agencies and MPOs, the available assistance was not effective in helping
them answer some of the difficult questions previously outlined, because
the assistance does not provide much information on what a good language
and needs assessment contains, or how one is done. It also does not
provide templates or examples of effective language access plans, nor does
it provide much help in determining how to monitor and judge the
effectiveness of agencies' language access activities. Given the lack of
data available on the effectiveness of services, the availability of such
assistance takes on greater importance. More direct dissemination of the
LEP guidance and available assistance, and the development of additional
assistance related to conducting assessments, developing plans, and
monitoring the effectiveness of language access activities could help
connect local agencies with information and resources that may help them
improve access to their services for LEP persons.

While complaints concerning language access are rare, transit agencies'
and MPOs' language access efforts are often perceived by community groups
to be lacking in certain areas, particularly with regard to the inclusion
of such communities in decision-making processes, thus opening up the
potential for further complaints against these agencies for not providing
reasonable language access. At present, however, monitoring and oversight
activities conducted by FTA and, to a lesser extent, FHWA, are not likely
to remedy perceived gaps in the provision of language access, due to the
inconsistencies in scope and criteria for what constitutes a deficiency.
For example, one of the chief complaints of community groups

  Recommendations for Executive Action

is the lack of involvement of LEP communities or the community groups that
represent them, in decision-making processes; however, planning
certification reviews do not look at involvement per se, but rather they
focus on whether interpreters were provided at public meetings "if
necessary." Furthermore, FTA's pilot review of language access, which used
DOT's LEP guidance, revealed several deficiencies that would not have been
found under current review processes, and these deficiencies can commonly
be found across countless numbers of agencies. It is important, though, to
consider that findings of deficiency, such as those found under the pilot
review, do not necessarily indicate that an agency has been
discriminatory. Nonetheless, further incorporation of key aspects of DOT's
LEP guidance in existing review processes and consistent criteria for what
constitutes a deficiency could help transit agencies and MPOs understand
their responsibilities under the executive order and DOT's LEP guidance
and lead to improved services for LEP persons.

To improve awareness and understanding of DOT funding recipients'
responsibilities to provide language access services, we recommend that,
upon final issuance of DOT's LEP guidance, the Secretary of the Department
of Transportation ensure that the guidance is distributed to all DOT
funding recipients through a policy memorandum or other direct methods and
direct regional personnel to make grantees in their areas fully aware of
the existence of the guidance, and of grantee responsibilities under the
guidance.

To enhance and improve transit agencies' and MPOs' language access
activities, we recommend that the Secretary, when issuing DOT's revised
LEP guidance, take the following two actions:

     o Provide additional technical assistance, such as templates or
       examples, to aid these agencies in developing assessments of the size,
       location, and needs of the LEP population; plans for implementing
       language access services; and evaluations of the effectiveness of
       agencies' language access services.
     o Publicize the availability of existing federal resources on LEP
       issues, including workshops, http://www.lep.gov, peer-exchange
       programs, and available training to transit agencies and MPOs, and
       make these resources easily accessible through an explicit link to LEP
       Assistance on the Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program's
       Web site.

                                Agency Comments

To ensure that transit agencies and MPOs understand their responsibilities
to provide language access, and to ensure that they are providing adequate
language access to their services and their transportation planning and
decision-making processes, we recommend that the Secretary more fully
incorporate the revised LEP guidance into current review processes by
taking the following three actions:

     o Include questions on whether agencies have conducted assessments, have
       language access plans, and have evaluation and monitoring mechanisms
       in place in Title VI compliance reviews and triennial reviews.
     o Include more specific questions regarding language access to the
       planning process and involvement of LEP communities in planning
       certification reviews.
     o Establish consistent norms for what constitutes a deficiency in the
       provision of language access across and within these review processes,
       ensuring that what constitutes a deficiency could directly lead to
       lesser service for LEP persons or complaints against the agency.

We obtained comments on a draft of this report from DOT officials who
generally agreed with the findings and recommendations in the report.
These officials also provided technical clarifications, which we
incorporated in the report as appropriate. In particular, the officials
said that DOT is already planning to take actions to address some of our
recommendations, including ensuring that its revised LEP guidance is fully
and appropriately distributed, and enhancing its training and technical
assistance to grantees.

We also provided DOJ with an opportunity to comment on segments of the
report that pertain to DOJ processes and policies. DOJ provided technical
clarifications, which we incorporated in the report as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees and to the Secretary and other appropriate officials of the
Department of Transportation. We will also make copies available to others
upon request. The report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at http://www.gao.gov. In addition, translated summaries of this
report are available in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean
at www.gao.gov/special.pubs/translations.

Page 57 GAO-06-52 Language Access to Transportation Services

Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/translations .

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-2834 or at [email protected]. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the
last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this
report are listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,

Katherine Siggerud Director, Physical Infrastructure 

Appendix I                             

Scope and Methodology

To determine the types of language access services that transit agencies
and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) provide to limited
English-proficiency (LEP) populations, we visited seven metropolitan
statistical areas in Arkansas, California, Illinois, North Carolina, and
Texas. We used

U.S. Census Bureau data to select site visit locations, on the basis of
the size and proportion of the LEP population, the number of languages
spoken, the growth of the LEP population, and the extent of public transit
use, to capture a variety of different circumstances agencies may face in
providing language access services. We eliminated from our site visits
areas that had recently had in-depth reviews by the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), as well as agencies that had been highlighted in a
recent report for best practices in providing LEP access, to broaden the
limited amount of research and data available in this area. Notable areas
eliminated from our potential site visits for these reasons included New
York, New York; Washington, D.C.; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle,
Washington.1 The relevant statistics for the seven areas we visited are
presented in table 4.

 Table 4: Census Data on Language Ability and Transit Use for Seven Site Visit
                                   Locations

                                                                     Estimated
            Total population Percentage Percentage               percentage of 
                                     of                                    LEP 
            aged 5 years and population change in              persons aged 16 
                                     in persons                
           over in 2000 that  2000 that that spoke Major        years and over 
                                  spoke English    languages   
  Metropolitan         spoke English     less than spoken by      using public 
                     English less than        well the LEP     
  statistical area less than       well  1990-2000 population  transportationa 
                        well                                   
  Los Angeles/     2,024,765       12.4       30.0 Spanish,               14.5 
                                                   Chinese,    
  Riverside/Orange                                 Vietnamese, 
                                                   and         
  County,                                          Korean      
  California                                                   
  San Francisco/     551,266        7.8       59.0 Spanish,               16.3 
                                                   Chinese,    
  Oakland/San                                      Vietnamese, 
  Jose,                                            and         
  California                                       Korean      
  Chicago/Gary/      522,238        5.7       75.0 Spanish,               11.9 
                                                   Polish,     
  Kenosha,                                         Chinese,    
  Illinois,                                        and Korean  
  Indiana,                                                     
  Wisconsin                                                    
  Austin/San          67,115        5.4      209.0 Spanish and            10.5 
  Marcos,                                                      
  Texas                                            Vietnamese  

1For more information on the specific language access activities of the
main transit agencies in these four areas, see Dr. Rongfang (Rachel) Liu,
Mobility Information Needs of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Travelers
in New Jersey (December 2004). Dr. Liu prepared this study for the New
Jersey Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration.

Page 59 GAO-06-52 Language Access to Transportation Services Appendix I
Scope and Methodology

(Continued From Previous Page)
                                                                    Estimated
            Total population Percentage Percentage              percentage of 
                                     of                                   LEP 
            aged 5 years and population change in             persons aged 16 
                                     in persons               
           over in 2000 that  2000 that that spoke Major       years and over 
                                  spoke English    languages  
Metropolitan        spoke English     less than spoken by     using public 
                     English less than        well the LEP    
statistical area     less       well  1990-2000 population transportationa 
                        than                                  
                        well                                  
                                                   Spanish                    
Raleigh/Durham/    38,365        3.2      607.0 and                    3.8
                                                   Chinese    
Chapel Hill, North                                         
Carolina                                                   
Greensboro/        33,633        2.7      544.0 Spanish                1.1 
                                                   and        
Winston-Salem/                                  Vietnamese 
High Point, North                                          
Carolina                                                   
Fayetteville/       9,621        3.1    1,892.0 Spanish               0.0b 
                                                   and        
Springdale/                                     Vietnamese 
Rogers, Arkansas                                           

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

aAll estimated percentages have margins of error not exceeding plus or
minus 2.5 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.

bAt the time of the 2000 Census, transit service in this area was
predominantly demand-response. Since then, Ozark Regional Transit has
begun some limited fixed-route service.

We conducted semistructured interviews with officials from 20 transit
agencies and 7 MPOs in these locations who were responsible for some facet
of providing language access services. We interviewed officials from
various departments, including operations, marketing, public affairs,
community relations, training, civil rights, and planning. At smaller
agencies, we interviewed the general managers as well as other agency
officials. We chose agencies in each location according to their size and
characteristics. For example, we interviewed the largest transit agency in
each location, and where there were several transit agencies operating, we
then interviewed the next largest agencies. In certain locations, such as
the Southern California area and the San Francisco Bay Area, we were
unable to interview all of the agencies in the area due to the large
number of transit agencies. In these areas, we chose additional agencies
on the basis of different operating characteristics. For example, in Los
Angeles, California, we chose to interview the major provider of
specialized transit services for persons with disabilities, whereas, in
the San Francisco Bay Area, we chose a suburban bus system to complement
the urban systems we were obtaining information on. We also interviewed
officials from the major MPOs in areas we visited. In some cases, an MPO
also may provide some level of transportation service. For example, the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay Area
operates the region's 511 transportation information lines. In these
instances, we did not

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

count such agencies as transit agencies, but we included the services they
provide in the appropriate section of this report.

We structured the agency interviews on the basis of the elements of the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) LEP guidance and the findings of
previous research and surveys conducted of the language access activities
of transit agencies. During our interviews, we discussed the types of
language access activities provided in terms of day-to-day transportation
services and in the planning and decision-making process; we also
discussed the costs and effects of these services. We also reviewed
documents and other information in support of the language access services
provided by transit agencies and MPOs.

We also interviewed representatives from 16 community and advocacy groups
in the areas we visited as well as representatives from national advocacy
groups, such as the National Council of La Raza, the Center for Community
Change, and the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. We chose
groups in the locations we visited on the basis of recommendations from
these national groups, FTA regional officials, transit agency officials,
and our own research into the transportation issues in these areas. We
structured these interviews in order to understand the perspectives of
these community and advocacy groups with regard to how transit agencies
and MPOs in the areas are providing access to their services to the
communities these groups serve, and the effects of these services on
meeting the needs of LEP communities. The agencies and groups we included
in our interviews are listed in table 5.

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

 Table 5: Transit Agencies, MPOs, and Community and Advocacy Groups Interviewed

Metropolitan statistical Agency or group name     Description              
area                                              
                            Los Angeles County       The primary provider of  
Los Angeles/             Metropolitan             bus, subway, and         
                                                     light-rail transit       
Riverside/Orange County, Transportation Authority services within the      
                                                     county of Los Angeles.   
California                                        A paratransit service    
                            Access Services          provider in the Southern 
                                                     California               
                                                     region.                  
                            Orange County            The second largest       
                            Transportation           transit provider in      
                                                     Southern California,     
                            Authority                serving Orange County.   
                            Southern California      Metropolitan planning    
                            Association of           organizations (MPO) for  
                                                     the Southern             
                            Governments              California region.       
                            Los Angeles Busrider's   An organization in Los   
                            Union                    Angeles that seeks to    
                                                     promote                  
                                                     environmentally          
                                                     sustainable public       
                                                     transportation for the   
                                                     entire                   
                                                     population of Los        
                                                     Angeles.                 
                            Alameda Corridor Jobs    A grass roots            
                            Coalition                organization that        
                                                     represents 35 other      
                                                     community-based          
                                                     organizations in Los     
                                                     Angeles, whose goal is   
                                                     to secure jobs and       
                                                     careers that offer       
                                                     communities living wages 
                                                     and ethical benefits.    
                            Center for Community     A social justice         
                            Change                   organization. Part of    
                                                     the center is the        
                                                     Transportation Equity    
                                                     Project that seeks to    
                                                     advance equity in        
                                                     transportation planning  
                                                     and policy.              
                            Asian Pacific American   Provides Asian and       
                            Legal Center             Pacific Islander and     
                                                     other communities        
                                                     with multilingual,       
                                                     culturally sensitive     
                                                     services and legal       
                                                     education.               
                            Legal Aid Foundation of  The frontline law firm   
                            Los Angeles              for low-income people in 
                                                     Los Angeles.             
                            Africans in America      A community group in     
                            Community                South Los Angeles that   
                                                     represents               
                            Resource Center          Africans living in       
                                                     Southern California.     
                                                     A grassroots,            
                            South Asian Network      community-based          
                                                     organization dedicated   
                                                     to                       
                                                     advancing the health,    
                                                     empowerment, and         
                                                     solidarity of persons    
                                                     of South Asian origin in 
                                                     Southern California.     

Appendix I Scope and Methodology Appendix I Scope and Methodology

(Continued From Previous Page)
Metropolitan        Agency or group name   Description                     
statistical area                           
                       Municipal              The primary provider of bus and 
San Francisco/      Transportation Agency  rail transit services in the    
                                              city                            
Oakland/San Jose,                          of San Francisco.               
California                                 
                       San Francisco Bay Area A regional rail transit         
                       Rapid Transit          provider serving the            
                                              nine-county Bay                 
                       District               Area.                           
                       Alameda-Contra Costa   The primary bus transit         
                       Transit District       provider in the city of Oakland 
                                              and the                         
                                              counties of Alameda and Contra  
                                              Costa.                          
              Golden Gate Transit             The primary bus transit         
                                              provider in Marin County.       
                  Metropolitan Transportation MPO for the nine-county Bay     
                                              Area.                           
                   Commission                 
              Chinatown Community Development The center provides services in 
                                              six work areas-programs,        
                     Center                   advocacy and organizing,        
                                              planning, housing development,  
                                              property management, and tenant 
                                              services-and has done           
                                              some work in the provision of   
                                              public transportation in its    
                                              community.                      
                  Rescue MUNI                 A transit advocacy organization 
                                              for the city of San Francisco.  
                 Urban Habitat                An advocacy and organizing      
                                              group that seeks to connect     
                                              environmentalists, social       
                                              justice advocates, government   
                                              leaders, and the business       
                                              community.                      
                      Chicago Transit         Chicago Transit Authority       
Chicago/Gary/      Authority               serves Chicago and 40 suburbs   
                                              with                            
Kenosha, Illinois,                         its extensive train lines and   
Indiana,                                   bus routes.                     
Wisconsin          PACE Suburban Bus       The provider of bus service to  
                                              Chicago's six-county suburbs.   
                      METRA Commuter Rail     The provider of commuter rail   
                                              service between the downtown    
                                              Chicago business district and   
                                              the counties of Cook, DuPage,   
                                              Lake, Will, McHenry, and Kane.  
            Regional Transportation Authority The financial oversight and     
                                              regional planning body for the  
                                              three public transit operators  
                                              in northeastern Illinois: the   
                                              Chicago Transit Authority,      
                                              METRA commuter rail, and PACE   
                                              suburban bus.                   
            Chicago Area Transportation Study MPO for the northeastern        
                                              Illinois region.                
                                              An advocacy group based in      
           Center for Neighborhood Technology Chicago with a mission to       
                                              invent                          
                                              and implement new tools and     
                                              methods that create livable     
                                              urban communities for everyone. 
             Chicago Chinese Community Center The primary community provider  
                                              of services to Chicago          
                                              Chinatown residents.            

(Continued From Previous Page)
Metropolitan statistical  Agency or group name Description                 
area                                           
                                                  The primary provider of bus 
Austin/San Marcos, Texas  Capital Metro        transit services in the     
                                                  city of                     
                                                  Austin.                     
                                                  The provider of bus transit 
                Capital Area Rural Transportation service in the counties of  
                                                  Bastrop,                    
                       System                     Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell,   
                                                  Fayette, Hays, Lee, Travis, 
                                                  and                         
                                                  Williamson.                 
               Capital Area Metropolitan Planning MPO for Williamson, Travis, 
                                                  and Hays counties.          
                    Organization                  
                                                  An organization that seeks  
                    Just Transportation Alliances to organize people with     
                                                  disabilities,               
                                                  seniors, low-income         
                                                  individuals, and others for 
                                                  equitable                   
                                                  transportation through      
                                                  state and local alliances.  
                                                  A grass-roots organization  
                        Poder (Bus Rider's Union) that advocates for the      
                                                  Hispanic                    
                                                  communities in Austin.      
                                                  The primary provider of bus 
Fayetteville/        Razorback Transit         transit services in the     
                                                  city of                     
Springdale/                                    Fayetteville, with the vast 
                                                  majority of its ridership   
                                                  consisting of               
Rogers, Arkansas                               students and faculty at the 
                                                  University of Arkansas.     
                        Ozark Regional Transit, a The primary provider of bus 
                                   public transit transit and demand-response 
                         system managed by First  transit services, serving   
                                 Transit          both the urban and rural    
                                                  areas of                    
                                                  Benton, Carroll, Madison,   
                                                  and Washington counties.    
                      Northwest Arkansas Regional The designated MPO for      
                                                  transportation in northwest 
                Planning Commission               Arkansas.                   
                                                  A community center in       
                  Rogers Community Support Center Rogers, Arkansas, that      
                                                  provides                    
                                                  information and assistance  
                                                  to members of the           
                                                  community.                  
Raleigh/Durham/Chapel                          The provider of bus transit 
Hill,                   Capital Area Transit   services in the city of     
                                                  Raleigh.                    
North Carolina; and     Durham Area Transit    The provider of bus and     
Greensboro/             Authority Chapel Hill  paratransit services,       
Winston-Salem/ High     Transit                serving all parts of        
Point, North Carolina                          Durham, including Research  
                                                  Triangle Park. The provider 
                                                  of bus transit services     
                                                  throughout the Chapel Hill, 
                                                  Carrboro, and University of 
                                                  North Carolina community.   
                           Triangle Transit       The provider of regional    
                           Authority              bus transit services in     
                                                  Research                    
                                                  Triangle Park, connecting   
                                                  to the cities of Raleigh    
                                                  and Chapel                  
                                                  Hill.                       
                                                  The primary provider of bus 
                     Greensboro Transit Authority transit services in the     
                                                  city of                     
                                                  Greensboro.                 
                  Capital Area MPO                MPO for the Raleigh/Durham  
                                                  metropolitan area.          
                           Durham-Chapel Hill MPO MPO for the western part of 
                                                  the Research Triangle Area. 
                                                  A nonprofit,                
                 El Centro Hispano                community-based             
                                                  organization based in       
                                                  Durham                      
                                                  dedicated to Latino         
                                                  empowerment through         
                                                  education and               
                                                  leadership development.     

Source: GAO.

We also conducted interviews with officials within the Texas, California,
and North Carolina departments of transportation and conducted additional
Internet research of state departments of transportation, to determine how
these agencies were involved in providing or monitoring language access.
Furthermore, we requested that the Community

Page 64 GAO-06-52 Language Access to Transportation Services Appendix I
Scope and Methodology

Transportation Association of America, which operates a list-serve of Job
Access and Reverse Commute grantees, send a query requesting that any
grantees involved in providing language access services under those grants
provide information on the types of services they offer. We received two
responses from this query.

We complemented these case studies and interviews with findings from a
survey of transit agencies across the country and surveys and focus groups
with LEP persons in New Jersey conducted for the New Jersey Department of
Transportation.2 We reviewed the methodology of this study and found it to
be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. However, the
results of the surveys and focus groups reported in this study cannot be
generalized to the full universe of transit agencies or LEP persons.
Rather, we used the findings in this study to provide additional
information on the types of strategies that agencies use as well as the
types of challenges that LEP populations face.

We synthesized the information we collected from the site visits,
structured interviews, and the New Jersey study. We analyzed this
information to identify major themes, commonalities, and differences in
the level of language access provided by transit agencies and MPOs. We
observed that almost all transit agencies and MPOs we visited provided
some level of language access services, although levels varied across
agencies and locations. Because these findings are based on a
nonprobability sample of case studies and a survey of 32 transit agencies,
they cannot be generalized to the full universe of transit agencies or
MPOs across the country.3 These case studies are meant to highlight the
variety of different strategies agencies may use to improve communication
with LEP persons, as well as key themes that emerge under various
circumstances.

To understand how DOT assists local agencies in providing language access
services, we interviewed officials at the Offices of Civil Rights in FTA
and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), representatives from the
National Transit Institute and the National Highway Institute, and DOT
regional officials. During our interviews, we identified and discussed
various resources available that may include information on language

2Liu, Mobility Information Needs of LEP Travelers.

3Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences
about a population because in a nonprobability sample, some elements of
the population being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being
selected as part of the sample.

Page 65 GAO-06-52 Language Access to Transportation Services Appendix I
Scope and Methodology

access activities, including training curricula and workshops. We
interviewed officials from FHWA offices in California, Maryland, and New
Jersey regarding some of their LEP activities, such as hosting workshops
at annual conferences and other assistance they have provided grantees. We
reviewed Executive Order 13166, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) and
DOT's draft LEP guidance, other federal laws and regulations, and research
related to providing access to services to LEP populations. We requested
copies of identified trainings and reviewed them. We also identified and
reviewed other various DOT resources and other federal resources to
determine whether language access issues were addressed, including
http://www.lep.gov and peer-exchange programs maintained by FTA and FHWA.

To understand the extent to which local agencies are accessing DOT's
resources, we discussed with local agency officials their awareness and
implementation of DOT's LEP guidance. We also discussed with these
officials whether the agency has accessed DOT's resources and, if so, had
the resources been helpful in the provision of language access activities.
In addition, we reviewed Web statistics for materials available on the
Internet for additional information on how often those materials were
accessed.

To document how FTA and FHWA monitor transit agencies' and MPOs' provision
of language access services for LEP populations, we interviewed officials
from the FTA Office of Civil Rights; the FTA Office of Program Management;
and FHWA's Office of Planning, Environment and Realty. We also interviewed
FTA regional representatives from Arkansas, California, Illinois, North
Carolina, and Texas. We reviewed oversight documents pertaining to Title
VI compliance reviews, triennial reviews, and planning certification
reviews to determine how language access is considered by these reviews
(i.e., specific questions regarding language access activities) and to
what degree these reviews incorporate DOT's LEP guidance. In addition, we
collected available data on any findings from these reviews to analyze the
extent to which norms have been developed for reviewers to determine
whether deficiencies are found and reported. Furthermore, we reviewed the
status and outcomes of LEP complaints.

We conducted our work from February 2005 through October 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II

Resources Available on Providing Language Access for Transportation Services

o  Executive Order 13166 Improving Access to Services for Persons with

  Provision of Language

Limited English Proficiency: Executive Order 13166 was signed by

President Clinton in 2000. It clarifies federal agencies and their grant
recipients' responsibilities under Title VI, to make their services
accessible to LEP populations. http://usdoj.gov/crt/cor/Pubs/eolep.htm

        * DOT Guidance to Recipients on Special Language Services to Limited
          English Proficient (LEP) Beneficiaries: DOT's guidance was issued
          in 2001. It discusses strategies for providing services to LEP
          persons and outlines a five-step framework to an effective language
          access program as well as innovative practices.
        * http://usdoj.gov/crt/cor/lep/dotlep.htm
        * Federal Interagency Working Group on Limited-English Proficiency:
          The http://www.lep.gov Web site, maintained by DOJ, serves as a
          clearinghouse, providing and linking information, tools, and
          technical assistance regarding LEP and language services for
          federal agencies, recipients of federal funds, and users of federal
          programs and federally assisted programs. The Web site includes a
          self-assessment tool and an overview of how to develop a language
          assistance plan with performance measures. There is also a video
          available from the Web site on LEP access issues that could be used
          in training for customer service personnel at transit agencies.
        * http://www.lep.gov
     o FTA Title VI Web site: FTA's Title VI Web site provides information
       and resources on Title VI, including links to Executive Order 13166,
       DOT's LEP guidance, and http://www.lep.gov.
       http://fta.dot.gov/16241_ENG_HTML.htm
          * FHWA Office of Civil Rights Web site: FHWA's Office of Civil
            Rights Web site provides links to Title VI, Executive Order
            13166, and DOT's LEP guidance.
          * http://fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/nondis.htm
     o Workshop entitled How to Identify Limited English Proficient (LEP)
       Populations in Your Locality: This workshop was given by FHWA at the
       American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official's
       2004 Civil Rights Conference. The workshop provides information on the
       LEP executive order, DOT's LEP guidance, and specific information

Appendix II Resources Available on Providing Language Access for
Transportation Services

about what resources can be used to identify LEP populations.

http://fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/confworkshops04.htm

        * FTA's Innovative Practices to Increase Ridership: The Web site
          serves as a central information resource on innovative strategies
          on various topics. Innovative practices are submitted by transit
          organizations, reviewed by FTA, and are then made available for
          other transit organizations to search records, review innovations,
          and potentially implement similar programs. Innovative practices
          regarding language access services are available.
        * http://ftawebprod.fta.dot.gov/bpir/
        * FTA and FHWA's Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program:
          Users can search various topics to find out if like sized or any
          type of agency has posted any helpful information on those topics.
          Information regarding language access services is available.
        * http://planning.dot.gov/
        * National Transit Institute course entitled Public Involvement in
          Transportation Decision-Making: This course includes is a section
          on ensuring that nontraditional participants, that is, minority,
          low-income, and LEP populations are included in the public
          involvement process that is associated with transportation
          planning.
        * http://ntionline.com/
        * National Highway Institute course entitled Fundamentals of Title
          VI/Environmental Justice and Public Involvement in the
          Transportation Decision-Making Process: These courses include a
          discussion on language access issues in the planning process.
        * http://nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/
        * Caltrans Title VI Web site: Caltrans' Title VI Web site includes
          information and resources on Title VI and links to FHWA's Office of
          Civil Rights training resources, the Web site for the Civil Rights
          Division of DOJ, and lep.gov. In addition, there are three training
          videos available for free, one specifically on the language
          assistance for LEP persons.
        * http://dot.ca.gov/hq/bep/title_vi/t6_index.htm
     o Mobility Information Needs of Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
       Travelers in New Jersey: A report written by Dr. Rongfang (Rachel)
       Liu, prepared for the New Jersey Department of Transportation/Federal

Appendix II Resources Available on Providing Language Access for Transportation
                                    Services

Highway Administration. December 2004.

http://transportation.njit.edu/nctip/final_report/LEP.htm

o  The Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process: Key Issues: A

  Community

Briefing Notebook for Transportation Decisionmakers, Officials, and Staff:
Published by the Transportation Planning Capacity Building Transportation
Program, this document has information on public participation,

including sections on Title VI and Environmental Justice.
http://planning.dot.gov/documents/BriefingBook/BBook.htm

        * Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision-Making:
          Published by FHWA, this document discusses public involvement
          techniques for transportation decision making for ethnic, minority,
          and low-income groups, such as including community groups that may
          provide access to individuals and can serve as forums for
          participation.
        * http://fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/contents.htm
        * Final report September 2002: Title VI Challenge Grant from the
          Federal Transit Administration to the National Capital Region
          Transportation Planning Board: This report outlines recommendations
          for how to include communities not typically involved in the
          transportation planning process. Included in the report is a
          discussion concerning LEP issues.
        * http://planning.dot.gov/Documents/EnvJustice/EJFinalReport.htm
     o Innovations in Public Involvement for Transportation Planning: This
       document discusses techniques for getting the public involved in
       transportation planning, such as using surveys with questions in
       languages other than English and accessible to persons with
       disabilities.

http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/trans.html

Appendix III

                     GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Kate Siggerud (202) 512-2834 or [email protected]

  GAO Contact

In addition to the individual named above, Rita Grieco, Assistant
Director;

  Staff

Michelle Dresben; Edda Emmanuelli-Perez; Harriet Ganson; Joel

Grossman; Diane Harper; Charlotte Kea; Grant Mallie; John M. Miller; Sara
Ann Moessbauer; Marisela Perez; Ryan Vaughan; Andrew Von Ah; Mindi
Weisenbloom; and Alwynne Wilbur made key contributions to this report.

  GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov) . Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

                             Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

  To Report Fraud, Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

  E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
Washington, D.C. 20548

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

  Public Affairs

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

    PRINTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***