Civil Rights Requirements on Language Access

DARYL FOX: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to today's webinar, “Civil Rights Training for Recipients of Federal Financial Assistance, Language Access,” hosted by the Office for Victims of Crime and OJP's Office for Civil Rights. At this time, it's my pleasure to introduce Robin Matthew, Attorney Advisor with the OJP's Office for Civil Rights, to begin the presentation. Robin?

ROBIN MATTHEW: Yes. Good afternoon, everyone. It's our great pleasure to offer this training today. So let me tell you a little bit about us. As I stated—as has been stated, I am Robin Matthew. And the Office for Civil Rights ensures that recipients—oh, I'm sorry. Before I begin, I think it might be better for you to focus on our PowerPoint. So I'm going to come off of—or Zorayda and I will both come off of the screen temporarily and will come back to you at the end during question and answer. Thanks so much.

All right. So, as I was saying, that the Office for Civil Rights ensures that recipients of financial assistance for the OJP comply with federal laws that prohibit discrimination in employment and the delivery of services or benefits. We enforce civil rights laws through four main mechanisms. Technical assistance, investigating administrative complaints, reviewing equal employment opportunity plans (also called EEOP; from certain recipients, they are requirements), and conducting compliance reviews.

So to explain each, I will tell you that technical assistance—we provide technical assistance by email, by phone, or through training in-person or virtual as we are doing today. We also have technical assistance materials on our website. A recipient of federal financial assistance from DOJ or any agency can contact our office and ask for technical assistance about a specific Title VI-related topic or issue. For example, they may ask us how they can locate census data that will help them identify the LEP language communities in their service area. When a recipient makes this type of request, we'll provide the requested technical assistance. A technical assistance request does not trigger a Title VI investigation or compliance review.

With respect to administrative complaints, individuals and third parties can file a complaint online or by mail. We also get complaints referred to us from other DOJ offices like Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division.

EEOPs are required for certain recipients of funding, and our office reviews them to ensure they comply with regulatory reporting requirements.

A compliance review is a civil rights audit that we initiate ourselves, meaning the office of—OCR initiates, without an administrative complaint being filed. It can be wide ranging or it can be narrowly tailored. The OCR's website has a wealth of information on the civil rights laws that apply to every OJP recipient and award and on the nondiscrimination provisions that apply to some OJP awards.

We do not expect you to memorize all of the information we present to you today; rather this information is an introductory presentation to serve as a general overview. If you have questions, our website has additional information and resources and our office is always available to assist you.

So, why is language access important? It's important for recipients to know which limited English-proficient communities they serve and how best to provide those communities with necessary services. Grant recipients—if grant recipients don't engage in the necessary planning and analysis, there could result grave circumstances for LEP individuals. LEP individuals are individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who may have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English. It's important to note that an LEP individual may be competent in English for certain types of communication, such as speaking or understanding, but still be classified as LEP because of their limited ability to read or write English.

Before we discuss why it's legally required to provide language services to LEP individuals, let me share this example to illustrate why providing language services is important. Deisy Garcia, a native of Guatemala, filled out a domestic incident report in Spanish with the New York Police Department after calling officers on May 30th, 2013, to report her allegedly abusive husband. Mrs. Garcia wrote in the report that she feared for her life and her young daughters, two-year-old Daniela and one-year-old Josslyn. She filled out a second report in November, also in Spanish. About two months later, she and her two young daughters were found brutally murdered in their apartment. It was later uncovered that Mrs. Garcia's reports were never translated from Spanish to English. Thus, even though she filled out all the proper paperwork, her pleas for help went unanswered.

So why is it important to ask—why is it important that language access be provided? You have to look at the numbers, look at the country we serve. Our country has over twenty-five million people over the age of five who are LEP. And according to the US Census, approximately two million children between the ages of five and seventeen are LEP. Think: if you're serving homes, if you're serving families, if you're serving communities, you need to know the Census has reported that over 11,000 households are LEP. And you can—the Census Bureau projected that in 2021, but that is currently the accurate numbers for 2023 because they haven't done the census yet.

So several key language access terms will be used throughout this presentation, and I want to talk a little bit about them. As I said, language—limited English proficient—proficiency, or proficient, means an individual whose primary language for communication is not English and who has a limited ability to read, speak, write, and/or understand English. LEP individuals may be competent, as I stated earlier, in certain types of communication and not in others.

Meaningful access. It refers to the provision of reasonable language assistance services, at no cost, to enable an LEP individual to have substantially equal participation and access to the benefits of an entity's programs, activities, services, and information.

An interpreter. An interpreter is an individual who has received training in the skills of interpretation and can competently render a message spoken from one language into one or more other languages. Interpretation can take place in person or remotely through video or telephone interpreting.

Translator. An individual who has received training in the skills of translation and can competently render written text from one language into one or more other languages.

What is vital information? That is information, whether written or electronic, that is necessary for an individual to understand how to obtain aid, benefits, services, and/or training necessary for an individual to obtain the aid, the benefit, the service, or the training that is required by law. Examples of documents containing vital information include but are not limited to applications, consent and complaint forms, notices of rights and responsibilities, notices advising LEP individuals of their rights, including the availability of free language assistance services.

A language access program includes the language access policies, plan, and procedures to ensure effective communication with an LEP individual. These should be written and incorporated as part of a mandatory staff training.

Language assistance services, whether oral interpretation or written translation, must be accurate, provided in a timely manner, and free of charge.

Language access coordinator is responsible for devising and ensuring that the entity adheres to its language access policy directive's plan and procedures to provide meaningful access to LEP persons. The language access coordinator should be or report to a high-ranking official when the—within the entity, because high level support is essential to successful implantation.

Let's talk about Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and how it applies to persons with LEP. Title VI provides that 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. As you can see, the protected classes identified under Title VI, race, color, and national—or race, color, and national origin. Note, an individual cannot be discriminated against on these bases even if the discrimination is based on a—I'm sorry. An individual can be discriminated on these bases even if the discrimination is based on a perceived or mistaken belief that an individual belongs to a certain race or national origin group. For the purpose of this presentation, we are focusing on national origin, which is highlighted in red. Title VI is the basis for language access protection. National origin discrimination can include discrimination on the basis of language, culture, ancestry, race, and/or other social characteristics related to an individual's national origin.

Who is subject to Title VI requirements? Any program or activity that receives financial assistance from the DOJ, meaning all operations of an organization receiving financial—federal financial assistance such as an entire department or office within a state or local government. It's important to know that in terms of any program or activity that receives financial assistance from the DOJ, all operations of an organization receiving federal financial assistance, such as the entire department, the entire office are generally covered and must comply with Title VI. Even sub-grantees. Title VI coverage is to be construed broadly. It applies to discrimination throughout any agency or institution, not just actions involving the federally assisted programs.

So, for example, a nonprofit organization providing reentry services receives federal funds and uses the funds to hire an Addiction Counselor to provide substance abuse counseling to members of the public. So we ask, what is the "program or activity" that is subject to nondiscrimination laws? Well, if you answered that it's just the services—if you think it's just the services provided by the Addiction Counselor, it is not. All of the activities of the organization are covered, institution wide. Even the award—even those— even if the award represents only a part of the total budget or only will be used for a particular activity or service program by the recipient, all of the institution is covered.

Let's review some additional examples to ensure we are all on the same page. If a state's Department of Public Safety receives federal funding and subawards the funding to a local community-based organization, what is the program or activity that is subject to nondiscrimination laws? Well, as you may guess, all the operations of the Department of Public Safety are covered, along with the operations of the local community-based organizations.

Here’s another one. If a rape crisis center receives federal funds and uses the funds to operate particular programs, what is the program or activity that is subject to nondiscrimination laws? All of the activities of the center are covered, not just the federally funded programs.

If a project of a county sheriff's department receives federal funds, what is the federal—what is the program or activity that is subject to nondiscrimination laws? Well, the entire sheriff's department is covered, not—but not the other departments in the county. So, as you see, it's wide ranging for the recipient of the federal funds.

Hold your—if you have questions about anything that I have said, please type them in the Q&A section on the WebEx or you can wait until the Q&A portion of the presentation. Now, I will turn it over to Zorayda. Zorayda.

ZORAYDA MOREIRA-SMITH: Thank you, Robin. My name is Zorayda Moreira-Smith, and I'm also an Attorney Advisor with OCR. And so now let's discuss Lau v. Nichols and its importance to national origin discrimination and Title VI.

Title VI was enacted in 1964. And in 1974, the Supreme Court held that the Title VI prohibition against national origin discrimination includes the denial of services or benefits on the basis of English proficiency in Lau v. Nichols. Let's review Lau v. Nichols. In 1971, the San Francisco school system had nearly 3,000 Chinese students who were not fluent in English. They were integrated back into the San Francisco Unified School District after a school desegregation lawsuit. Only about a thousand of those students were provided supplemental English instruction. The remaining almost 2,000-plus Chinese students who were not fluent in English were placed in special education classes, while some were forced to be in the same grade for years. 

This ultimately led to a language-based discrimination lawsuit. The Supreme Court held in Lau v. Nichols that the language-based discrimination constitutes a form of national origin discrimination, which is prohibited by Title VI. As a result of the Supreme Court, Title VI and its implements and regulations require each recipient of federal financial assistance to ensure that each LEP individual has meaningful access to the information and services they provide.

So what does this mean? This means that Title VI requires each entity that is a recipient of federal financial assistance to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to each LEP individual, whether that individual communicates in a less frequently encountered language or a language that is more commonly encountered or has a more significant population. While the steps a recipient must take to address the needs of each LEP individual may be different, each recipient must ensure that they are providing meaningful access to each LEP individual.

So let's talk about requirements and guidance for grantees. This slide gives you a list of different—you know, lots of information as far as Title VI, Safe Street Acts, and Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which all have an expressed prohibition against national origin discrimination. It also mentions Executive Order 13166 and also a guidance document, which DOJ relies on. In 2000, Executive Order 13166 was issued. And this executive order reemphasized the existing Title VI requirement that recipients provide LEP individuals meaningful access to federally funded programs, benefits, services, and information and required federal agencies to develop guidance to clarify those Title VI obligations for recipients. On that same day, DOJ issued a general guidance document setting forth general principles for agencies to apply developing guidance documents pursuant to the executive order. Subsequently and pursuant to the executive order, DOJ developed its own guidance document in 2001, which was later revised in 2002. The guidance document serves as a model for federal agencies to follow when drafting agency LEP guidance for their funded programs.

In general, the DOJ guidance and the LEP guidance of other federal agencies describe the following five items. One, the types of language assistance services. Two, when recipients should provide the interpretation and written services to ensure effective communication. Three, the importance of having a written language access program. Four, the importance of periodically reviewing and updating this program. And five, the importance of staff understanding their obligation to provide meaningful access to information and services, which includes training about LEP policies and procedures and training how to work effectively via interpreters in-person and by phone with LEP individuals. To be clear, the guidance documents are guidance documents, not a regulation and are not enforceable. 

So, at this point, all of you have heard “meaningful access” over a dozen times between Robin's portion of the presentation and my few slides so far. So—but what does it mean and how does a recipient determine the extent of its obligation to provide LEP services? Meaningful access is the term to describe language assistance that results in accurate, timely, and effective communication at no cost. Again, accurate, timely, and effective communication at no cost to the LEP individual. In other words, meaningful access denotes access that is not significantly restricted, delayed, or inferior as compared to programs or activities provided to English-proficient individuals. Recipients are required to take reasonable steps, again, reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to their programs and activities. While designed to be a flexible standard, DOJ guidance documents suggests that the starting point is to conduct a self-assessment and to develop a language access program, which includes policy implementation plan and procedures. We'll discuss the self-assessment and the language access program in more detail in a few slides.

So what is a—Limited English Proficiency? Robin provided a lot of information on this already, so I'm just going to try and touch on a few things. But the key thing is—to remember is that individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English can be limited English proficient. LEP individuals may be competent in English for certain types of communication, speaking or understanding, but still be LEP for other purposes, reading or writing. This is very common in a lot of communities. I know I have interacted with a lot of LEP individuals who could speak to me in English but could not write in English and could not read in English or understand certain concepts in English. And so therefore, I may not have needed to use an interpreter to speak to them because they're understanding of the English language was sufficient, but anytime there was any need for writing or for reading, I would definitely need to be able to access translation services.

LEP individuals may be entitled to language assistance with respect to a particular type of service, benefit, or encounter. So an example and something to understand is that an individual may need—maybe okay with basic English or maybe English to get around from day to day or in their position, but they may not understand English on like a technical level, like legal or medical or something very specialized. And so those individuals, while they may not be—necessarily need oral interpretation or translation services or regular English for their day-to-day, but if you encounter them through medical or through legal-type situations, they may need LEP language services.

Example populations likely to include LEP persons who are encountered and/or served by DOJ recipients and should be considered when planning language services include, but not are limited, persons subject to or serviced by law enforcement activities, including for example, suspects, violators, witnesses, victims, those subject to immigration-related investigations by recipient law enforcement agencies, and community members seeking to participate in crime prevention or awareness programs, persons who encounter the court system, and parents and family members of the above. So I'm going to stress the last one, parents and family members of the above. So there might be a situation you're—you may be engaging with an individual, but there—or a—or a child, and there's—there are family members around, so the language services may be needed to provide—to be provided to those individuals as well, not just the actual beneficiary involved.

Recipients have two main ways to provide language services, one, oral, and two, written language services. Quality and accuracy is critical to avoid serious consequences to the LEP person and to the recipient. Meaningful access would generally involve some combination of the two. So let's discuss oral interpretation.

As Robin mentioned, this is the act of listening to something in one language and orally translating it into another language. Competency requires more than self-identification as bilingual. It's important that just because a staff member or someone says "I'm bilingual," that that isn't an automatic check for a person to be an official interpreter. Things you should consider. Does the interpreter demonstrate proficiency in an ability to communicate in both languages? Does the interpreter have knowledge in both languages of any specialized terms or concepts peculiar to the entity’s programs or activities? Does the interpreter understand and adhere to the role as interpreter without deviating to other roles such as counselor, legal advisors, or other. Is the interpreter certified? 

While certification is not necessarily required, it is something that is helpful. Additional note, hiring bilingual staff is a great option for some programs and activities, but note that bilingual staff may be useful for some scenarios but not all. Before I move on, I just want to note the third point here: does the interpreter understand and adhere to the role as interpreter without deviating? There have been circumstances where an interpreter is providing advice and looks into, you know, providing more information than what needs to be interpreted. So just, you know, that’s something—that’s a point that you should very much consider as you’re determining whether an interpreter is appropriate.

As noted in the slide, family members, friends, uncertified coworkers, or Google Translate are generally not appropriate. Again, I am going to stress, Google Translate is not appropriate. As you can imagine, there are concerns regarding the technical and ethical competency of such individuals acting as an interpreter, and concerns around confidentiality and privacy. As a Spanish speaker myself, I have read many things used with Google Translate and it is, again, not an appropriate tool to translate information. DOJ understands that there may be time when individuals prefer to secure their own interpreters. In those cases, make sure to document, document, document. And still offer the individual an interpreter despite their request to have their own interpreter.

Let's discuss written language services translations which Robin already defined. As far as translation, there's two issues. What documents should be translated? Vital documents. And the secondary issue is, in what languages should documents be translated to? Generally, a document will be considered vital if it contains information that is critical for obtaining federal services and/or benefits or is required by law. The decision as to what program-related documents should be translated into languages other than English can be a tough decision. You should ask yourself whether a document creates or define legally enforceable rights or responsibilities on the part of the individual beneficiary. For example, rules of conduct, leases, notices of benefits, denials. You should also ask yourself whether a document solicits important information to establish or maintain eligibility to participate in the program, such as application or certification type forms. Also for some programs or activities, written documents may be the core benefit or service that may be considered vital. As you can hear, the answer isn't clear-cut. With that said, the slide does identify a few documents that are generally considered vital and should be translated.

Concerning the issue of into what languages should documents be translated to, the answer is the languages spoken by the LEP individuals with whom the recipient has contact. With that said, there is a distinction between languages that are frequently encountered and less commonly encountered. We understand it can be unrealistic to require recipients to translate all vital documents into every language. With that said, this determination is made on a case-by-case basis depending on the totality of the circumstances. And this is one of those things that you can reach out to our office should you have a specific question regarding your specific community. A safe harbor exists for less commonly encountered language. It's important to note that the guidance acknowledges that there is a distinction between frequently encountered and less commonly encountered language. Note, while it may not be required to translate all documents at all languages, it is still required by law for recipients to provide meaningful access to LEP individuals, which may mean that oral language services are still needed to ensure access.

So let's talk about language access program. So DOJ's language access assessment and planning tool provides a model for providing meaningful access to LEP individuals, which includes developing a language access program which includes a policy, plan, and procedure. DOJ recommends these three components. The orange wedge, which is the policy component, it sets forth standards, operating principles, and guidelines that govern the delivery of language-appropriate services. Policy directors—directives may come in different forms but are designed to require the entity and its staff ensure meaningful access. And policy directives should be made publicly available.

The blue wedge, the language access implementation plan, this part is a management tool that provides an administrative blueprint for bringing the entity into compliance with language access requirements. The plan is a roadmap that describes how the entity will meet the standards described in the policy directives, including how the entity will address the language services and resources needed identified in its self-assessment.

And then the green wedge, the language access procedures. Procedures are the how-to for your staff. Procedures are detailed explanations to staff how to obtain language assistance services, gather data, and deliver service to LEP individuals. Procedures can be set forth in handbooks, agency internet sites, desk references, reminders at counters. And though we have distinct wedges for each component—the policy directives, the plan, and the procedures—please don't get stuck on the terminology or even the order. I think that's part of the reason why we chose arrows in this picture. You'll find that when you actually sit down and start writing or developing your program, the policy directives and planning procedures may become intertwined. This is just a visual concept to assist and better organize thoughts into actions as you develop your own language access program.

Self-assessment. DOJ's language access assessment and planning tool provides a model for providing meaningful access to LEP individuals, which also includes conducting a self-assessment to determine what types of contact your organization agency has with the LEP population. A self-assessment is important because each of the elements noted in the slide will help you—will help each entity identify items that need to be addressed by the language access program. So basically, self-assessment is like a—an audit. So you can take that information and then develop your actual language access program. The self-assessment included in the DOJ language access planning and assessment tool approximates the elements that are part of the effective language access plans. Among other, these elements include the following six.

Understanding how LEP individuals interact with the entity. Do they call, attend public meetings or forums? Do they mail in applications or submit their applications orally? Access a website or a portal, or send electronic communication?

Two, identifying and accessing LEP communities. This is the number or proportion of LEP persons from each language group in the entity service area, those who are eligible for the program and services and the systems in place to track their primary language information. It's important to note, as far as assessment is, who—what's the number of LEP individuals that are eligible for the programs and services that you are providing within your community.

Three, providing language assistance services. Effective communication with LEP individuals require appropriate language assistance services to be in place and available to staff. As discussed earlier, there are two primary types, oral and written.

Four, training staff on policies and procedures. Staff will not be able to provide meaningful access to LEP individuals without proper training. So the self-assessment makes you ask, “Well, what are we doing? Are we training staff? If so, what does that staff training look like?” Staff who interact with the public should be trained on the entity’s language access policies and the procedures in order to use and access the services relevant to their needs.

Five, providing notice of language-assisted services. The entity must inform LEP individuals of their eligibility for benefits, programs, and services, and the availability of language assistance services in a language they understand. This notice needs to be translated into many non-English languages, not simply the largest LEP language communities in the entity service area. It should be located on the website, outreach materials, and any other public communications, whether in written, electronic, audio or video formats. There are these I Speak Cards that will help staff help them identify the language an individual is using if it's not a common language that they recognize. And it's something that you can find online on DOJ's website, on LEP.gov. But it's something that we highly encourage if your organization is working with a community that might have languages that your staff cannot recognize immediately.

And then six, we have monitoring, evaluating, and updating the language access policy directors [directives], plans, and procedures. Each entity should track and periodically access how it provides language assistance services and whether these services are effective.

So now that we have discussed Lau v. Nichols, meaningful access, language access program, and the self-assessment, let's just discuss a case and share information. In this part, I definitely want you to use the Q&A or the chat box if you like. And so in this case, I'm just going to read some information about the case and then throw out a question out there and feel free to share it with all or if you just want to share it with the panelists, that is completely fine as well.

So in this case, a Spanish-speaking LEP resident in Florida called 911 to report that her mother was assaulting her. There were no Spanish-speaking operators available and the 911 operator decided to not utilize a telephonic interpreter, deciding it was unnecessary and that enough information was gathered to dispatch deputies and EMS. Three deputies arrived at the home of the victim and her husband, who is also LEP. The husband made repeated requests for an interpreter while trying to explain the situation in a mix of Spanish and English. The deputies decided an interpreter was unnecessary, believing they had full understanding of the situation. The deputies became aggressive with the husband and ended up grabbing and bending the husband's arm to his back, dragged him outside the house, and throwing him against the wall.

So I just want to, you know, pose the question and hear your thoughts, you know, what did they do right or wrong or both? What could they have done better? Just again, please put your response in the question-and-answer box or in the chat box, and that way we'll be able to share. I'll just wait a minute or two before moving forward with some of our general thoughts.

All right. So if some of you had—if some of you—yup. Listen to request for interpreter. Thank you so much. Also there's like two parts to this, right? What happened at the very beginning with the 911 operator and then what happened when the three deputies arrived. Having this, you know, seems like possibly bilingual operators could have been helpful or having a backup LanguageLine available just for the telephone—for the 911 operator. For the deputies, maybe having bilingual deputies available or interpreter staff, video interpretation, LanguageLine might be available. Definitely training for everybody involved here, right? Training for both the operator and deputies. We cannot stress enough the importance of training, not only to identify LEP individuals, but also to know what are the policies, procedures, and plan in place for your organization should they encounter an individual who needs language assistance services. And that training should be done on a very routine basis. This case was actually a compliance review where we found some concerns, as you can imagine, and we worked with the sheriff's office to be able to address those concerns accordingly.

And so here are some web resources. LEP.gov has a lot of resources. They have the I Speak Cards there and language posters that I mentioned. The I Speak Cards are an incredible tool that I think everyone uses. Language Maps really can help you identify the language, you know, the LEP communities within your community. There's also training for grantees available on all different areas. And so there's just a host of information on the web available around language access as LEP communities.

All right. So we're going to go and move on to question and answer, and I'm just going to put my video on. So as I mentioned and as Robin mentioned, we're here to answer any questions that you may ask. I'm going to take a second to look at the chat box and see if anybody put a question in there as well. And as Daryl mentioned early on, he did put a lot of links in the chat box for your own references.

Going back to the case, I just want to note that it's true, like I think, you know, when we're reviewing a case or a situation, and if an LEP individual expressly says, "I need an interpreter," and their request gets ignored or denied, that is a pretty serious red flag. Like many situations, it might be someone whose kind of speaking English and staff may need to identify whether or not they need LEPs or language assistance services. But in a situation where someone says, "I need an interpreter," and there's an expressed denial, that will immediately probably raise some red flags with the attorneys in our office just to ask more questions since to figure out why the response was what it was. And so definitely listening to the—listening to those requests should be part of the trainings that your staff have.

ROBIN MATTHEW: And with respect to language, ASL is also a language. So I—I've—I had—I—I'm working on a case right now where the gentleman was deaf and it was a domestic dispute. His wife was also deaf. And children—well, children, they were 20-plus years old. One was in high school and the other was 21 or so—23 I think. Anyway, the officers did not—they had access to a LanguageLine where you can use your telephone and, you know, an ASL person is visually available, and they did not use that. So we haven't closed—I mean, we haven't finished evaluating the matter, but that in and of itself raised red flags for us because they received information from the children. And I say children, not in the legal sense, but in the meaning the parents' children, which is also problematic in that, you don't know biases. You're not—as a police officer, you're not familiar with the biases in the household, so you're not—you don't know if you're receiving information that is, you know, void of—or devoid of the biases. So, also plan to have that type of interpretation service available as well.

ZORAYDA MOREIRA-SMITH: And just note around, that's a great point, Robin, but that would also be under Title II and Section 504, the Rehabilitation Act. And so the lens would be a little bit different compared to our Title VI. And we would be looking at whether or not the entity effectively communicated with the individual. And so it is a different legal process, but it is—

ROBIN MATTHEW: Yes.

ZORAYDA MOREIRA-SMITH: …a very important process and something that we do consider under language access as well just separate from Title VI.

ROBIN MATTHEW: Correct. Thank you, Zorayda. Yeah.

ZORAYDA MOREIRA-SMITH: And we might have a question before…

ROBIN MATTHEW: Yeah.

ZORAYDA MOREIRA-SMITH: I would, you know—this question and I'm not sure if it—I'm not sure if it went to everyone or just Robin and myself, but there's a question about whether or not using Google Translate to translate I believe certain…

ROBIN MATTHEW: [INDISTINCT] brief program service.

ZORAYDA MOREIRA-SMITH: surveys and texts, but not like the—not like legal or intake documents or, you know, I guess—I guess the question is like, you know, "Can Google Translate be used for non-vital documents or documents or, you know, correspondence that isn't considered vital documents?" That's an interesting question, right? You know, as a person who—again, my primary language is a different language. I would use Google Translate very sparingly, even for those things, because there's a lot of—there—the chance of miscommunication is actually rather high. 

I can spot a Google translator pretty quickly in my—when reading correspondings or reviewing information because the information is generally translated differently. Generally what happens and I've seen entity do, is they'll use Google Translate as the first layer and then use like a bilingual staff or another just to, like, edit it to make sure that it reads how it should read. But whether or not, you know, I think the question, you know, you do have the right approach as making sure that vital documents are translated in the appropriate way. I haven't seen a case where they're being—they bring to us a non-vital document being used to determine whether or not they're not in compliance. But as a person who—I wouldn't solely trust a Google Translate document if you want to make sure that you get accurate information from the LEP community you serve. Robin, did you want to add anything?

ROBIN MATTHEW: Yeah, I did. Thank you. I did want to add that I'm thinking survey needs to be parsed because that term vital document is the—is the keyword here. A survey that's asking for feedback, "Did we serve you well?" I think is non-vital. But a survey that says, "How can we serve you better?" or, you know, something that helps the—that informs the policymaking of an agency or entity becomes vital to me, in my opinion. And I think if I were asked as an attorney, I would be asking, "What is the survey trying to find out from the constituent?" But if—again, if you're just asking for feedback, "Did we treat you well today?" I think that is fine. But not anything that would help us to give you better services, we may not quite understand.

ZORAYDA MOREIRA-SMITH: And that's a great point, Robin. As we mentioned in our earlier slide, if it's something that's core to the program activity or service, and so if the survey is being used to develop a program, activity, or service, you know, there's going to be questions whether or not—what that leads to. There'll be a lot—you know, there'll be questions on our part just to figure out how much of that survey is being used to incorporate into the program, service, and activities, and whether or not the information was used, did reach the LEP community appropriately. So the vital documents as I mentioned, it's not a clear-cut. There is a list, but may—and it is done, you know, in a very legal way.

Everything's a case-by-case basis in totality of circumstances. So you do just have to ask yourself, you know, the broad questions and answering them according to your specific program and activity.

All right. I don't see any other questions. And so if there's no other questions, we're going to go ahead and just, you know—here's our email address. If you have any questions, if you need TA, we're always available. You can email both of us. We're happy to help. Our office—if we don't have the answer, there's someone in our office that has the answer, and we're happy to go seek the answer for you. It's also your Grant Manager is a great resource for you and they can also reach out to us as well. As Robin also mentioned, reaching out to us for technical assistance doesn't trigger anything. And so we do like to be collaborative with, you know, community organizations and entities on the ground, should they have any questions about any part of our presentation or issues that we deal with on a day-to-day basis. So thank you so much.

ROBIN MATTHEW: Thank you very much for having us.

DARYL FOX: All right. So on—excuse me. On behalf for the Office for Victims of Crime and our panelists, we want to thank you for joining today's webinar. This will end today's presentation.