attachment 1 - new york state department of transportation · attachment 1 lep guide (may 2011)...

Attachment 1 LEP Guide (May 2011) Data Source: 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS)

Data Updated by 2011

Attachment 1:

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY (LEP) Guide

This attachment contains Regional profiles with data and demographic information

on LEP for each of the NYSDOT Regions, based on the American Community

Survey 2005-2009

Part One - Regional Profiles and Statewide Profiles

Part Two - Using Census Data

Part Three - Accessing Census Data

Part Four - Challenges and Limitations of Census

2000 vs. ACS 2005-2009 Data

Part Five - An Important Note on Confounding

Variables, or Outliers

Part Six - Summary of Findings

Part Seven - Practical Conclusions and Lessons

Learned

Part Eight - Policy Guidance



LEP Guide: Table of Contents Part Page

Number

Part One - Regional Profiles and Statewide Profiles 3

I. NYSDOT Regional Profile: Geographic Analysis 4 II. Breakdown of LEP Data by Census Language Groups:

County Level Maps 5

III. LEP Data at the County Level: Maps 6 IV. Regional Language Group Profiles at the County Level: 2005-

2009 ACS Census Charts* 8

V. LEP Language Groups at the City Level: Census Charts 12 VI. Top LEP Cities in NYS by LEP Population and by Percent of

Residents: 2005-2009 ACS Census 12

VII. LEP Regional Language Groups Profiles at the City Level 13 VIII. Regional Demographic Information 17

Part Two - Using Census Data 34

Part Three - Accessing Census Data 38

Part Four - Challenges and Limitations of Census 2000 vs. ACS 2005- 2009 Data

40

Part Five - An Important Note on Confounding Variables, or Outliers 43

Part Six - Summary of Findings 45

Part Seven - Practical Conclusions and Lessons Learned 46

Part Eight - Policy Guidance 47



Part One - Regional Profiles and Statewide Profiles Source of Data: All of the data presented in this part of the Appendix is

from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey, created by the US Census Bureau.

Definition of LEP Census Language Groups The LEP population is divided into four language groups:

“Spanish”

“Other Indo-European Languages”

“Asian and Pacific Island Languages”

“All Other Languages.”

These language groups consist of the following languages:

NOTE: There are two types of maps available: thematic and chart maps. Thematic maps use shades of color to indicate the total number of LEP residents. Chart maps show the LEP population by the proportion belonging to the four main language groups as outlined in the census.



I. NYSDOT Regional Profile: Geographic Analysis

NYSDOT Regional Map of LEP by Census Language Groups

LEP Population by NYSDOT Regional Location and Statewide Ranking

Region

Ranking

Statewide

by Region

Total

LEP

LEP as %

of Total

Population

Region 1 – Capital District 6th

25,850 2%

Region 2 – Mohawk Valley 9th

12,753 2%

Region 3 - Central New York 7th

20,190 2%

Region 4 - Genesee Valley 4th

35,020 2%

Region 5 - Western New York 5th

34,855 2%

Region 6 - Central Southern Tier 11th

4,366 2%

Region 7 - North Country 10th

7,407 2%

Region 8 - Hudson Valley 3rd

200,382 7%

Region 9 - Southern Tier 8th

10,898 2%

Region 10 - Long Island 2nd

237,913 9%

Region 11 – NYC 1st 1,765,530 21%



II. Breakdown of LEP Data by Census Language Groups: County Level Maps



III. LEP Data at the County Level: Maps



IV. Regional Language Group Profiles at the County Level: 2005-2009 ACS Census Charts *

* Yellow highlights indicate the area has a significant LEP population, which is defined as 1,000 or more individuals or 5% of the total population.

NOTE: For each region, the top five languages have been identified. These languages can be found amongst the four language groups identified in the Census (Spanish, Other Indo-European Languages, Asian and Pacific Island Languages, All Other Languages).

Region 1*

County

Spanish or

Spanish Creole:

Chinese: Italian:

French (incl.

Patois, Cajun):

Russian: Other LEP % LEP

Albany 2,657 1,398 889 662 361 4,434 10,401 4%

Essex 312 33 47 44 104 290 830 2%

Greene 746 63 50 49 40 411 1,359 3%

Rensselaer 982 672 255 193 117 1,422 3,641 2%

Saratoga 917 258 119 174 170 1,461 3,099 2%

Schenectady 1,628 453 676 272 252 1,604 4,885 3%

Warren 266 37 50 98 50 303 804 1%

Washington 480 35 14 94 29 179 831 1%

Total 7,988 2,949 2,100 1,586 1,123 10,104 25,850 3%

Region 2*

County

Spanish or

Spanish Creole:

Serbo-Croatian:

Russian: Polish: Italian: Other LEP % LEP

Fulton 153 0 18 17 54 239 481 1%

Hamilton 0 0 4 0 16 26 46 1%

Herkimer 316 14 247 19 52 256 904 2%

Madison 310 22 30 12 25 328 727 1%

Montgomery 1,315 0 0 222 119 462 2,118 5%

Oneida 2,460 1,849 827 440 353 2,548 8,477 4%

Total 4,554 1,885 1,126 710 619 3,859 12,753 3%



Region 3

County

Spanish or

Spanish Creole:

Chinese: Korean: Italian: Vietnamese: Other LEP % LEP

Cayuga 476 25 3 101 0 352 957 1%

Cortland 324 0 0 46 0 261 631 1%

Onondaga 3,586 1,181 454 742 963 5,998 12,924 3%

Oswego 586 29 27 67 0 531 1,240 1%

Seneca 158 6 0 16 0 317 497 2%

Tompkins 386 985 659 89 15 1807 3,941 4%

Total 5,516 2,226 1,143 1,061 978 9,266 20,190 3%

Region 4

County

Spanish or

Spanish Creole:

Italian: Chinese Vietnamese Other Slavic

languages Other LEP % LEP

Genesee 438 13 29 14 0 196 690 1%

Livingston 501 0 55 35 9 181 781 1%

Monroe 10,107 2,423 1,840 1,778 1,667 10,956 28,771 4%

Ontario 911 27 104 14 8 613 1,677 2%

Orleans 402 15 7 0 0 241 665 2%

Wayne 1,079 114 30 44 20 508 1,795 2%

Wyoming 484 14 0 0 0 143 641 2%

Total 13,922 2,606 2,065 1,885 1,704 12,838 35,020 3%

Region 5

County

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

Chinese Italian Polish Arabic Other LEP % LEP

Cattaraugus 262 36 48 15 74 967 1,402 2%

Chautauqua 1,758 176 178 39 18 836 3,005 2%

Erie 8,488 2,133 1,971 2,135 1,573 11,090 27,390 3%

Niagara 767 260 254 232 84 1461 3,058 2%

Total 11,275 2,605 2,451 2,421 1,749 14,354 34,855 3%



Region 6

County

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

Other West Germanic languages

German Chinese

French (incl.

Patois, Cajun)

Other LEP % LEP

Allegany 135 201 90 104 16 141 687 1%

Chemung 624 0 66 22 98 419 1,229 1%

Schuyler 112 36 11 0 0 25 184 1%

Steuben 303 119 156 125 86 409 1,198 1%

Yates 178 476 274 19 8 113 1,068 5%

Total 1,352 832 597 270 208 1,107 4,366 2%

Region 7

County

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

French (incl.

Patois, Cajun)

Chinese Korean Russian Other LEP % LEP

Clinton 416 308 77 15 153 366 1,335 2%

Franklin 658 94 97 77 57 394 1,377 3%

Jefferson 735 240 126 211 70 1,013 2,395 2%

Lewis 126 21 13 0 11 153 324 1%

St. Lawrence 591 149 219 64 61 892 1,976 2%

Total 2,526 812 532 367 352 2,818 7,407 2%

Region 8

County

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

Yiddish Italian Chinese

Portuguese or

Portuguese Creole

Other LEP % LEP

Columbia 465 0 27 121 1 736 1,350 2%

Dutchess 6,731 0 714 1,270 181 3,541 12,437 5%

Orange 16,284 8,663 709 712 79 4,663 31,110 9%

Putnam 2,304 0 380 102 131 1,421 4,338 5%

Rockland 14,816 9,480 661 1,139 80 13,409 39,585 14%

Ulster 3,576 16 384 382 47 1,948 6,353 4%

Westchester 67,600 223 6,494 3,013 6,137 21,742 105,209 12%

Total 111,776 18,382 9,369 6,739 6,656 47,460 200,382 9%



Region 9

County

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

Italian Chinese Russian Polish Other LEP % LEP

Broome 751 553 440 376 221 2,470 4,811 3%

Chenango 292 56 0 47 70 235 700 1%

Delaware 297 96 27 8 9 272 709 2%

Otsego 338 81 153 49 11 316 948 2%

Schoharie 36 18 0 32 38 120 244 1%

Sullivan 2,006 24 106 158 91 740 3,125 4%

Tioga 171 42 16 35 7 90 361 1%

Total 3,891 870 742 705 447 4,243 10,898 2%

Region 10

County

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

Italian Chinese Korean French Creole

Other LEP % LEP

Nassau 58,167 10,792 7,362 5,917 3,888 35,572 121,698 10%

Suffolk 73,362 5,500 5,281 2,037 3,794 26,241 116,215 8%

Total 131,529 16,292 12,643 7,954 7,682 61,813 237,913 9%

Region 11

County

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

Chinese Russian Other Indic languages

Korean Other LEP % LEP

Bronx 256,558 4,620 2,830 5,835 1,999 40,889 312,731 25%

Kings 194,246 95,314 87,493 9,630 2,560 156,664 545,907 23%

New York 160,054 48,228 3,929 1,780 3,910 35,907 253,808 17%

Queens 265,345 103,235 22,093 36,050 36,447 139,015 602,185 28%

Richmond 17,053 6,644 6,410 1,291 2,016 17,485 50,899 11%

Total 893,256 258,041 122,755 54,586 46,932 389,960 1,765,530 23%



V. LEP Language Groups at the City Level: Census Charts

VI. Top LEP Cities in NYS by LEP Population and by Percent of Residents: 2005-2009 ACS Census

* Yellow highlights indicate the area has a significant LEP population, as defined by 1,000 or more individuals or 5% of the total population. This table ranks the cities with the largest LEP populations.

Rank City LEP Region

1 New York 1,765,530 11

2 Yonkers 29,850 8

3 Buffalo 12,453 5

4 Rochester 12,162 4

5 New Rochelle 10,863 8

6 Mount Vernon 8,242 8

7 White Plains 7,918 8

8 Syracuse 7,041 3

9 Utica 5,352 2

10 Newburgh 5,328 8



This table indicates the cities within NYSDOT Regional locations with the highest percentage of LEP residents.

City % LEP Region

New York 23% 11

Peekskill 22% 8

Newburgh 21% 8

Middletown 18% 8

Yonkers 16% 8

New Rochelle 16% 8

White Plains 15% 8

Glen Cove 13% 10

Mount Vernon 13% 8

Poughkeepsie 11% 8

VII. LEP Regional Language Groups Profiles at the

City Level

* Yellow highlights indicate the area has a significant LEP population, which is defined as 1,000 or more individuals or 5% of the total population.

NOTE: For each region, the top five languages have been identified. These languages can be found amongst the four language groups identified in the Census (Spanish, Other Indo-European Languages, Asian and Pacific Island Languages, All Other Languages). Region 1

City

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

Chinese Italian

French (incl.

Patois, Cajun)

Russian Other LEP % LEP

Albany 1,428 603 383 166 179 1,290 4,049 5%

Cohoes 41 0 82 41 46 339 549 4%

Glens Falls 65 0 0 14 0 49 128 1%

Mechanicville 23 0 0 6 0 0 29 1%

Rensselaer 91 49 6 0 7 202 355 5%

Saratoga Springs 184 66 14 42 73 138 517 2%

Schenectady 1,162 122 273 168 87 1,067 2,879 5%

Troy 517 357 121 164 13 796 1,968 4%

Watervliet 102 8 5 0 0 83 198 2%



Region 2

City

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

Serbo-Croatian

Russian Polish Italian Other LEP % LEP

Amsterdam 1,078 0 0 132 42 77 1,329 8%

Gloversville 33 0 0 0 23 70 126 1%

Johnstown 16 0 12 0 25 70 123 2%

Little Falls 34 0 0 0 0 20 54 1%

Oneida 49 0 0 0 9 73 131 1%

Rome 535 11 0 21 136 273 976 3%

Sherrill 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0%

Utica 1,077 1,799 620 185 128 1,543 5,352 10%

Region 3

City

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

Chinese Korean Italian Vietnames

e Other LEP % LEP

Auburn 196 0 0 62 0 169 427 2%

Cortland 112 0 0 15 0 129 256 1%

Fulton 41 0 0 0 0 78 119 1%

Ithaca 127 374 116 12 8 909 1,546 5%

Oswego 64 6 0 0 0 67 137 1%

Syracuse 2,480 804 195 171 752 2,639 7,041 5%

Region 4

City

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

Italian Chinese Vietnames

e

Other Slavic

languages

Other LEP % LEP

Batavia 39 8 13 10 0 49 119 1%

Canandaigua 12 0 0 0 0 17 29 0%

Geneva 250 10 0 0 0 167 427 3%

Rochester 7,127 262 545 589 193 3,446 12,162 6%



Region 5

City

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

Chinese Italian Polish Arabic Other LEP % LEP

Buffalo 5,622 487 714 572 485 4,573 12,453 5%

Dunkirk 544 21 20 10 0 34 629 6%

Jamestown 571 26 80 0 0 130 807 3%

Lackawanna 299 0 21 52 675 300 1,347 8%

Lockport 156 28 0 0 0 82 266 1%

Niagara Falls 147 30 107 63 51 406 804 2%

North Tonawanda 71 27 13 60 8 337 516 2%

Olean 55 0 12 0 74 45 186 1%

Salamanca 81 10 0 4 0 45 140 3%

Tonawanda 51 0 9 9 0 119 188 1%

Region 6

City

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

Other West

Germanic

languages

German Chinese

French (incl.

Patois, Cajun)

Other LEP % LEP

Corning 8 0 32 0 0 104 144 2%

Elmira 342 0 21 0 63 232 658 2%

Hornell 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0%

Region 7

City

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

French (incl.

Patois, Cajun)

Chinese Korean Russian Other LEP % LEP

Ogdensburg 121 0 33 0 0 106 260 2%

Plattsburgh 42 22 6 11 117 111 309 2%

Watertown 106 12 13 6 0 133 270 1%



Region 8

City

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

Yiddish Italian Chinese

Portuguese or

Portuguese Creole

Other LEP % LEP

Beacon 554 0 25 0 0 48 627 5%

Hudson 137 0 8 44 0 303 492 8%

Kingston 939 0 56 23 0 359 1,377 7%

Middletown 3,885 0 79 0 0 372 4,336 18%

Mount Vernon 4,215 0 439 127 2,303 1,158 8,242 13%

New Rochelle 7,486 0 596 338 726 1,717 10,863 16%

Newburgh 5,210 0 17 0 0 101 5,328 21%

Peekskill 4,432 0 66 71 19 281 4,869 22%

Port Jervis 125 0 27 0 0 100 252 3%

Poughkeepsie 2,486 0 76 50 0 369 2,981 11%

Rye 242 0 0 28 50 438 758 5%

White Plains 6,066 25 334 220 383 890 7,918 15%

Yonkers 19,430 33 1,767 553 947 7,120 29,850 16%

Region 9

City

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

Italian Chinese Russian Polish Other LEP % LEP

Binghamton 265 116 185 257 117 964 1,904 5%

Norwich 54 10 0 41 65 47 217 3%

Oneonta 93 16 0 11 0 129 249 2%

Region 10

City

Spanish or

Spanish Creole

Italian Chinese Korean French Creole

Other LEP % LEP

Glen Cove 2,122 570 162 47 0 417 3,318 13%

Long Beach 994 146 21 0 0 534 1,695 5%

Region 11

City Spanish or

Spanish Creole

Chinese Russian Other Indic languages

Korean Other LEP %

LEP

New York 893,256 258,041 122,755 54,586 46,932 389,960 1,765,530 23%



VIII. Regional Demographic Information

The following section contains demographic information from each Region compiled from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey.

Region 1

Region 1 has 22,941 LEP residents, giving it the 6th most LEP residents out of NYSDOT’s 11 regions. LEP residents make up 2.1% of the total population of Region 1.

Five counties in Region 1 have a significant LEP population:

County LEP

Population % of Population that

is LEP Rank

Albany 10,401 3.7% 13

Greene 1,359 2.9% 56

Rensselaer 3,641 2.5% 50

Saratoga 1,976 1% 21

Schenectady 3,099 2.2% 17

Three cities in Region 1 have a significant LEP population:

City LEP


is LEP

Albany 4,049 4.5%

Schenectady 2,879 5.0%

Troy 1,968 4.4%

The LEP population of Albany by language groups is 37% Indo-European (1,516), 35% Spanish (1,428), 26% Asian (1,040) and 2% other.

The LEP population of Schenectady by language groups is 32% Indo-European (930), 40% Spanish (1,162), 17% Asian (487) and 10% other.

The LEP population by language groups of Troy is 36% Indo-European (708), 26% Spanish (517), 31% Asian (608) and 7% other.



Albany

Schenectady

Troy

Region 2

Spanish 35%

Indo-European

37%

Asian 26%

Other 2%

1,428 1,516

1,040

65

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er

Spanish 40%

Indo-European

32%

Asian 17%

Other 11%

1,162

930

487

300

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er

Spanish 26%

Indo-European

36%

Asian 31%

Other 7%

517

708

608

135

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er



Region 2 has 12,753 LEP residents, giving it the 9th most LEP residents out of NYSDOT’s 11 regions. LEP residents make up 2.2% of the total population of Region 2. Two counties in Region 2 have a significant LEP population:

County LEP


is LEP Rank

Montgomery 2,118 4.6% 28

Oneida 8,477 3.9% 16

Two cities in Region 2 have a significant LEP population:

City LEP


is LEP

Amsterdam 1,329 8.1%

Utica 5,352 9.9%

The LEP population of Amsterdam by language groups is 37% Indo-European (1,516), 35% Spanish (1,428), 26% Asian (1,040) and 2% other.

The LEP population of Utica by language groups is 57% Indo-European (3,075), 20% Spanish (1,077), 15% Asian (809) and 7% other.

Amsterdam

Spanish 81%

Indo-European

17% Asian 1%

Other 1%

1,078

231

9 11

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er



Utica

Region 3

Region 3 has 19,877 LEP residents, giving it the 7th most LEP residents out of NYSDOT’s 11 regions. LEP residents make up 1.9% of the total population of Region 3. Three counties in Region 3 have a significant LEP population:

County LEP


is LEP Rank

Onondaga 12,924 3% 11

Oswego 1,240 1.1% 24

Tompkins 3,941 4.1% 28


City LEP


is LEP

Ithaca 1,546 5.3%

Syracuse 7,041 5.4%

The LEP population of Ithaca by language groups is 25% Indo-European (379), 8% Spanish (127), 59% Asian (906) and 9% other.

The LEP population of Syracuse by language groups is 21% Indo-European (1,461), 35% Spanish (2,480), 30% Asian (2,114) and 14% other.

Spanish 20%

Indo-European

58%

Asian 15%

Other 7%

1,077

3,075

809

391

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er



Ithaca

Syracuse

Region 4

Region 4 has 35,020 LEP residents, giving it the 4th most LEP residents out of NYSDOT’s 11 regions. LEP residents make up 2% of the total population of Region 4.

Spanish 8%

Indo-European

24%

Asian 59%

Other 9%

127

379

906

134

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

1,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er

Spanish 35%

Indo-European

21%

Asian 30%

Other 14%

2,480

1,461

2,114

986

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er



Three counties in Region 4 have a significant LEP population:

County LEP


is LEP Rank

Monroe 28,771 4.2% 9

Ontario 1,677 1.7% 27

Wayne 1,795 2.1% 31

One city in Region 4 has a significant LEP population:

County LEP


is LEP

Rochester 12,162 6.3%

The LEP population of Rochester by language groups is 16% Indo-European (1,965), 59% Spanish (7,127), 17% Asian (2,008) and 9% other.

Rochester

Region 5


Spanish 59%

Indo-European

16%

Asian 16%

Other 9%

7,127

1,965 2,008

1,062

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er




County LEP


is LEP Rank

Cattaraugus 1,402 1.9% 35

Chautauqua 3,005 2.4% 23

Erie 27,390 3.2% 8

Niagara 3,058 1.5% 18


City LEP


is LEP

Buffalo 12,453 4.8%

Lackawanna 1,347 7.9%

The LEP population of Buffalo by language groups is 25% Indo-European (3,092), 45% Spanish (5,622), 15% Asian (1,890) and 15% other.

The LEP population of Lackawanna by language groups is 28% Indo-European (675), 22% Spanish (299), 0% Asian (0) and 50% other.

Buffalo

Lackawanna

Spanish 45%

Indo-European

25%

Asian 15%

Other 15%

5,622

3,092

1,890 1,849

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er



Region 6

Region 6 has 4,426 LEP residents, giving it the 11th most LEP residents out of NYSDOT’s 11 regions. LEP residents make up 2% of the total population of Region 6.


County LEP


is LEP Rank

Chemung 1,229 1.5% 52

Steuben 1,198 1.3% 53

Yates 1,068 4.6% 54

Region 6 has no cities with a significant LEP population. Region 7


County LEP


is LEP Rank

Clinton 1,335 1.7% 51

Jefferson 2,395 2.2% 47

Franklin 1,377 2.9% 49

Region 7 has no cities with a significant LEP population. Region 8

Spanish 22% Indo-

European 28%

Asian 0%

Other 50%

299 373

0

675

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er



Region 8 has 200,382 LEP residents, giving it the 3rd most LEP residents out of NYSDOT’s 11 regions. LEP residents make up 7.2% of the total population of Region 8. Eight counties in Region 8 have a significant LEP population:

County LEP


is LEP Rank

Columbia 1,350 2.3% 34

Duchess 12,437 4.5% 14

Orange 31,110 8.9% 10

Putnam 4,338 4.6% 19

Rockland 39,585 14.4% 9

Ulster 6,353 3.7% 17

Westchester 105,209 11.8% 7

Nine cities in Region 8 have a significant LEP population:

City LEP


is LEP

Middletown 4,336 18%

Mount Vernon 8,242 13%

New Rochelle 10,863 16%

Newburgh 5,328 21%

Peekskill 4,869 22%

Poughkeepsie 2,981 11%

White Plains 7,918 15%

Yonkers 29,850 16%

Kingston 1,377 7%

The LEP population of Middletown by language groups is 25% Indo-European (3,092), 45% Spanish (5,622), 15% Asian (1,890) and 15% other.

The LEP population of Mount Vernon by language groups is 43% Indo-European (3,539), 51% Spanish (4,215), 4% Asian (295) and 2% other.

The LEP population of New Rochelle by language groups is 23% Indo-European (2,469), 69% Spanish (7,486), 7% Asian (781) and 1% other.

The LEP population of Newburgh by language groups is 1% Indo-European (59), 98% Spanish (5,210), 1% Asian (46) and 0% other.



The LEP population of Peekskill by language groups is 3% Indo-European (130), 91% Spanish (4,432), 5% Asian (267) and 1% other.

The LEP population of Poughkeepsie by language groups is 10% Indo-European (302), 84% Spanish (2,486), 3% Asian (96) and 3% other.

The LEP population of White Plains by language groups is 17% Indo-European (1,321), 76% Spanish (6,066), 6% Asian (452) and 1% other.

The LEP population of Yonkers by language groups is 22% Indo-European (6,561), 66% Spanish (19,430), 8% Asian (2,532) and 4% other.

The LEP population of Kingston by language groups is 19% Indo-European (257), 67% Spanish (939), 13% Asian (173) and 1% other.

Middletown

Mount Vernon

New Rochelle

Spanish 45%

Indo-European

25%

Asian 15%

Other 15%

5,622

3,092

1,890 1,849

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er

Spanish 51%

Indo-European

43%

Asian 4%

Other 2%

4,215

3,539

295 193

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er



Newburgh

Peekskill

Spanish 69%

Indo-European

23%

Asian 7%

Other 1%

7,486

2,469

781 127

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er

Spanish 98%

Indo-European

1%

Asian 1%

Other 0%

5,210

59 46 13

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er

Spanish 91%

Indo-European

3%

Asian 5%

Other 1%

4,432

130 267 40

0 500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er



Poughkeepsie

White Plains

Yonkers

Spanish 84%

Indo-European

10%

Asian 3%

Other 3%

2,486

302 96 97

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er

Spanish 76%

Indo-European

17%

Asian 6%

Other 1%

6,066

1,321

452 79

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er

Spanish 65%

Indo-European

22%

Asian 9%

Other 4%

19,430

6,561

2,532 1,327

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er



Kingston

Region 9

Region 9 has 15,539 LEP residents, giving it the 8th most LEP residents out of NYSDOT’s 11 regions. LEP residents make up 4.1% of the total population of Region 9. Two counties in Region 9 have a significant LEP population:

County LEP


is LEP Rank

Broome 4,811 2.6% 18

Sullivan 3,125 4.4% 22

One city in Region 9 has a significant LEP population:

County LEP


is LEP

Binghamton 1,904 4.5%

The LEP population of Binghamton by language groups is 47% Indo-European (906), 14% Spanish (265), 34% Asian (643) and 5% other.

Spanish 68%

Indo-European

19%

Asian 12%

Other 1%

939

257 173

8

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

1,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er



Binghamton

Region 10

Region 10 has 237,913 LEP residents, giving it the 2nd most LEP residents out of NYSDOT’s 11 regions. LEP residents make up 6.4% of the total population of Region 10.

Two counties in Region 10 have a significant LEP population:

County LEP


is LEP Rank

Suffolk 116,215 8.2% 6

Nassau 121,698 9.5% 5


County LEP


is LEP

Glen Cove 3,318 13.1%

Long Beach 1,695 4.9%

The LEP population of Glen Cove by language groups is 27% Indo-European (885), 64% Spanish (2,122), 9% Asian (311) and 0% other.

The LEP population of Long Beach by language groups is 32% Indo-European (543), 59% Spanish (994), 6% Asian (100) and 3% other.

Glen Cove

Spanish 14%

Indo-European

47%

Asian 34%

Other 5%

265

906

643

90

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

1,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er



Long Beach

Region 11

Region 11 has 1,765,530 LEP residents, giving it the most LEP residents out of NYSDOT’s 11 regions. LEP residents make up 16.9% of the total population of Region 11. Five counties in Region 11 have a significant LEP population:

County LEP


is LEP Rank

Bronx 312,731 24.6% 3

Kings 545,907 23.3% 2

New York 253,808 16.6% 4

Queens 602,185 28.3% 1

Richmond 50,899 11.2% 8

Spanish 64%

Indo-European

27%

Asian 9%

Other 0%

2,122

885

311

0

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er

Spanish 59%

Indo-European

32%

Asian 6%

Other 3%

994

543

100 58

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er



The LEP population of the Bronx by language groups is 10% Indo-European (29,937), 81% Spanish (256,558), 4% Asian (11,683) and 5% other.

The LEP population of Kings by language groups is 39% Indo-European (215,543), 36% Spanish (194,246), 20% Asian (108,476) and 5% other.

The LEP population of New York by language groups is 10% Indo-European (25,817), 63% Spanish (160,054), 24% Asian (61,389) and 3% other.

The LEP population of Queens by language groups is 26% Indo-European (158,651), 45% Spanish (265,345), 27% Asian (165,559) and 2% other.

The LEP population of Richmond by language groups is 37% Indo-European (19,417), 34% Spanish (17,053), 23% Asian (11,503) and 6% other.

Bronx

Kings

Spanish 82%

Indo-European

9%

Asian 4%

Other 5%

256,558

29,937 11,683 14553

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er

Spanish 36%

Indo-European

39%

Asian 20%

Other 5%

194,246 215,543

108,476

27642

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er



New York

Queens

Richmond

Spanish 63%

Indo-European

10% Asian 24%

Other 3%

160,054

25,817

61,389

6548

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ea

n

As

ian

Oth

er

Spanish 44%

Indo-European

26%

Asian 28%

Other 2%

265,345

158,651 165,559

12630

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er

Spanish 33%

Indo-European

38%

Asian 23%

Other 6%

17,053 19,417

11,503

2926

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-

Eu

rop

ean

As

ian

Oth

er



Part Two - Using Census Data

A. An explanation of Census geographies The following are Census geographies and their explanations: Census Tracts: A Census tract is a small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a county. Census tracts have an optimum size of 4,000 people. Census tracts may be split if they have grown enough in population size. Block groups: Block Groups are statistical divisions of census tracts. They are generally defined to contain between 600 and 3,000 people. Blocks: Census blocks “are statistical areas bounded by visible features, such as streets, roads, streams, and railroad tracks, and by non-visible boundaries, such as selected property lines and city, township, school district, and county limits and short line-of-sight extensions of streets and roads.” Source: http://www.census.gov/geo/ www/2010census/GTC_10.pdf

Source: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/geodiagram.pdf B. An overview of census data Census data has historically been collected every ten years, through the decennial “Long Form.” The 2008/2009 analysis on Limited English Proficiency is based off of the 2000 decennial census data, which has been the traditional source of demographic information collected by the census. The 2010/2011 update is based off the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates.

http://www.census.gov/geo/%20www/2010census/GTC_10.pdf

http://www.census.gov/geo/%20www/2010census/GTC_10.pdf

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/geodiagram.pdf



The Census Bureau has changed how it collects data, and will no longer be collecting data through the ten-year file: The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) has replaced the Census Long Form as the preeminent source of U.S. population and household characteristics” and the (decennial) long form has been discontinued (NCHRP Report 588 p1). Census data is now being collected through the American Community Survey (ACS), an annual “rolling sample” or “continuous measurement” data collection process. The transition from decennial data to ACS reporting “represents a change from data collected at a single point-in-time to data collected continuously throughout the year and summarized annually for large geographic units” (NCHRP Report 588, Forward). This change in the Census data collection process also presents a series of new challenges that future transportation analyses will have to take into account. This section of the LEP Report discusses the strengths and weaknesses of this transition as well as implications for future NYSDOT research. C. Why we use the American Community Survey (ACS) The American Community Survey (ACS) provides critical economic, social, demographic, and housing information to the public every year. The ACS is distributed to approximately 250,000 addresses monthly (or 3 million per year). Data are collected primarily by mail, with telephone calls and personal visits made by Census Bureau personnel. Whereas the decennial Census measures 1 in 6 individuals, the American Community Survey measures roughly 1 in 40 individuals a year. This means the ACS has far more sampling error than the decennial Census. Sampling error refers to the amount of error caused by taking a sample rather than surveying the entire population. Though the ACS data has more sampling error than the decennial Census, it is timelier. Whereas the decennial Census surveys individuals once every ten years, the ACS surveys individuals once a year. Report 8: Comparison of the American Community Survey Three-Year Averages and the Census Sample for a Sample of Counties and Tracts (Source: US Census, 2004) compares estimates from the census 2000 Long Form to the 1999-2001 American Community Survey at the county and tract level for 36 ACS test sites. At the county level, the majority of ACS estimates were comparable with the Census 2000 estimates. (NCHRP Report 588 p55) At the tract level, most of the variables show some difference between the ACS and Census 2000 (NCHRP Report 588 p56). Because the Census Long Form no longer exists, we have to use the American Community Survey. The ACS estimates may not be as accurate as the Decennial Census. However, we use the ACS because the Census is the most authoritative



data source we have in determining the number and proportion of the LEP population. What was once Question 11 in the Decennial Census Long Form is now Question 13 of the ACS. Question 13 of the ACS asks:

Does this person speak a language other than English at home?

What is this language?

How well does this person speak English? Those who speak English “well,” “not well” or “not at all” are considered LEP.

D. Availability of Census Data

When is American Community Survey (ACS) census data available? The availability of (ACS) census data varies over time according to the level of geography sought for one’s analysis. The chart below illustrates the time horizons for which data estimates corresponding with different levels of population will be released for ACS data. The ‘X’ indicates the availability of data for each scenario. It should be noted that precaution must be taken in situations where multiple data sets are available; again, please note that data from different release periods cannot be readily compared.

The chart below shows another way of looking at this breakdown, by showing the years in which the ACS data is expected to be released:

POPULATION/ DATA RELEASE PERIOD

Annual 3-Year 5-Year

65,000+ (counties/places)

X X X

20,000 – 65,000 (counties/places)

X

X

Less than 20,000 (tract/block group)

X



Courtesy of http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/Census/sandag.htm For example, data available at the census tract level will only be released in five year files, or five year increments; the first round of tract level data was released in 2010. A Census tract is a small, geographic subdivision of a county taken to report the US Census. Larger estimates such as those at the metropolitan level will be available every year and have already been released as of 2003. The below map indicates which counties will get 1-year, 3-year and/or 5-year estimates.

The below map indicates which places (Census Designated Places, villages, cities) will get 1-year, 3-year and/or 5-year estimates. Only Albany, Buffalo, New York, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers and have a population over 65,000 which means they get 1-year, 3-year and 5-year estimates.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/Census/sandag.htm



Part Three - Accessing Census Data NYSDOT Directions for accessing data for small geographic areas

1. Start at American FactFinder: http://factfinder.census.gov. 2. On the left hand side, click on the blue bar for Data Sets. Select

American Community Survey. 3. Under 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,

select Detailed Tables. 4. Click on the Geo within Geo tab. 5. Choose the following from the dropdowns:

a. Show me all: Census Tracts > Within: State > Select a State: New York. Select All Census Tracts and click Add. This will take a few moments to load. Then click Next.

6. Choose Table B16001. Language Spoken at Home by Ability to Speak English for the Population 5+ Years. Click Add. Click Show Result. This will take a few moments to load.

7. The table will appear. On the blue bar at the top of the screen, click Print/Download > Download.

http://factfinder.census.gov/



8. Under Download file format (data rows plus headings and footnotes) select Comma Delimited (.csv). Click OK.

9. A .csv file should open in your browser. Save the file to your hard drive. Under Save as type, choose Excel workbook (.xlsx).

10. You may also want to remove the Margin of Errors associated with each tract. There are 4,907 of them!

How do I aggregate the data for an LEP analysis?

1. Identify the census that tracts lie within the service area / study area 2. LEP constitutes someone who speaks English less than very well

according to the Census Bureau; therefore, retain the records that “Speak English less than "very well" and remove the rest.

3. The following data must be aggregated: a. Spanish: Spanish or Spanish Creole: b. Indo-European: French (incl. Patois, Cajun), French Creole,

Italian, Portuguese or Portuguese Creole, German, Yiddish, Other West Germanic languages, Scandinavian languages, Greek, Russian, Polish, Serbo-Croatian, Other Slavic languages, Armenian, Persian, Gujarati, Hindi, Urdu, Other Indic languages, Other Indo-European languages.

c. Asian: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mon-Khmer, Cambodian, Hmong, Thai, Laotian, Vietnamese, Other Asian languages

d. Other languages: Navajo, Other Native North American languages, Hungarian, Arabic, Hebrew, African languages, Other and unspecified languages,

4. Compare your results against the FHWA threshold of 5% or 1,000+ How do I use EJView for a LEP analysis?

1. Start at the EJView homepage: http://epamap14.epa.gov/ejmap/entry.html 2. Enter in your area of analysis (ex. Albany, NY). 3. On the right side, click the plus sign next to Demographics. 4. Click the plus sign next to Speak English < Well (%). 5. Click the checkbox next to one of the following: by Tract or by County. 6. A thematic map will appear which shows Speak English < Well (%),

either by Tract or by County. 7. On the right side, click the plus sign next to Places (GNIS). 8. Click the checkbox next to each of the following: Schools, Hospitals and

Worship Places. 9. Symbols will appear on the map for Schools, Hospitals and Worship

Places. If you roll over the symbols, data will appear about each school, hospital or worship place.

http://epamap14.epa.gov/ejmap/entry.html



Part Four - Challenges and Limitations of Census 2000 vs. ACS 2005-2009 Data

With an output of ten years, information in the decennial data may change and lose accuracy over time, and may become irrelevant by the time it is used (Siegal, Martin & Bruno 2001 p18). A key advantage of switching to the American Community Survey format includes the increased timeliness of the data as census data will be more current and up-to-date. However, these changes also raise serious concerns regarding an increased margin of error, particularly at smaller levels of geography which are frequently used in transportation analyses. The following points touch upon key changes that data users must be aware of in using census data for their analyses. NOTE: ACS 2005-2009 data is currently the dataset that we use, rather than the decennial 2010 Census.

A. Reduced Sample Size and Greater Sampling Error Sampling Error is the term given to the error associated with deriving an estimate from a sample rather than an entire population Data from the Decennial census Long Form surveyed 1 out of every 6 Americans, an approximate sample size of 17%. ACS data employs a significantly reduced sample size of approximately 1-in-40, or a sample size of 2.5%. In New York State in 2009, 176,964 housing units were selected and 13,948 group quarters people were selected to be part of the ACS. This leads to the corresponding need to accumulate data over time (multiyear data) and/or across geography (NCHRP Report 588 p2). Because the ACS sample sizes are so much smaller than those of the Census Long Form, the ACS sampling errors will be much more significant (NCHRP Report 588 p49). This poses concern as the accuracy and reliability of such data may be questioned. Even multiyear data will have higher sampling error than did the decennial data. Such a small level of sampling also raises the issue of data suppression because samples at the cell level may be too small. The Census Bureau is instructing data users to account for inherent sampling errors in their analyses; it is the responsibility of the analyst to determine how uncertainty may impact their research and they must develop strategies to present information with certainty (NCHRP Report 588 p3). This also raises an issue with confidence intervals and the measure of error as well with the suppression of data for confidentiality reasons as the Bureau must avoid revealing personal information.



B. Need for Data Accumulation Because of the significantly smaller sample size of the ACS, “it is not possible to replicate the decennial census long form data every year. Rather, estimates will be accumulated from ACS data across multiple years” (NCHRP Report 588 p2). Multiyear data is broken down into 2 formats:

3-year accumulated estimates for areas with populations greater than 20,000

5-year accumulated estimates for all areas

Furthermore, this data is not mutually exclusive. “Multiyear estimates reported for a specific year are not independent of previous multiyear estimates that have overlapping years” (NCHRP Report 588 p3). In other words, samples cannot overlap and a standard approach will need to be developed. Analysts must be cautious not to compare consecutive, overlapping years. The chart below has been developed to demonstrate this point:

5-year accumulated average estimates

To reiterate, data for example from years that fall in the 2005-2009 estimates cannot be compared with data from years that fall in the 2006-2010 estimates, or else overlapping comparisons would be made by combining or duplicating data. (Please note that projected release dates for data lag by one to two years of the sample and these release dates represent a projected timeline.)



C. Unreliable Estimates of Linguistic Isolation for Small Areas While “data from the 2000 Census “long form” provided detailed demographic characteristics for small units of geography such as census tracts (and CTPP data)” (NCHRP Report 588 Forward), ACS annual estimates will only be released for areas with populations greater than 65,000. Unfortunately, this is a major drawback for research on LEP as only 5-year data may be available for small census geographic areas like census tracts, traffic analysis zones (TAZs) and census block groups after 2001, and sub-geographic population sizes may be rolled up to higher levels due to sample inadequacy (NCHRP Report 588 p38). Moreover, this data is subject to the uncertainty that arises from sampling variation particularly for estimates for small areas like census tracts as measurements are subject to great sampling variation at finer geographic levels (Siegal, Martin & Bruno 2001 p18, 20). This presents a significant problem for NYSDOT research on LEP as 17 of the 62 counties in New York State are not covered under the ACS annual data given that at least 65,000 people must be living within a county to be included1. Analysis for these counties will be weaker as will other data sets that impact this study such as journey-to-work and demographic data. This therefore eliminates the possibility of studying any area at lower levels of geography as data cannot be adequately measured at the micro-scale. This may cause undue burden on sub-county areas.

D. Challenges in Targeting Geographic Clusters of LEP in Rural Areas A report produced by the U.S. Census Bureau, “Language Use and Linguistic Isolation: Historical Data and Methodological Issues” discusses additional precautions with regard to using linguistic isolation for targeting service provision (Siegal, Martin & Bruno 2001 p13). The report states that “The strategy of targeting of language communications to small areas rest on the assumption that linguistically isolated households are geographically concentrated, and this premise appears questionable” (Siegal et al., 2001 p15). “Estimates of the level of linguistic isolation in a community, county, or other small area are affected by sampling error. (Siegal et al., 2001 p14). “For small areas such as census tracts or counties, the uncertainty in the level of linguistic isolation that can arise because of sampling variation can be considerable, compared to the estimate itself. The use of discrete cut points as the basis for decisions about tracts is likely to lead to substantial error in the treatment of

1 US Census Bureau GCT1603 “Percent of People 5 Years and Over Who Speak English Less Than

"Very Well.” NYS by County. 2005 http://tinyurl.com/jdgv8

http://tinyurl.com/jdgv8



particular tracts. The extent to which linguistically isolated households are concentrated in areas with high levels of linguistic isolation seems a major constraint on the utility of linguistic isolation as a means for targeting communications” (Siegal et al., 2001 p14,15).

E. Data suppression due to security and privacy concerns Small area characteristic data will be especially subject to disclosure or suppression in order to avoid identifying specific households, individuals or establishments (NCHRP Report 588 p3). This translates into an analysis which may contain significant variability as the data may be subject to rounding, suppression and disclosure due to concerns for protecting personal privacy.

F. Limitations to comparisons over time

There is difficulty in comparing data results from the ACS with previous Decennial estimates; single-year estimates are not readily comparable with three- and five-year estimates nor are estimates between areas of different sizes.

G. Differing Definitions & Format of the Question The ACS and Decennial data do not use uniform definitions for many fields such as what constitutes a resident. This could be problematic for this and other studies. Additionally, the question “How well does this person speak English? (very well, well, now well, or not at all)” may not comprehensively capture all elements of limited English proficiency as it does not account for literacy or oral comprehension. Research shows that in general people with limited English proficiency demonstrate lower levels of literacy in their own language as compared to rates of literacy among English speakers.

Part Five - An Important Note on Confounding Variables, or Outliers

There are several confounding variables, or outliers, which should be taken into consideration with any LEP analysis. These variables are factors which are misleading and may distort an analysis by making an LEP analysis seem significant when in reality it may not be. For instance, group quarters such as universities and military bases are typical examples of confounding variables where large populations of non-native speakers may reside but are not representative of a true LEP population and may skew an analysis. These factors should be identified and incorporated into each LEP analysis.

Tourist destinations can be a confounding variable because of the seasonal residents. The ACS counts everyone who is currently living or staying at an address for more than two months at the time when the survey is conducted to be a current resident of that address. The ACS will count many seasonal



residents who are staying in an address for more than two months to be residents of that area. This will skew the population of some tourist destinations upward.

Established immigrant enclaves and neighborhoods may be under sampled. According to a hearing before the Subcommittee on the Census, the Census 2000 “long form” intimidated Americans and led to a lower count in the Census (Source: http://www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/00088786221.pdf). This will likely be true of the ACS as well. It is true that the Census does an in-person follow-up if the individual does not respond to the Census; however, not every individual can be targeted for a follow-up.

The following map shows examples of confounding variables across the State:

Jails

Military bases

Universities

Hospitals and Nursing Homes

Tourist destinations

Established immigrant enclaves and neighborhoods

Source: http://www.docs.state.ny.us/facilitymapcolor.pdf

Jails – Because prisons tend to have a lot of LEP residents, and many of the prisons happen to be located in rural areas with a small LEP population, the areas surrounding the prisons tend to be outliers. A good

http://www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/00088786221.pdf

http://www.docs.state.ny.us/facilitymapcolor.pdf



example is Attica, which is a supermax penitentiary in the town of Attica, Wyoming County, New York. For the purposes of the ACS, these prisoners are considered to reside in Wyoming County, even though their main residence may be somewhere else.

Military Bases – The area surrounding Fort Drum, Jefferson County tends to have a large LEP population because Army soldiers from around the state, some of whom are LEP, come to live there.

Universities – Cornell University (enrollment = 21,000 students) and other schools in Tompkins County tend to attract a large number of LEP students to Ithaca, many of whom are Asian. Many colleges and universities across the state are located in rural environments, yet have a large number of international students enrolled who may be LEP.

Hospitals and Nursing Homes – Like other colleges, SUNY Upstate Medical University in Onondaga County likely has a large number of LEP students.

Tourist Destinations – In the North Country, towns like Lake George in Warren County and Lake Placid in Essex County house a large number of seasonal workers from overseas over the summer and winter.

Established immigrant enclaves and neighborhoods – A good example would be the Chinatown in Flushing, Queens County, which is the second largest Chinatown outside of Asia.

Part Six - Summary of Findings Given the size of the margins of error in the ACS for small geographies, the information provided in this NYSDOT census analysis on LEP is dependent on the tenuous reliability of the data that is available. The accuracy of this analysis using the available data is subject to the reliability of that data. The level of geography detailed in this report is then severely limited by the accuracy of the available data. Below is a diagram which shows the 90% confidence intervals for the 2005-2009 ACS data for the four language groups for Albany County, NY. For example, the ACS estimate of the Spanish population is 2,657 with a standard error of 348. That means the Census Bureau believes there is a 90 percent likelihood the actual Spanish population can be between 2,082 and 3,231. The larger the confidence interval is, the less accurate the estimate.



90% Confidence Interval of 2005-2009 ACS Data for Albany County

Language Group

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Spanish 2,082 3,231

Indo- European

3,206 4,345

Asian 2,059 3,081

Other 107 781

Part Seven - Practical Conclusions and Lessons Learned Invest in smart resources NYSDOT needs to develop a system where people with limited English proficiency can be served in an effective and efficient manner. The Department is exploring the use of “I Speak” Cards at points of public contact to identify a customer’s language and connect to a 1-800 language line as a possible solution. See “best practices for public involvement” for more information.

Implement LEP on a project-by-project Basis What this means for NYSDOT is that we cannot have a single rule imposed uniformly across the State or for all service areas. Instead, the most effective approach will be one on a project-by-project basis in collaboration with the Regional Offices which are embedded in the State’s communities. Account for Geographical Considerations The social, demographic and geographic diversity of New York State is a major factor to be taken into consideration in developing an LEP plan. It is important to recognize that 75% of the LEP population lies in New York City, as might be expected. In the case of New York City, it is feasible to study and explain heavy concentrations at the census block level. This is not the case, however, for the rest of the State.

0 500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

Sp

an

ish

Ind

o-E

uro

pean

Asia

n

Oth

er

Margin of error



Given the diversity of New York, the most effective approach for addressing LEP in Upstate would be to explaining the exceptions; there will always be pockets of LEP groups and it may be best to let local governments develop individually-based responses using rubrics developed in the Main Office.

Part Eight - Policy Guidance

A. Federal Guidelines Source: Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies General Counsels and Civil Rights Directors, October 2006 http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/lep/Oct26Memorandum.htm

To assist Federal agencies in carrying out these responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Justice has issued a Policy Guidance Document, "Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - National Origin Discrimination Against Persons With Limited English Proficiency" (LEP Guidance). This LEP Guidance sets forth the compliance standards that recipients of Federal financial assistance must follow to ensure that their programs and activities normally provided in English are accessible to LEP persons and thus do not discriminate on the basis of national origin in violation of Title VI's prohibition against national origin discrimination.

The purpose of this limited English proficiency policy guidance is to clarify the responsibilities of recipients of Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) (“recipients”), and assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities to limited English proficient (LEP) persons, pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and implementing regulations. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has also developed a guidance document that provides technical assistance to help public transportation providers receiving FTA funding to implement the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Policy Guidance Concerning Recipients’ Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons (DOT LEP Guidance, Federal Register, vol. 70, no. 239, pp. 74087–74100, December 14, 2005). This guidance is available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/LEP_Handbook.doc. The policy guidance is not a regulation but rather a guide. Title VI and its implementing regulations require that recipients take responsible steps to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons. This guidance provides an analytical framework that recipients may use to determine how best to comply with statutory and regulatory obligations to provide meaningful access to the benefits, services, information, and other important portions of their programs and activities for individuals who are limited English proficient.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/lep/Oct26Memorandum.htm

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/LEP_Handbook.doc



The recipient LEP Guidance is not intended to provide a definitive answer governing the translation of written documents for all recipients applicable in all cases, but to provide a point of reference for when a recipient should consider translations of documents (or the implementation of alternatives) in light of its particular program or activity, the document or information in question, and the potential LEP populations served. FHWA has produced a LEP Reference Manual to serve as guidance which contains a technical assistance tool as well as all of the original documentation authorizing Executive Order 13166 and a series of resources providing guidance and technical support.

B. Legal basis for language assistance requirements Source: *USDOT Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Office of Civil Rights: Handbook for Public Transportation Providers “Implementing the Department of Transportation’s Guidance Concerning Recipients’ Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons; April 13, 2007: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/LEP_Handbook.doc The legal basis for Executive Order 13166 is the Title VI disparate impact regulations and is explained in policy guidance issued by the Department of Justice entitled "Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 B National Origin Discrimination Against Persons With Limited English Proficiency." 65 F.R. 50123 (August 16, 2000). This "DOJ LEP Guidance" was referenced in and issued concurrently with the Executive Order. (Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies General Councils and Civil Rights Directors, October 2006) According to the *FTA, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., and its implementing regulations provide that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance. The Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), interpreted Title VI regulations promulgated by the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to hold that Title VI prohibits conduct that has a disproportionate effect on LEP persons because such conduct constitutes national origin discrimination. Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,” reprinted at 65 FR 50121 (August 16, 2000), directs each Federal agency to examine the services it provides and develop and implement a system by which LEP persons can meaningfully access those services. Federal agencies were instructed to publish guidance for their respective recipients in order to assist them with their obligations to LEP persons under Title VI. The

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/LEP_Handbook.doc



Executive Order states that recipients must take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to their programs and activities by LEP persons. President Bush affirmed his commitment to Executive Order 13166 through a memorandum issued on October 25, 2001 by former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Ralph F. Boyd, Jr. Federal agencies were directed to provide guidance and technical assistance to recipients of Federal funds as to how they can provide meaningful access to limited English proficient users of Federal programs. The U.S. DOT published revised guidance for its recipients on December 14, 2005. The guidance can be read at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-23972.htm. This document states that Title VI and its implementing regulations require that DOT recipients take responsible steps to ensure meaningful access to the benefits, services, information, and other important portions of their programs and activities for individuals who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) and that recipients should use the DOT LEP Guidance to determine how best to comply with statutory and regulatory obligations to provide meaningful access to the benefits, services, information, and other important portions of their programs and activities for individuals who are LEP. The FTA references the DOT LEP guidance in its Circular 4702.1A, “Title VI and Title VI-Dependent Guidelines for FTA Recipients,” which was published on April 13, 2007. Chapter IV part 4 of this Circular reiterates the requirement to take responsible steps to ensure meaningful access to benefits, services, and information for LEP persons and suggests that FTA recipients and sub-recipients develop a language implementation plan consistent with the provisions of Section VII of the DOT LEP guidance. The DOT LEP Guidance, as well as FTA Circular 4702.1A, states that certain FTA recipients or sub-recipients, such as those serving very few LEP persons or those with very limited resources, may choose not to develop a written LEP plan. However, the absence of a written LEP plan does not obviate the underlying obligation to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons to a recipient’s program or activities. Recipients or sub-recipients electing not to prepare a written language implementation plan should consider other ways to reasonably provide access. While the DOT LEP guidance discusses specific language assistance techniques and lists promising practices implemented by DOT recipients, it does not provide detailed instructions on how transit agencies, in particular, can put the Guidelines into practice. Likewise, Circular 4702.1A references provisions of the DOT LEP Guidance but does not establish specific procedures on how to carry out this Guidance.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-23972.htm

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-23972.htm



Executive Order 13166 further directs that all such guidance documents be consistent with the compliance standards and framework detailed in DOJ Policy Guidance entitled “Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964-- National Origin Discrimination Against Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” See 65 FR 50123 (August 16, 2000). DOT enforces Title VI as it applies to recipients' responsibilities to LEP persons through the procedures provided for in DOT's Title VI regulations (49 CFR Part 21, portions of which are provided in Appendix A). 4-24 FHWA

attachment 1 - new york state department of transportation · attachment 1 lep guide (may 2011)...

Documents