Ensuring Meaningful Access for Survivors with Limited English Proficiency

(Your name here) Date

Location

Template developed by National Latin@ Network a project of Casa de Esperanza 2014

Organization Name here

Your mission or key services here.

(feel free to change photo to your org logo or one of your program photos)

Goals for today1. Create awareness around

improving accessibility of your court’s services to individuals with LEP.

2. Support you in better understanding, and meeting your obligations to provide language access.

3. Provide with tools and resources to support you in addressing challenges to language access.

PART I: SHARED GOALS

Casa de Esperanza © 2014

Explore Roles & Goals• Break up into pairs or small groups:

• What is your role in the court system?• What are your goals related to serving individuals accessing the court

system?

PART II: LANGUAGE ACCESS

Why is language access important?• In 2011,

there were 300 languages spoken in the U.S. other than English

Spanish

FrenchGerman

Chinese

Tagalog

Viet-namese

KoreanArabic

Other

• In 1990 the top 5 languages spoken by LEP individuals: Spanish, Chinese, French, Italian and German.

• In 2000: Vietnamese, Korean and Russian in positions 3-5; By 2010 Russian replaced by Tagalog.

• Different top languages between and within states.

• Of the 40 million foreign-born individuals in 2010, 52% were LEP; 48% spoke English.

• Children of immigrants learn English at very rapid rates; stark generational differences.

Linguistic Changes Over Time

Local Diversity• Insert statistics about your area

• Explore census.gov for information about your city/county/state• Review the court’s LEP plan for relevant data• Look at public school data for languages spoken• Call a local hospital and see what languages are most often requested

Individuals with LEP

People with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) do not speak English as their primary language and have a limited ability to read, write, speak or understand English

• In 2011, one out of five people living in the United States (over 60 million people) spoke a language other than English at home

• Of those, over 22 million people spoke English “not well” or “not at all”

Photos by Douglas Beasley

Intersections: DV/SA and LEP

“Limited English Proficiency individuals throughout our nation look to state court systems to resolve some of the most important issues and controversies in their lives.”

National Center on State CourtsNational Summit on Language Access in the Courts

July 2013

• Lack of knowledge and misinformation about the U.S. legal system

• Fears of the Police and Judicial System, of deportation, of social services and child welfare agencies, etc.

• Linguistic and Cultural barriers

• Discrimination

• Economic and Employment challenges

• Isolation from family and community

Barriers to Seeking Help for Immigrants

Casa de Esperanza © 2014

Language Acquisition Takes Time

“[I am a] citizen in this country now, but still have problems with the language and not understanding the legal words in English. I feel now that I understand the law better, but need help with the words…”

Realidades Latinas: A National Survey on the Impact of Immigration and Language Access on Latina Survivors

The National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities and National Domestic Violence Hotline

February 2014

PART III: THE COURT’S RESPONSIBILITY

True or False?

Only Federal Courts are covered by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Group Question

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act• The answer is…False.

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

Section 601 of Title VI, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000d

Implementation of Title VI• The U.S. Supreme Court

stated that one type of national origin discrimination is discrimination based on a person’s inability to speak, read, write or understand English (Lau v. Nichols (1974))

• President Clinton signed Executive Order 13166 in Aug. 2000: "Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.”

Executive Order 13166

1. Federal agencies must:• examine the services they

provide• identify any need for

services to people with LEP• develop and implement a

system to provide meaningful access to those services for people with LEP

• develop a Language Access Plan

2. Federal agencies must also ensure that recipients of federal financial assistance provide meaningful access to their applicants with LEP and beneficiaries.

Who is a Recipient of Federal Assistance?• Federal financial assistance includes grants and training.

• Sub-recipients of federal funds. Passed on from one recipient to another (e.g., state funds that are a pass-through of federal dollars).

• Recipients of federal funds range from state and local agencies, to nonprofits and other organizations.

How does this apply to courts? If the court only receives some federal funding to support a specific project or program in criminal cases, are the activities in civil court affected by Title VI LEP requirements?A. No. Only the criminal court activity funded is required to

provide language access.B. No. However all criminal proceedings are covered because

one aspect of it is Federally funded.C. Yes. All courthouse activities are covered, including those

not funded with federal dollars.

The answer is…C.• Title VI covers a recipient's entire program or activity.

• This means all parts of a recipient's operations are covered. This is true even if only one part of the recipient receives the federal assistance.

• All courthouse activities are covered.

What is required? Title VI requires that• Recipients of federal assistance and federal agencies are

required to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to their programs and activities by persons with LEP.

• The starting point is an individualized assessment that balances the following four factors:

Individualized Assessment1. The number or proportion of persons with LEP eligible to be

served or likely to be encountered by the program or grantee

2. The frequency with which individuals with LEP come in contact with the program

3. The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the program to people's lives

4. The resources available to the grantee/recipient or agency, and costs

See LEP Policy Guidance issued by different federal agencies:http://www.lep.gov/guidance/guidance_index.html

Meeting of Federal Interagency Working Group on Limited English Proficiency 4/20/09:

“I want to point out 2 key areas of guidance… that applies across all agencies and recipients:

First, as time goes on, the bar of reasonableness is being raised. The need to show progress in providing all LEP persons with meaningful access increases over time..

The second cross-cutting point is that, even in tough economic times, assertions of lack of resources will not provide carte blanche for failure to provide language access. Language access is essential and is not to be treated as a “frill” when determining what to cut in a budget…”

http://www.lep.gov/Kingremarks4_20_09.pdf

Remarks from Assistant General Attorney

True or False?

If my county or city has an “English-only” law, then my organization does not have to comply with Title VI LEP requirements. True or False?

Group Question

The answer is…False.

• Despite a state's or local jurisdiction’s official English-only law, Title VI and the Title VI regulations apply. Recipients continue to have a legal obligation under federal law to provide meaningful access for persons with LEP (also true regardless of immigration status).

• State and local laws may provide additional obligations to serve individuals with LEP, but cannot compel recipients of federal financial assistance to violate Title VI. I

What if my state or local jurisdiction has an “English only” law?

When DO the Courts have to provide interpreters?

The DOJ Guidance states: ... [W]hen oral language services are necessary, recipients [of any federal funds] should generally offer competent interpreter services free of cost to the person with LEP.

For DOJ recipient programs and activities, this is particularly true in a courtroom, administrative hearing, pre- and post-trial proceedings, situations in which health, safety, or access to important benefits and services are at stake, or when credibility and accuracy are important to protect an individual's rights and access to important services (67 FR 41455, 41462).

Court Interpreters (cont’d)• Charging persons with LEP for interpreter costs or failing to

provide interpreters can implicate national origin discrimination concerns.

• DOJ’s Guidance goes on to note: ...At a minimum, every effort should be taken to ensure competent interpretation for LEP individuals during all hearings, trials, and motions during which the LEP individual must and/or may be present. (67 FR 41455, 41471)

Casa de Esperanza © 2014

Impact of Language Access

Casa de Esperanza © 2014

• Share a story from your program/organization that highlights how important language access is for people accessing the court system. • This could be a challenge story (what happens when there was no

language access). • This could also be a success story (what happens when adequate

language access is provided). • Keep in mind confidentiality when sharing participant stories.

Systems Advocacy for Meaningful Access for Individuals with LEP

Ensuring meaningful language access should be part of a coordinated community response:

• Among DV/SA service providers• Police• Prosecutors• Courts• Social service providers• Hospitals

Casa de Esperanza © 2014

Discussion• Are there any areas of opportunity or improvement for

language access in our courts?

Developing an Effective Language Access Plan

Implementing a language access plan is a proactive approach to assisting survivors who have limited English proficiency it:

• Reduces the language access obstacles for survivors and advocates.

• Makes access to court remedies much more efficient.

• It’s the right thing to do.

• Is legally required of federal funded programs.

Contact InformationName Title

Email:

Phone:

Logo & Web page: