Language Access Laws Explained
Language access laws refer to legal requirements that certain entities and organizations provide services or information in languages other than English, in order to promote access to those services by individuals who have limited proficiency in English. The goal is to eliminate discriminatory barriers that would be imposed on those non-English speaking individuals . Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the primary federal mandate for language access for healthcare providers and related organizations, and a number of federal agencies enforce it. State laws may mirror federal mandates, but there is no requirement that they do so. When state and federal laws are both applicable to a particular entity, the stricter law governs.
California’s Language Access Laws
California has a number of statutes affecting language access, including the Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act, which requires certain state and local government agencies to provide services in languages other than English to those limited in their English language proficiency. The Office of Linguistic Access is charged with development and implementation of policies relating to bilingual services to persons with limited English skills by state and local agencies in California. Subject agencies are empowered to require that employees be proficient in certain specified languages. More detailed information can be found in the Office of Linguistic Access’ document on the Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act, available here.
California’s Health and Safety Code contains provisions regarding safe and accurate medical interpretation and translation:
Under the Safe Medical Practice Act of 2006, providers and health care service plans are encouraged to use certified and accredited interpreters. Although certification is not mandatory, it is an option if a provider or plan already participates or intends to participate in a certification program approved by the Department of Managed Health Care under subdivision (d). Providers and health care service plans may deduct any expenses they incur as part of participating in the certification process from the ceiling established in subdivision (f).
A provider or health care service plan may not discriminate against an individual with limited English proficiency solely on the basis of his or her need for qualified interpreters or translators.
California’s Government Code does not require governmental entities to provide the Right to Language Access (for example, into Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Russian, Arabic, and Farsi). However, reporting by governmental entities is required:
Commencing January 1, 2005, each state agency with 50 or more state employees shall report annually to the director, through the Budget Change Proposal process, on the following items:
(a) The language other than English most commonly spoken by the population served by the agency.
(b) The number of employees of the agency who speak a language other than English other than in the normal course of their employment.
(c) The number of employees of the agency who are fluent speaking and writing in a language other than English in the normal course of their employment, and who are fluent in the language other than English of the population served by the agency.
(d) The extent to which the agency makes use of qualified interpreters and translators in its contact with members of the public who are not fluent in the English language.
(e) The recommendations of the agency for any necessary statutory or regulatory changes.
Language Access Obligations in New York
In 1990, New York State adopted Executive Order No. 26 requiring state agencies to ensure meaningful access to limited-English proficient individuals. To date, the following state agencies have issued policies or guidelines setting forth standards for provider language access programs: The New York State Department of Education, Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services, Department of Transportation, Department of State, Department of Health and Office of Mental Health Substance Abuse Services. As noted in the Governor’s website, "New York State was the first state to adopt a comprehensive approach to access to limited English proficient individuals at the state level through each agency drafting proposed language assistance plans…other states have drafted laws on access to government services for all citizens." I note that the law, as currently laid out, lacks enforcement capability and will take more time and attention to be fully effective.
Texas Language Access Laws and Policies
Language access laws in Texas apply to state-funded and state-operated educational institutions, state-funded adult education programs, and state health programs, including state-funded health services in correctional and detention facilities. These laws have had the most impact on Texas in relation to state-funded health and correctional programs. State-funded educational programs receive the greatest level of requirements under the Texas language access laws, which require programs to provide bilingual personnel, interpreting services, or documents in appropriate languages to the extent feasible. Similarly, state-funded adult education programs are required to provide bilingual personnel or documents in appropriate languages as necessary. State-funded health programs in Texas are required to provide interpreting services and documents in appropriate languages when reasonably necessary, but not for health-related measures. Although not a requirement under the language access laws, state health programs and state-funded adult education programs are encouraged to provide documents in English and Spanish. Every state health program in Texas is also encouraged, where feasible, to ensure that its services are accessible to and utilized by persons who are limited English proficient.
Language Access in Florida
The southernmost state in the continental United States, Florida is home to a sizeable population of non-English speaking residents. The state’s Office of Minority Health and Health Equity provides oversight of the coordination and monitoring of language access practices under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Per this law, entities supported by federal funding are required to be aware of the diverse language needs of its Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals – that is, 5% or more of residents who speak a language other than English and do not speak English very well. Fast-growing populations identified by the Office of Minority Health and Health Equity include Spanish, Haitian Creole and Portuguese.
Florida’s Division of Emergency Management strictly tracks the number of LEP individuals and has partnered with the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration to implement a translation and interpretation program encompassing requirements under Executive Order 13513, issued by President Barack Obama in October of 2009 to raise awareness of anti-human trafficking efforts and enhance the protection of trafficking victims. Among its specific provisions, this order mandates that all federal agencies including first responders, offer translation and interpretation services to victims of modern slavery who may enter into contact with the agency .
Per the provisions of the Executive Order 13513, which are now law under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2017, and as outlined in Florida’s State Manual for the Administration of the Emergency Management Preparedness Assistance Grant Program and the Subgrant Application and Program Guidelines, all recipients of federal funding should take affirmative steps to inform LEP communities of services available to them, ensure dissemination of materials in native languages, provide interpreter services at trainings and events, and encourage staff members to become certified in cultural competency.
Florida is also home to two state laws that directly impact language access. The first, Chapter 442 Statute on Court Interpreters, enforces requirements for interpreters in the courtroom. Regarding health services, Chapter 381 from the Florida Statutes expands comprehensively upon the authorizations and regulations of the Agency for Healthcare Administration (the state agency responsible for the oversight of public and publicly funded health services). The Chapter 381 language includes specific requirements for language access to health services vendors serving LEP populations, and calls for the implementation of the use of telephonic language services statewide.
Alongside its statewide initiatives to monitor and ensure compliance with federal language access requirements, the state of Florida also actively publishes resources and best practices for encouraging language access throughout the state.
State Language Access Laws in Comparison
Compared to federal language access laws, state laws vary significantly. Some states have no language access law at all, while others require specific notice provisions or stipulate the number of languages in which services should be available. This variability has created additional challenges in implementing the DOL language access requirement. In some areas, recipients that are already bolstered by a strong state language access program have found that they can seamlessly integrate with their federal counterparts; in other areas, the language access requirements of the two programs may be mutually exclusive.
Many state and local programs have a much longer history than DOLETA’s Language Access Plans (LAPs) and have provided a template on which states like Illinois have modeled their efforts. Each of the jurisdictions presented below has a state law, regulation, or policy that heavily influences how WIOA Title I service providers, such as local Workforce Development Boards and One-Stop operators, implement language access measures under WIOA.
While the DOL has provided guidance in the form of a program guidance letter (PGL) requiring that states using an ITA spending model of funding have a language access plan that complies with the WLAL and includes certain required elements, some states, like Illinois, do not use ITAs. These states use a financial incentive model that reimburses providers for the costs of training provided to individuals based on job placement outcomes. Illinois has chosen to implement its plans through the general promotion of language access. Officials there have established agreements with approximately 100 community organizations that have office space at various One-Stop and other locations throughout the Chicago metropolitan area to increase accessibility of important services and resources for limited-English proficient (LEP) populations. Because the DOL PGL’s requirements are not being implemented in the same ways or to the same extent in all states and jurisdictions, the impact of the WLAL on LEP communities varies significantly.
The Future of Language Access Statutes
As U.S. demographics shift and become more diverse, access to language support services in the public sector is increasingly important. In particular, the demand for in-person interpreting services (such as ASL interpreting) is only expected to increase as the population of Deaf and hard-of-hearing people grows older. Some of these trends are already becoming excellent opportunities for interpretation service providers to serve deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers. The growing utilization of video remote interpretation (VRI) as a substitute for telephone interpreting is also something that interpreters and lawmakers will need to keep an eye on over the next few years.
Technology is without a doubt changing the landscape of how services are delivered to consumers . Applications like Google Translate and other translation apps (such as Mobile Translator by the provider Straker Translations) also offer more opportunity since they can often be used to provide immediate assistance in planning a visit to a government agency or other service provider. However, we have yet to see a transition from simply translating a lack of understanding of a situation to translating a client’s rights and protections under federal and state laws. That was an opportunity missed when the Department of Justice settled a lawsuit in California. The lawsuit alleged that webpage translation on state and local government websites were inadequate to address the needs of Limited English Proficient immigrants. Advocates have continued to push for changes in information practices on state and local websites so that information is equally accessible regardless of linguistic and/or cultural barriers.