This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-91 
entitled 'Language Access: Selected Agencies Can Improve Services to 
Limited English Proficient Persons' which was released on April 27, 
2010.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

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

Report to Congressional Requesters:

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:

April 2010:

Language Access:

Selected Agencies Can Improve Services to Limited English Proficient 
Persons:

GAO-10-91: 

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-10-91, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study:

Executive Order 13166 (August 11, 2000) directs each federal agency to 
improve access to federal programs and services for persons with 
limited English proficiency (LEP). Using guidance issued by DOJ, 
agencies are generally required to develop recipient guidance and/or 
an LEP plan outlining steps for ensuring that LEP persons can access 
federal services and programs. As requested, GAO (1) determined which 
agencies have completed their recipient guidance and LEP plan, (2) 
assessed the extent to which the selected agencies have implemented 
the Executive Order consistent with DOJ’s guidance, and (3) examined 
DOJ’s and the three selected agencies’ efforts to enhance 
collaboration. GAO analyzed the Executive Order and agencies’ 
recipient guidance and plans posted on LEP.gov; selected the IRS, 
FEMA, and SBA for this review because of the amount and significance 
of their interaction with LEP persons; and reviewed documentation of 
agencies’ collaborative efforts to provide access to federal services. 

What GAO Found:

As of February 2010, 22 agencies have completed their recipient 
guidance. Additionally, DOJ has reported receiving LEP plans from 58 
federal agencies. However, the total number of agencies required to 
complete recipient guidance and an LEP plan cannot be determined 
because the Executive Order makes agencies responsible for determining 
the need for guidance and a plan based on their interaction with LEP 
persons and does not require agencies to report on the results of 
their determination. Consequently, some agencies may determine that 
drafting a recipient guidance or an LEP plan is not necessary. 
Further, although the Executive Order requires agencies to make 
recipient guidance public, the same requirement does not exist for 
plans. DOJ’s guidance contains four elements for improving access to 
federal programs and services by LEP persons. IRS has fully addressed 
each of these elements, while FEMA and SBA have made less progress, as 
shown in the table below. 

Table: Elements for Improving LEP Access Addressed by the Selected 
Agencies: 

Element: 1. Agency commitment; 
Description: Issuance and implementation of agencywide LEP plan and 
issuance of guidance to funding recipients, as well as integrating 
services into strategic planning, processes, and resource allocation; 
IRS: Fully implemented. 
FEMA: Partially implemented. 
SBA: Partially implemented. 

Element: 2. Needs assessment; 
Description: Collection of data on size of LEP customer base, 
frequency of contact, and the level of service provision needed; IRS: 
Fully implemented. 
FEMA: Fully implemented. 
SBA: Not implemented. 

Element: 3. Service delivery; 
Description: Systematic and strategic provision of services and 
outreach provided through internal resources, technology, and partner 
organizations; 
IRS: Fully implemented. 
FEMA: Fully implemented. 
SBA: Fully implemented. 

Element: 4. Monitoring; 
Description: Stakeholder feedback, ongoing measurement of resources 
used and program outputs and outcomes, and compliance with civil 
rights requirements; 
IRS: Fully implemented. 
FEMA: Partially implemented. 
SBA: Partially implemented. 

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Order 13166 and DOJ guidance. 

[End of table] 

IRS has centralized its language access services within one office, 
overseen by an agencywide executive council. Additionally, IRS 
regularly identifies the LEP populations it serves, administers a 
variety of targeted language access services, and monitors these 
services for potential improvements. FEMA has demonstrated agency 
commitment, identified LEP populations, and delivered services during 
disasters, but it lacks a structured approach to monitor these 
services. While SBA is continuing to draft its LEP plan, the agency 
does not conduct a needs assessment, and provides limited monitoring 
of services to LEP populations. 

Among the three agencies GAO reviewed, FEMA collaborates with SBA and 
IRS to provide LEP persons a centralized location for receiving 
assistance during a declared disaster. Additionally, these agencies 
(along with 21 other federal agencies), participate in an Interagency 
Working Group on LEP issues. GAO identified a potential shared 
services approach agencies could use for translation and interpretive 
services. 

What GAO Recommends:

GAO recommends that DOJ, DHS, FEMA, IRS, and SBA take a variety of 
steps to ensure that LEP persons can access federal services and 
programs. All five agencies agreed with our recommendations and 
provided technical changes that have been incorporated into this 
report, as appropriate. 

To view the Spanish translation of this highlights page, please see 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d10685high.pdf].

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-91] or key 
components. For more information, contact Robert Goldenkoff at (202) 
512-6806 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents:

Letter:

Background:

While Many Agencies Have Completed Guidance and Plans, the Extent of 
Compliance across the Executive Branch Cannot Be Determined:

IRS, FEMA, and SBA Are Implementing the Executive Order to Varying 
Extents:

Opportunities Exist for Additional Collaboration and Leveraging 
Resources:

Conclusions:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security:

Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Small Business Administration:

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

Related GAO Products:

Tables:

Table 1: Agencies with Recipient Guidance Listed on LEP.gov:

Table 2: Agencies That Have Made Their LEP Plans Publicly Available on 
LEP.gov:

Table 3: Elements for Improving LEP Access:

Table 4: Elements for Improving LEP Access:

Table 5: Elements for Improving LEP Access:

Table 6: Elements for Improving LEP Access:

Figures:

Figure 1: Elements for Improving LEP Access Addressed by Agencies:

Figure 2: IRS LEP Strategic Needs Assessment Model:

Figure 3: IRS Bilingual Tax Processing Flowchart:

Figure 4: IRS Form 433-A: Collection Information Statement for Wage 
Earners and Self-Employed Individuals:

Figure 5: FEMA Tele-registration Flyers and Instructions Translated 
into Farsi:

Figure 6: FEMA Tele-registration Flyers and Instructions Translated 
into Bosnian:

Figure 7: FEMA Spanish Website:

Figure 8: SBA's Web Site Links to the Introduction to SBA Document in 
Other Languages:

Abbreviations:

DHS: Department of Homeland Security:

DOJ: Department of Justice:

DRC: Disaster Recovery Center:

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:

GIS: Geographic Information System:

IRS: Internal Revenue Service:

LEP: Limited English Proficiency:

LITC: Low Income Taxpayer Clinic:

MLISO: Multilingual Initiative Strategic Operations:

NVTC: National Virtual Translation Center:

SBA: Small Business Administration:

SBDC: Small Business Development Center:

TAC: Taxpayer Assistance Center:

TAS: Taxpayer Advocate Service:

VITA: Volunteer Income Tax Assistance:

WBC: Women's Business Center:

[End of section]

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:

April 26, 2010:

The Honorable Daniel Akaka: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable George Voinovich: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 
Workforce, and the District of Columbia: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate:

The Honorable Michael M. Honda: 
Chairman: 
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus:

According to 2007 U. S. Census Bureau data, 21.7 million adults in 
America, or 9.5 percent of the population, were defined as adults that 
speak English less than "very well," an increase of 21.8 percent from 
2000.[Footnote 1] Persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) may 
be unable to access federal programs and services that they are 
otherwise eligible to receive, which in turn could affect individual 
LEP persons or entire LEP communities.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person in 
the United States shall be discriminated against on the basis of race, 
color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal 
financial assistance.[Footnote 2] On August 11, 2000, President 
Clinton issued Executive Order 13166, which extended the principles of 
meaningful access for limited English proficient persons embodied in 
Title VI to federal agencies' programs and services. Executive Order 
13166 required federal agencies to examine how to improve access for 
LEP persons to programs, services, and activities conducted by both 
federal agencies as well as state, local, and regional entities that 
receive federal financial assistance (a group referred to in the 
Executive Order as "recipients"). While the Executive Order does not 
prescribe specific approaches for improving access for LEP persons, it 
does require federal agencies that provide federal assistance to 
state, local, or regional programs and services to develop guidelines 
(referred to as recipient guidance) that clarifies their Title VI 
obligations. It also requires agencies to prepare LEP plans outlining 
the steps they will take to ensure that eligible LEP persons can 
access their programs and activities. The Executive Order gives the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) responsibility for approving agencies' 
recipient guidance and serving as a central repository of agencies' 
plans.

In light of the growing size and diversity of the nation's LEP 
communities, you asked us to examine aspects of the implementation of 
the Executive Order governmentwide, and to provide illustrative 
examples of how specific agencies were meeting the Executive Order's 
requirements. As agreed with your offices, we (1) determined which 
executive branch agencies have completed recipient guidance and plans; 
(2) assessed the extent to which three selected agencies have 
implemented the Executive Order consistent with DOJ's guidance; and 
(3) examined DOJ's and the selected agencies' efforts to enhance 
collaboration to improve access to federal programs and services for 
LEP populations, as well as other potential opportunities for 
collaboration.

To determine which executive branch agencies have completed recipient 
guidance and LEP plans, we reviewed the recipient guidance and LEP 
plans published on LEP.gov, a Web site created and maintained by DOJ 
to implement the Executive Order. We also reviewed the requirements of 
the Executive Order and DOJ's guidance that was issued to assist 
agencies in developing their recipient guidance. Additionally, we 
interviewed DOJ officials regarding the technical advice they provided 
to federal agencies on preparing recipient guidance and LEP plans. We 
assessed whether the selected agencies implemented four elements 
discussed in the DOJ guidance, specifically (1) agency commitment, (2) 
needs assessment, (3) service delivery, and (4) monitoring. These 
elements were assessed to determine whether they were fully 
implemented, partially implemented, or not implemented. For example, 
an agency would be assessed as having implemented the "agency 
commitment" element if it had completed its recipient guidance and/or 
LEP plan and had incorporated into its agency mission, strategic 
plans, processes, and resource allocation. Additionally, if its 
recipient guidance and/or LEP plan had not been formalized and/or it 
had not integrated its language access efforts into all aspects of its 
plans, processes, or resources, the agency would be assessed as having 
partially implemented the agency commitment element. An agency would 
be assessed as minimally implementing this element if it had taken no 
actions or minimal actions to address the element.

To review the extent to which selected agencies have implemented the 
Executive Order consistent with DOJ guidance, we selected three 
agencies to obtain a range of different types of interactions with, 
and services provided to LEP populations, as well as a mix of agencies 
with diverse missions and size. Specifically, we reviewed the 
following agencies:

* Internal Revenue Service (IRS), with 90,647 full-time equivalents 
and a budget of $11 billion as of fiscal year 2008, which interacts 
with all taxpayers nationwide. All persons earning an income are 
subject to paying taxes regardless of citizenship, immigrant status, 
or level of English proficiency.[Footnote 3]

* Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), with 2,765 permanent 
full-time equivalents and several thousand part time disaster 
assistance employees and a budget of $20 billion as of fiscal year 
2008, which leads federal efforts to prepare for, prevent, respond to, 
and recover from all hazards. It provides life-sustaining and life- 
saving services and information to LEP and non-LEP persons affected by 
presidentially declared disasters.

* Small Business Administration (SBA), with 3,636 full-time 
equivalents and a budget of $1.6 billion as of fiscal year 2008, which 
provides services and grants to LEP and non-LEP persons seeking 
assistance to start and build upon their small businesses. 
Additionally, it assists small businesses in recovery from disasters 
through its disaster assistance program.

Because these agencies were a nonrandom selection, the results cannot 
be generalized to other federal agencies. For each of the three 
agencies, we analyzed the selected agencies' recipient guidance for 
their funding recipients, their LEP plans and language access 
policies, and their strategic and human capital plans, and interviewed 
agency officials responsible for implementing the Executive Order.

To review DOJ's and the three selected agencies' collaborative 
efforts, we reviewed DOJ, IRS, FEMA, and SBA documentation of these 
efforts and compared those programs with practices that we have 
identified that enhance collaboration.[Footnote 4] Additionally, we 
interviewed officials who participate in interagency language groups 
and programs as well as officials from the selected agencies that 
collaborate with other agencies. To examine additional opportunities 
for collaboration, we interviewed officials from the National Virtual 
Translation Center (NVTC), created by statute and housed by the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, which makes translation services 
available to 15 federal intelligence agencies on an as needed basis.

To observe the agencies' language access services and collaborative 
efforts and to obtain views of agency officials who interact directly 
with LEP persons, we interviewed IRS, FEMA, and SBA officials in 
California, Georgia, Louisiana, North Dakota, Texas, Washington, and 
Washington, D.C. We selected these states because of the nature and 
significance of agencies' field office interaction with LEP persons 
and the diversity of the LEP populations in these locations.

In addition to this report, we have recently issued other reports 
addressing the federal government's foreign language capabilities. 
These reports cover several federal agencies' efforts, including the 
Department of Transportation's efforts to serve their LEP customers; 
Health and Human Services's (HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services translation of documents and HHS's Child Care Bureau process 
for sharing information to improve access to LEP families; services 
for English language learners administered by the Departments of 
Education, Labor, HHS, and National Institute for Literacy; and the 
foreign language capabilities of the Department of Defense and the 
Department of State. A list of these related GAO products is provided 
at the end of this report. Together, these reports provide a broad 
perspective on the extent to which the federal government is 
developing the necessary foreign language capabilities and cultural 
sensitivities to face the nation's emerging foreign language challenges.

Because these reports broadly cover federal agencies capabilities and 
recipient issues, we excluded these agencies from this review. We also 
excluded the U.S. Census Bureau from this review due to the numerous 
reports we have issued on the Census Bureau's efforts to increase 
participation of LEP persons in the decennial Census.[Footnote 5]

We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to February 
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Additional 
details on the scope and methodology for this review are provided in 
appendix I.

Background:

Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, state, local, or 
regional entities that receive federal funding to provide programs and 
services may not discriminate based on race, color, or national 
origin. Executive Order 13166 extends the language access requirements 
of Title VI to federal agencies that provide programs and services 
themselves and specifically addresses persons who, as a result of 
their national origin, are LEP persons. While the Executive Order does 
not prescribe specific approaches to language access services, it does 
require federal agencies to prepare plans (referred to as LEP plans) 
outlining the steps they will take to ensure that eligible LEP persons 
can access their programs and activities. According to DOJ, these LEP 
plans are important because they outline the steps agencies will take 
to ensure that eligible LEP persons can access federal programs and 
activities.

Federal agencies that provide financial assistance to state, local, or 
regional programs and services are also required to develop guidance 
(referred to as recipient guidance) that clarifies the funding 
recipients' obligations under Title VI. Rather than express uniform 
rules of compliance, DOJ's guidance incorporates "reasonableness" as 
its guiding principle by suggesting agencies assess their programs, 
services, or activities using four factors: (1) the number or 
proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be 
encountered by the program or recipient; (2) the frequency with which 
LEP persons come in contact with the program; (3) the nature and 
importance to people's lives of the program, activity, or service 
provided by the recipient; and (4) the resources available to the 
recipient and the costs of language access services. By instructing 
agencies to use this four-factor analysis, DOJ's guidance intends to 
create a balance between ensuring meaningful access to critical 
services for LEP persons and not imposing undue burdens on federal 
agencies or the small businesses, local governments, or nonprofits 
that may be receiving federal assistance.

The Executive Order required agencies to develop and implement their 
LEP plans by December 11, 2000. Agencies were required to send copies 
of their LEP plans to the Coordination and Review Section (COR) of 
DOJ's Civil Rights Division, which is responsible for serving as a 
central repository for agencies' plans.[Footnote 6] Additionally, COR 
is responsible for providing technical assistance to federal agencies 
in developing LEP plans and recipient guidance. Agencies' recipient 
guidance was to be submitted to DOJ for review and approval by 
December 11, 2000. Following DOJ's approval, each agency was required 
to publish its recipient guidance in the Federal Register for public 
comment. Agencies also placed their recipient guidance on LEP.gov, a 
Web site created by the Federal Interagency Working Group on LEP 
formed by DOJ in 2002 to share information on efforts to implement the 
Executive Order. COR maintains the Web site.

While Many Agencies Have Completed Guidance and Plans, the Extent of 
Compliance across the Executive Branch Cannot Be Determined:

As of December 1, 2009, 22 federal departments and independent 
agencies, including 13 of the 16 executive-level departments, had 
posted completed guidance for funding recipients on LEP.gov. Of these 
cabinet-level departments, recipient guidance for the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense, and Department of 
Agriculture are listed as "pending." Table 1 lists the agencies that 
have posted their recipient guidance.

Table 1: Agencies with Recipient Guidance Listed on LEP.gov:

Executive-level agencies: 
* Department of Commerce; 
* Department of Education; 
* Department of Energy; 
* Department of Health and Human Services; 
* Department of Housing and Urban Development; 
* Department of Interior; 
* Department of Justice; 
* Department of Labor; 
* Department of State; 
* Department of Transportation; 
* Department of the Treasury; 
* Department of Veterans Affairs; 
* Environmental Protection Agency. 

Independent agencies: 
* Corporation for National and Community Service; 
* General Services Administration; 
* Institute of Museum and Library Sciences; 
* National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
* National Archives and Records Administration; 
* National Endowment for the Arts; 
* National Endowment for the Humanities; 
* National Science Foundation; 
* Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Source: www.LEP.gov as December 2009. 

[End of table] 

The number of federal agencies that still must complete recipient 
guidance or LEP plans could not be determined. The Executive Order 
does not assign DOJ the responsibility for ensuring agencies complete 
recipient guidance or LEP plans. Rather, under the Executive Order, 
executive branch agencies are responsible for determining the need to 
develop recipient guidance based on whether they provide financial 
assistance to entities that provide federal services to LEP 
populations. Likewise, agencies are responsible for determining if 
they must draft LEP plans by assessing whether they have frequent or 
significant contact with LEP persons. If an agency determines that it 
is not required to draft recipient guidance, an LEP plan, or both, the 
agency is not required to report that determination to DOJ. DOJ has, 
however, provided technical assistance in many of these determinations 
and issued numerous reminders to agencies regarding their 
responsibilities under the Executive Order. For example, on November 
12, 2002, the Civil Rights Division issued a memorandum to heads of 
federal agencies, general counsels, and civil rights directors. 
Section II of that memorandum asks that each federal agency draft or 
update LEP plans and urged each agency to place a copy of that plan on 
its Web site and provide COR with the link so that it could be placed 
on LEP.gov. Other DOJ letters, speeches, and memoranda have encouraged 
agencies to publish recipient guidance and to issue or update LEP plans.

Although the Executive Order requires agencies' recipient guidance to 
be placed in the Federal Register for public comment, there is no 
similar requirement that agencies make their LEP plans publicly 
available. Rather, DOJ officials stated that, while it has encouraged 
agencies to post LEP plans and provide links to those plans on 
LEP.gov, agencies are given the discretion to make their LEP plans 
public. Of the 58 agencies that had submitted LEP plans to DOJ as of 
December 2009, 17 agencies have posted their LEP plans on LEP.gov, 
these are listed in table 2.

Table 2: Agencies That Have Made Their LEP Plans Publicly Available on 
LEP.gov:

Executive-level agencies: 
* Department of Education; 
* Department of Energy; 
* Department of Housing and Urban Development; 
* Department of Justice. 

Independent agencies: 
* Consumer Product Safety Commission; 
* Equal Opportunity Employment Commission; 
* Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; 
* Federal Trade Commission; 
* National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
* National Council on Disability; 
* National Credit Union Administration; 
* National Endowment for the Arts; 
* Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
* Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation; 
* Railroad Retirement Board; 
* Social Security Administration; 
* U.S. Office of Special Counsel.

Source: www.LEP.gov as of December 2009. 

[End of table] 

Our prior work has noted that high-performing organizations focus on 
the needs of their external stakeholders. Additionally, on December 8, 
2009, OMB issued a memo directing agency heads to promote transparency 
and accountability by providing the public timely access to 
information on the activities of federal agencies.[Footnote 7] As 
such, publicly available LEP plans could help ensure that federal 
agencies appropriately focus on the needs of LEP communities by 
enhancing the transparency of agencies' efforts and allowing for 
stakeholder scrutiny. Stakeholder review of LEP plans is especially 
important given the consequences that may occur if LEP communities do 
not have the appropriate level of access to federal programs and 
activities.

Of our three selected agencies, only IRS has posted its completed 
recipient guidance.[Footnote 8] FEMA and SBA have their recipient 
guidance listed as "pending." In regard to LEP plans, only IRS has 
issued an LEP plan, while FEMA and SBA have not.[Footnote 9]

IRS, FEMA, and SBA Are Implementing the Executive Order to Varying 
Extents:

The elements of an effective LEP plan, which involve agency 
commitment, a comprehensive needs assessment, systematic provision of 
services, and ongoing monitoring are included in DOJ's 
guidance.[Footnote 10] We used these elements as criteria to assess 
the selected agencies' progress in implementing aspects of the 
Executive Order. As shown in figure 1, IRS has addressed all the 
elements of an effective LEP Plan while FEMA has addressed half the 
elements, and SBA has met one element.

Figure 1: Elements for Improving LEP Access Addressed by Agencies:

[Refer to PDF for image: table]

Element: 1. Agency commitment; 
Description: Issuance and implementation of agencywide LEP plan and 
issuance of guidance to funding recipients, as well as integrating 
services into strategic planning, processes, and resource allocation; 
IRS: Fully implemented. 
FEMA: Partially implemented. 
SBA: Partially implemented. 

Element: 2. Needs assessment; 
Description: Collection of data on size of LEP customer base, 
frequency of contact, and the level of service provision needed; IRS: 
Fully implemented. 
FEMA: Fully implemented. 
SBA: Not implemented. 

Element: 3. Service delivery; 
Description: Systematic and strategic provision of services and 
outreach provided through internal resources, technology, and partner 
organizations; 
IRS: Fully implemented. 
FEMA: Fully implemented. 
SBA: Fully implemented. 

Element: 4. Monitoring; 
Description: Stakeholder feedback, ongoing measurement of resources 
used and program outputs and outcomes, and compliance with civil 
rights requirements; 
IRS: Fully implemented. 
FEMA: Partially implemented. 
SBA: Partially implemented. 

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Order 13166 and DOJ guidance. 

Note: Language access services that are a part of service delivery 
include oral interpretation and written translation. 

[End of figure] 

IRS, FEMA, and SBA Show Varying Levels of Commitment to Providing 
Language Services:

Table 3: Elements for Improving LEP Access:

[Highlighted: 1. Agency Commitment: 
Implementation of agencywide LEP plan and issuance of guidance to 
funding recipients, as well as integrating services into strategic 
planning, processes, and resource allocation. End Highlight] 

2. Needs Assessment: 
Collection of data on size of LEP customer base, frequency of contact, 
and the level of service provision needed. 

3. Service Delivery: 
Systematic and strategic provision of services and outreach provided 
through internal resources, technology, and partner organizations. 

4. Monitoring: 
Stakeholder feedback, ongoing measurement of resources used and 
program outputs and outcomes, and compliance with civil rights 
requirements. 

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Order and DOJ guidance. 

[End of table] 

Agencies can articulate their commitment to serving LEP populations by 
issuing an LEP plan and recipient guidance, integrating language 
access services into strategic plans, and aligning those services with 
core processes, activities, and resource allocations. Of the three 
agencies we reviewed, only IRS had fully implemented this element, 
while FEMA and SBA had partially implemented this element. 
Specifically, IRS has issued an LEP plan and recipient guidance. 
[Footnote 11] Additionally, based on its prior multilingual policy 
from 1999 and the requirements of the Executive Order, IRS's LEP plan 
notes that it's Multilingual Initiative, originally implemented in 
2000, would expand and integrate products and services to improve 
service for LEP taxpayers.

IRS has further demonstrated its commitment to serving LEP populations 
by establishing a Language Services Executive Council to oversee its 
Multilingual Initiative. The council, which includes senior executives 
and stakeholders from all of IRS's major business operating divisions, 
sets agency policy, objectives, and strategy for serving LEP persons. 
To implement the decisions of the council, IRS created the 
Multilingual Initiative Strategic Operations unit, a central office 
that has the responsibility for facilitating the delivery of language 
assistance to LEP taxpayers by the agency's different divisions.

IRS and Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) recognize that LEP individuals 
face challenges in meeting their tax obligations and, consequently, 
have integrated improvements for delivering services to LEP 
populations into their strategic planning. IRS's Strategic Plan for 
2005-2009, the Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint (the agency's strategic 
plan for taxpayer service), the agency's workforce plan, pilot 
programs, and grant applications all emphasize the importance of 
communicating with and serving LEP populations, demonstrating its 
commitment to improving LEP persons' access to IRS's programs and 
services.

According to DHS officials, DHS submitted its draft recipient guidance 
to DOJ in April 2009 and received approval in March 2010, pending 
incorporation of several comments from DOJ into the draft. DHS expects 
to send the recipient guidance to the Office of Management and Budget 
for publication in the Federal Register in April 2010. DHS informed us 
that the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will lead the 
Department in finalizing the LEP plan. FEMA officials stated that, 
prior to its merger with DHS, FEMA developed an LEP plan and recipient 
guidance in 2002, which they have used in the absence of an LEP plan 
issued by DHS. FEMA officials stated that they were instructed to not 
publish their recipient guidance and LEP plan in the Federal Register 
until a DHS-wide LEP plan and recipient guidance was developed.

FEMA disperses the authority and responsibility of improving LEP 
access among its disaster directorates. FEMA officials stated that, as 
a result, providing the information and services for LEP persons is 
not the responsibility of a particular FEMA office, rather these 
efforts are integrated into various agency programs and activities. 
After Hurricane Katrina and the passage of the Post-Katrina Emergency 
Management Reform Act of 2006, the agency took steps to improve 
services to LEP persons within all of its directorates, including, 
updating standard operating procedures, translating necessary 
materials, training staff on communicating with LEP persons, and 
including LEP persons in planning and preparedness activities. 
[Footnote 12]

Similar to FEMA, SBA had not issued its recipient guidance or LEP plan 
by December 1, 2009, however, SBA officials provided us with their 
draft recipient guidance. They attributed the delay in completing 
their LEP plan and recipient guidance to several factors, including 
staff turnover in key positions that are responsible for developing 
and approving their LEP plan and recipient guidance as well as a major 
transformation effort involving SBA's business operations, goals, and 
staffing arrangements. SBA officials did not provide a specific date 
for the completion of their LEP plan and recipient guidance.

At SBA, language access services are decentralized in that they are 
not coordinated by any central office. Furthermore, SBA's strategic 
plan, and program announcements for the Small Business Development 
Centers (SBDC), and Women's Business Centers (WBC) do not mention 
services in non-English languages and do not emphasize identifying and 
serving LEP populations. Because SBA provides both business 
development services as well as disaster-recovery assistance that 
require different language access services, SBA should use DOJ's 
guidance to help it complete its LEP plan and recipient guidance 
consistent with SBA's specific requirements.

Rigor of Agencies' Needs Assessments Varies:

Table 4: Elements for Improving LEP Access:

1. Agency Commitment: 
Implementation of agencywide LEP plan and issuance of guidance to 
funding recipients, as well as integrating services into strategic 
planning, processes, and resource allocation. 

[Highlighted: 2. Needs Assessment: 
Collection of data on size of LEP customer base, frequency of contact, 
and the level of service provision needed. End Highlight] 

3. Service Delivery: 
Systematic and strategic provision of services and outreach provided 
through internal resources, technology, and partner organizations. 

4. Monitoring: 
Stakeholder feedback, ongoing measurement of resources used and 
program outputs and outcomes, and compliance with civil rights 
requirements. 

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Order and DOJ guidance. 

[End of table] 

Of the three selected agencies, IRS and FEMA have implemented a needs 
assessment process, while SBA has not. Specifically, IRS and FEMA 
conduct national and local needs assessments of LEP populations, but 
SBA does not. To help ensure optimal use of resources, DOJ's guidance 
states that agencies should conduct a needs assessment to identify 
their LEP customer base and how frequently they interact with LEP 
persons. Although DOJ's guidance states that such an assessment helps 
agencies identify appropriate and cost-effective language assistance 
services, the guidance does not specify how frequently agencies should 
conduct this assessment. Instead, the guidance gives agencies 
considerable flexibility in conducting these assessments and only 
suggests that LEP plans be updated periodically.

IRS uses a comprehensive approach to determine the needs of LEP 
persons and communities. For example, at the national level, IRS 
completes three types of assessments to create a profile of LEP 
taxpayers, including (1) a demographic assessment of LEP persons 
eligible to be served or encountered, (2) an internal assessment of 
the multilingual products and services across the agency available to 
LEP persons, and (3) an external assessment of the effectiveness of 
language access services from the perspectives of internal and 
external stakeholders. IRS integrates data from these assessments and 
produces a Customer Base Report every 3 years. Figure 1 presents IRS's 
LEP strategic needs assessment model that consists of these three 
assessments.

Figure 2: IRS LEP Strategic Needs Assessment Model:

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Strategic Assessment (MLI Strategy Office): 

1) Demographic Assessment: 

Research: 
* Census Bureau; 
* Department of Labor; 
* Department of Education. 

- Top languages; 
- Top locations; 
- Profiles of LEP demographics: 

Who are the LEP? 
Where are they? 
What are their characteristics? 

2) Internal Assessment: 

* Performance data; 
* Focus groups. 

- Existing products/services; 
- Current demand; 
- Current cost for providing services; 
- Available employee tools; 
- Employee training: 

Current level of language assistance; 
Available employee tools and training. 

3) External Assessment: 

* Market Segment Survey; 
* Focus groups at Tax Forum; 
* Surveys from Tax Forum; 
* Earned Income Tax Credit data; 
* Low Income Tax Clinic data. 

- Effectiveness of existing products/services; 
- Need for additional products/services. 

Vital documents; 
Improvement projects. 

Information from the three assessments combine to help formulate: 
LEP Customer Base Report, which leads to: 
Strategic Planning. 

Source: IRS. 

[End of figure]

IRS officials use the Customer Base Report to assist in all major 
strategic decision making regarding multilingual services provided by 
IRS and its recipients. Following the four-factor analysis described 
in DOJ's guidance, IRS has used the data from the Customer Base Report 
to identify Spanish as the "regularly encountered language," and 
Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian, and Korean as other predominant 
languages. Moreover, IRS uses data from the Customer Base Report and 
elsewhere to determine program priorities, budgetary and training 
needs, and changes needed in service provision, as well as to choose 
new initiatives and the geographic areas into which IRS should direct 
funding for recipients. As an example, IRS's Low Income Taxpayer 
Clinic (LITC) program considers an area's language needs when 
analyzing grant proposals by relating the placement of clinics to 
population density of homes where Spanish is spoken.

FEMA officials stated that they rely on census data to develop the 
agency's national needs assessment, which is conducted by FEMA's 
Office of External Affairs, Multilingual Function within the Disaster 
Operations Directorate. Additionally, data from FEMA's National 
Processing Service Center is aggregated to identify the most commonly 
encountered languages used by individuals applying for disaster 
assistance. FEMA combines these data sources with literacy and poverty 
rates and FEMA's historical data on the geographic areas most prone to 
disasters. Furthermore, practices identified by other federal and 
state agencies as well as practitioners in the translation industry 
are reviewed and used in preparing this assessment. Through its needs 
assessment, FEMA officials reported that FEMA has identified 13 of the 
most frequently encountered languages spoken by LEP communities.

SBA does not conduct a national needs assessment. SBA officials 
reported researching the number and characteristics of immigrant 
business owners; however the agency does not perform a similar 
analysis for LEP business owners. Additionally, SBA does not 
systematically collect data on the number of interactions it has with 
LEP persons from its programs or those conducted by its funding 
recipients. Although the intake forms for clients participating in 
funding recipients' programs sometimes will include a field for the 
LEP business owner's primary language, SBA does not require this 
information to be collected or included in quarterly reports prepared 
by funding recipients. Without being able to identify the size and 
characteristics of its LEP client base, and without tracking 
information on the number of LEP clients it serves, SBA may find it 
difficult to estimate the size, location, and specific needs of the 
eligible LEP populations, a necessary step to ensure that LEP persons 
are given equal access to its programs and activities.

At the local level, IRS and TAS funding recipients that we interviewed 
have strong ties to LEP communities, and use networks of social 
service organizations to locate and target isolated communities. For 
example, the Legal Aid Society of San Diego, an LITC, partners with a 
social service provider within the LEP community, and interacts with 
local coalitions of community-based organizations, enabling it to draw 
on successful outreach strategies and learn about new or isolated LEP 
communities.[Footnote 13] Although IRS and TAS collect data from 
recipients on the overall number of LEP customers served, reports from 
funding recipients that we reviewed do not include details on the 
specific language group served or their particular service needs. TAS 
officials may want to assess whether it would be beneficial to collect 
this data from its funding recipients to identify potential 
improvements to the services provided to LEP persons.

TAS's local taxpayer advocate offices lack a formal procedure to 
conduct needs assessments of LEP populations at the local level. TAS 
uses national data from IRS's Customer Base Report and contracts with 
a firm to conduct market research on Spanish-speaking customers. 
Interviews at selected IRS local taxpayer advocate offices indicated 
that they did not have systematic procedures for identifying the LEP 
communities in their jurisdictions but instead relied on staff 
familiarity with the area or information from other organizations, 
rather than established data sources. Although the staff's information 
might be useful, it may not be comprehensive. Indeed, by using more 
comprehensive and verifiable data sources, TAS will more likely be 
able to ensure that the local taxpayer advocate offices are not 
missing LEP populations in their jurisdictions or inadequately 
addressing the needs of existing LEP populations.

Locally, in response to a disaster, FEMA conducts a needs assessment 
by following its standard operating procedures, which describe actions 
to be taken from the date of notice of a disaster until four days 
following the disaster's occurrence. FEMA's Multilingual Function 
staff use information from the U.S. Census Bureau, data from local 
school districts, and information from foreign language media outlets 
in the area to help FEMA determine the amount of funding required to 
ensure proper communication with affected LEP communities. In addition 
to this research, FEMA staff conduct an on-the-ground assessment to 
evaluate damages and locate victims. Together with staff from other 
federal, state, and local agencies, FEMA staff go door to door in 
areas affected by a disaster to assess damages, identify victims, 
provide assistance, and communicate disaster information. Data from on-
the-ground assessments are included in a jurisdictional profile, a 
record providing a brief snapshot of the disaster area's demographics, 
government jurisdictions, and damages sustained. Demographic 
information contained in jurisdictional profiles, which are meant to 
be updated regularly throughout FEMA's disaster response, help FEMA 
identify LEP populations and tailor disaster assistance information 
for specific language needs. In addition to jurisdictional profiles, 
FEMA uses analytical techniques to identify LEP victims of potential 
disasters, specifically, geographic information systems technology, 
demographic data, models of natural disasters, and estimates of the 
disaster's effects.

In addition to these standard operating procedures for disaster 
response, in the spring of 2009, FEMA has recently formalized new 
procedures to identify LEP communities at the local level. While the 
agency's national needs assessment provides a starting point to 
identify LEP communities across the country, the assessment does not 
fully ensure that FEMA identifies the existence and location of LEP 
populations in small communities within states and counties. To that 
end, officials from FEMA's Multilingual Function developed a common 
set of procedures for identifying the location and size of LEP 
populations at the local level. The new procedures include collecting 
data from national, state, and local sources, and creating a profile 
of community language needs, local support organizations, and local 
media outlets. FEMA initiated this pilot program while responding to a 
flood affecting North Dakota and Minnesota in the spring of 2009; the 
program enabled FEMA officials to develop communication strategies 
targeted to Arabic, Bosnian, Chinese Simplified, Dinka, Farsi, 
Kirundi, Kurdish, Nepali, Somali, Spanish, Swahili, and Vietnamese LEP 
communities. FEMA officials stated that they have formalized these 
procedures for use in responding to future presidentially declared 
disasters.

SBA does not request or systematically receive information on the 
number and characteristics of LEP persons served by funding recipients 
that provide grants and other services to LEP business owners at the 
local level. District-level officials we interviewed did not have 
systematic, data-driven means for assessing their LEP populations. 
During a disaster recovery operation, SBA mainly relies on FEMA's 
resources to identify language needs for interpretation and 
translation services, and the effectiveness of SBA's efforts is 
dependent on the accuracy of FEMA's assessment. In addition to working 
with FEMA to identify language needs, SBA's Customer Service 
Representatives in the Office of Disaster Assistance perform outreach 
in each community where a disaster occurs and alert management when 
they determine a language need. The Office of Disaster Assistance 
regularly attends community meetings and continually collaborates with 
FEMA to ensure all language needs are met.

Each Selected Agency Provides Services Using Internal Resources, 
Technology, and Partner Organizations to Varying Degrees:

Table 5: Elements for Improving LEP Access:

1. Agency Commitment: 
Implementation of agencywide LEP plan and issuance of LEP guidance to 
funding recipients, as well as integrating services into strategic 
planning, processes, and resource allocation.

2. Needs Assessment: 
Collection of data on size of LEP customer base, frequency of contact, 
and the level of service provision needed.

[Highlighted: 3. Service Delivery: 
Systematic and strategic provision of services and outreach provided 
through internal resources, technology, and partner organizations. End 
Highlight] 

4. Monitoring: 
Stakeholder feedback, ongoing measurement of program outputs and 
outcomes, resources used, and compliance with civil rights 
requirements. 

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Order and DOJ guidance. 

[End of table] 

IRS, FEMA, and SBA all have implemented services for LEP persons, 
specifically translation and interpretation services that are provided 
either through internal resources or contracted services. While IRS 
provides some services in several different languages that have been 
identified through its needs assessment, the majority of its 
translation and interpretation services are in Spanish. For example, 
IRS translates numerous publications and some selected tax forms into 
Spanish. Figure 3 and 4 provide an example of a bilingual publication 
describing the process for filing an income tax return and a tax form 
translated into Spanish used for collecting information from wage 
earners and self-employed individuals.

Figure 3: IRS Bilingual Tax Processing Flowchart:

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration in both English and Spanish] 

Tax Processing Flowchart: 

Prepare and Complete Return: 

Paper: 
6-8 weeks: If you don't have a Social Security Number, attach Form W-
7, ITIN Application. 

e-file: 
1-2 weeks: You have online access to information about your refund 72 
hours after IRS acknowledges receipt of your e-filed return, or three 
to four weeks after mailing a paper return. 

If you owe taxes, make your payment: Submit Return. 

Processing: 

Check status of tax return by: 
* Calling: 1-800-829-1040; 
* Tele Tax: 1-800-829-4477; 
* Refund Hotline: 1-800-829-1954; 
* Access Internet: www.irs.gov. 

Refund sent, or: 
If balance due and no payment, notice sent. Return to processing. 

Common Problems that Delay Processing: 
* Incorrect information (SSN, ITIN, birthdate); 
* Math errors; 
* Tax law; 
* Filing status; 
* Exemptions; 
* Deductions; 
* Dependents; 
* Credits. 

Provide corrected information; return to processing. 

Source: IRS. 

[End of figure]

Figure 4: IRS Form 433-A: Collection Information Statement for Wage 
Earners and Self-Employed Individuals:

[Refer to PDF for image: copy of IRS Form 433-A] 

Source: IRS. 

[End of figure]

According to the DOJ Guidance, whether a document (or the information 
it solicits) is considered "vital" depends upon the importance of the 
program, information, or service involved, and the potential 
consequence to the LEP person if the information in question is not 
provided accurately or in a timely manner. Although the DOJ Guidance 
acknowledges the difficulty of classifying documents as vital or 
nonvital, it still encourages agencies to create a plan for 
consistently determining, over time and across its various activities, 
what documents are ''vital'' to provide meaningful access for the LEP 
populations they serve. Additionally, our prior work has identified 
the importance of classifying documents as vital and has recommended 
that agencies develop policies to ensure that vital documents are 
translated, as appropriate.[Footnote 14] To guide the agency's efforts 
to provide translation services, IRS has developed criteria for 
determining whether a document is vital (required by law or containing 
critical information for taxpayers to receive a benefit or service), 
or nonvital (for education and outreach). IRS's Virtual Translation 
Office has identified 97 vital documents of which 89 have been 
translated.[Footnote 15] Based on the results of prior assessments, 
IRS has decided that its vital documents should only be translated 
into the regularly encountered language (i.e., Spanish), while 
nonvital documents may be translated into any language where that 
language is highly concentrated. An IRS official explained that 
translating vital documents into other languages would pose additional 
challenges on the agency, due to the complexity of ensuring high 
quality translation of legal documents, and the large impact it would 
have on IRS offices responsible for processing tax forms and other 
documents submitted by LEP persons. In addition to these translation 
services, the agency has 2,990 bilingual staff members who directly 
assist taxpayers, handle telephone inquiries from Spanish speaking 
persons, address taxpayer correspondence in Spanish, and conduct 
outreach to LEP communities.

FEMA also translates materials and makes them available to disaster 
victims based on the languages identified at that disaster. However, 
FEMA does not necessarily provide the public with general disaster 
information uniformly in all of the 13 frequently encountered 
languages it identified. While FEMA officials cited resource 
limitations as the reason for this, FEMA's lack of criteria for 
determining vital documents, and the large number of identified 
languages, are likely contributing factors for not providing disaster 
information uniformly in different languages. Between October 2006 and 
August 2009, FEMA's External Affairs Multilingual Function translated 
approximately 3,400 written documents, covering issues related to 
community relations, media outreach, disaster preparedness, and 
recovery activities. FEMA officials determine which languages to 
translate documents based on the language needs of LEP populations in 
a specific disaster area. For example, during the floods in North 
Dakota, to better serve residents who originally hailed from the 
Middle East, central Asia, and the Balkans, FEMA's translated flyers 
promoting its teleregistration process for disaster assistance were 
translated into Farsi and Bosnian, as shown in figures 5 and 6 below.

Figure 5: FEMA Tele-registration Flyers and Instructions Translated 
into Farsi:

[Refer to PDF for image: FEMA Tele-registration Flyer in Farsi] 

Source: FEMA. 

[End of figure]

Figure 6: FEMA Tele-registration Flyers and Instructions Translated 
into Bosnian:

[Refer to PDF for image: FEMA Tele-registration Flyer in Bosnian] 

Source: FEMA. 

[End of figure]

DOJ guidance states that an LEP person's awareness of their rights or 
the services available to them contributes to meaningful access. 
Unlike IRS and SBA, FEMA translates incoming documents from LEP 
persons. FEMA's Disaster Assistance cadre, which manages the National 
Processing Service Centers, translates applications for individual 
assistance that LEP disaster victims submitted in foreign languages.

During its recovery operations, FEMA has several staffing options to 
augment its permanent staff. FEMA officials explained that staff from 
FEMA's reserve corps, whose language capabilities are recorded in an 
automated deployment database, can be temporarily assigned to recovery 
operations. When FEMA lacks enough permanent and temporary staff with 
the appropriate foreign language skills, it hires individuals from 
within the affected area to fill unmet multilingual needs. For 
example, in 2008, FEMA used local hires who spoke Vietnamese in the 
recovery operations for Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in Galveston and 
Austin, Texas. FEMA officials stated that these local hires are 
especially useful during recovery efforts because they have relevant 
language capabilities as well as knowledge of the disaster area and 
established relationships with the affected communities.

Additionally, when disaster assistance employees and local hires are 
unavailable, FEMA can use contractors to provide translation and 
interpretation services. To ensure that the agency has the capacity to 
handle different levels of disasters, an official stated that FEMA is 
awarding a 4-year contract of up to $9.9 million, to support language 
access and related activities. During nondisaster periods, staff and 
funding are significantly reduced, which may contribute to the limited 
services for disaster preparedness targeted toward LEP communities.

Like FEMA, SBA's Office of Disaster Assistance has multilingual staff 
to provide services in foreign languages and, additionally, can 
incorporate multilingual individuals from the area affected by a 
disaster into recovery efforts, either as temporary employees or as 
volunteers. However, SBA does not have guidelines for what documents 
require translation or into which languages the documents should be 
translated.

Each agency uses technology to leverage services and resources 
operationally across its divisions and geographically across the 
nation, such as using contractors to provide over-the-phone 
interpretation services in more than 170 languages. IRS's Virtual 
Translation Office and FEMA's External Affairs Multilingual Function 
maintain central repositories of translated documents, accessible to 
their employees in their duties serving LEP persons. In addition, each 
agency operates national call centers. Each agency has a Spanish Web 
site: IRS (http://www.irs.gov/espanol/index.html?navmenu=menu3), FEMA 
(http://www.fema.gov/media/resources/spanish.shtm), and SBA 
(http://www.sba.gov/espanol/). In addition, FEMA maintains various 
multilingual Web sites, including a page offering translated documents 
(http://www.fema.gov/media/resources/languages.shtm), a site for 
emergency preparedness (www.listo.gov, the Spanish version of 
Ready.gov), and a site to register for disaster assistance 
(www.disasterassistance.gov/daip_es.portal). See figure 7 for FEMA's 
Website containing information on emergency preparedness translated 
into Spanish. SBA's Web site also contains links to its Introduction 
to SBA document in various languages. See Figure 8 for SBA's web link 
to its document (http://www.sba.gov/aboutsba/overview/index.html).

Figure 7: FEMA Spanish Website:

[Refer to PDF for image: screen capture of FEMA Spanish Website] 

Source: FEMA. 

[End of figure]

Figure 8: SBA's Web Site Links to the Introduction to SBA Document in 
Other Languages:

[Refer to PDF for image: screen capture of SBA's Web Site Links to the 
Introduction to SBA Document in Other Languages] 

Source: SBA. 

[End of figure]

IRS has within some of its field offices self-service kiosks in 
Spanish, Chinese, Russian, and Korean--kiosks provide a quick means 
for LEP taxpayers without Internet access to get forms and basic tax 
information. In contrast to IRS and FEMA, SBA does not use technology 
to service LEP persons, apart from its over-the-phone interpretation 
service.

All three agencies use either local government or nonprofits to 
provide LEP persons access to their services. IRS and TAS leverage 
partnerships among community-based and faith-based organizations, 
nonprofits, businesses, state and local governments, and foreign 
language media, to reach out and provide services to LEP populations. 
For instances, IRS provides funds to 1,543 organizations through its 
Volunteer Income Tax Assistance sites, Tax Counseling for the Elderly, 
and American Association for Retired Persons Tax-Aide grants that may 
provide services in other languages. The Taxpayer Advocate Service 
provides funds to 162 Low Income Tax Clinics to reach LEP communities, 
which provide their own language access services through multilingual 
staff. Subject to their organizational capacity and customer base, 
these partners provide services in more languages than the five 
languages identified in IRS's national needs assessment. For example, 
the Chinese Newcomers, an LITC in San Francisco, has bilingual and 
multilingual staff who speak Cantonese, Mandarin, and Shanghei. Local 
taxpayer advocate offices, administered by TAS, are additionally 
required to conduct external outreach in their jurisdictions, which 
promotes their services to LEP customers. IRS and TAS actively promote 
collaboration across IRS's business units to serve LEP populations 
through national conferences and an e-mail listing, both of which 
serve as forums for participants to share best practices.

FEMA also leverages its partnerships with foreign language media, 
state and local governments, and volunteer nonprofit organizations to 
meet LEP needs. To rapidly disseminate information to affected 
communities, FEMA uses a database of foreign language media outlets 
based on information from state and local officials and organizations, 
as well as a contracted public relations service. Voluntary nonprofit, 
local governments, and community organizations assist in identifying 
LEP communities and providing language access for disaster assistance 
services. These partnerships are integral in facilitating 
communication with linguistically isolated populations, particularly 
where skepticism of government exacerbates isolation. For instance, 
this occurred during FEMA's response to Hurricane Ike in September 
2008 when FEMA staff reached out to groups known as "colonias," which 
are communities along the Texas-Mexico border of mostly Mexicans who 
often do not have legal immigration status. According to FEMA 
officials, residents of the colonias did not trust FEMA staff, 
confusing them with officers from Customs and Border Patrol or 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement leading to the circulation of 
misinformation and residents' refusal to accept FEMA's services. 
Officials stated that FEMA was able to clarify this situation by 
forming partnerships with local governments and community 
organizations that had well-developed relationships with residents of 
the colonias.

Like IRS, SBA provides services to LEP populations through funding 
recipients who may be positioned to serve targeted LEP communities 
through well-established relationships. For example, the Asian Pacific 
Islander Small Business Program in Los Angeles, California, a Women's 
Business Center grant recipient, targets five Asian ethnic groups 
(Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, and Thai) through relationships 
with organizations with strong historical ties to each community. SBA 
relies on funding recipients to serve LEP populations and the agency 
provides limited support to recipients for their language access 
services.

IRS Systematically Monitors the Effects of Service Provision:

Table 6: Elements for Improving LEP Access:

1. Agency Commitment: 
Implementation of agencywide LEP plan and issuance of LEP guidance to 
funding recipients, as well as integrating services into strategic 
planning, processes, and resource allocation. 

2. Needs Assessment: 
Collection of data on size of LEP customer base, frequency of contact, 
and the level of service provision needed. 

3. Service Delivery: 
Systematic and strategic provision of services and outreach provided 
through internal resources, technology, and partner organizations. 

[Highlighted: 4. Monitoring; Stakeholder feedback, ongoing measurement 
of resources used and program outputs and outcomes, and compliance 
with civil rights requirements. End of Highlight] 

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Order and DOJ guidance. 

[End of table] 

Of the three selected agencies, IRS has fully implemented a monitoring 
process, while FEMA and SBA have made partial progress to implement 
this element, specifically through their efforts to monitor compliance 
with civil rights requirements. As noted in our February 2004 report 
on improving organizations' performance, high-performing organizations 
recognize the fundamental importance of monitoring and measuring 
outcomes and how these outcomes can help organizations accomplish 
their missions and programmatic goals.[Footnote 16] Periodic 
monitoring of an agency's progress toward increasing access to 
programs and services provides information for effective oversight by 
identifying performance shortfalls and appropriate improvement 
actions. Based on our review of the DOJ guidance, we identified three 
types of monitoring activities:

* Measurement of resources used and program outputs and outcomes: 
Performance information that measures or assesses the relevant 
outputs, service levels, and outcomes of each program activity.

* Stakeholder feedback: Feedback from internal and external 
stakeholders, either systematic (through formal surveys, focus groups, 
and reports) or informal (solicited or unsolicited comments from 
individuals).

* Civil rights compliance: Oversight by an agencies' equal opportunity 
or civil rights offices.

At present, IRS, including TAS, is the only agency we reviewed that 
gathers information to measure performance outputs and outcomes. IRS 
collects data for its performance metrics (including the agency's 
foreign language capacity, the number of LEP taxpayers served, and 
customer satisfaction) and for budgetary expenditures for IRS's 
language access services, enabling IRS to measure the quality of 
services provided to LEP persons. Additionally, TAS monitors IRS's 
service delivery. The National Taxpayer Advocate, the head of TAS, has 
reported on systematic gaps in IRS's services for LEP populations and 
has recommended that IRS provide publications in foreign languages 
other than Spanish, expand language access service during the audit 
process, and require that contracted debt collectors have plans for 
dealing with LEP taxpayers.

IRS also gathers data on the quality of its language access services 
by conducting surveys and focus groups with IRS employees, tax 
practitioners, and LEP persons. IRS uses the feedback to identify 
improvements to service delivery for LEP populations. For example, 
according to an IRS official, based on survey responses from LEP 
taxpayers, IRS expanded the interactive applications on its Spanish 
Web site that can be used to estimate an individual's tax credits. 
Since that change was made, the official noted that the number of hits 
on the Web site increased by 300 percent.

To ensure civil rights compliance, IRS's External Civil Rights unit 
oversees funding recipients' compliance with Title VI and the 
Executive Order. The unit requires plans for compliance, conducts 
audits to ensure equal access, and handles complaints from LEP 
customers.

FEMA obtains feedback from its staff that provide response and rescue 
services. According to officials we interviewed, FEMA's Joint Field 
Offices periodically identify critical issues and problems emerging in 
disaster operations, and create after-action reports, describing how 
FEMA served disaster-affected communities. FEMA officials stated that 
their reports identify what actions worked and improvements in 
effectiveness, efficiency, coordination, and interoperability.

According to FEMA officials, they use informal feedback from voluntary 
organizations and community groups following disasters to evaluate 
FEMA's efforts to meet the needs of LEP persons. Although FEMA has 
received feedback from these organizations and groups, it does not 
obtain this information in a structured and consistent manner. Without 
a structured feedback process, which could be conducted after the 
completion of initial rescue and recovery activities, an opportunity 
is being missed to collect data that could be used by FEMA management 
to assess and improve services, as needed.

As in the case with FEMA, SBA does not analyze data on the services it 
provides to LEP persons or those provided by funding recipients. 
Without systematically and consistently collecting program information 
on language access services, both FEMA and SBA may have difficulty 
identifying areas in need of improvement as well as processes and 
practices which can lead to more effective implementation. Moreover, 
SBA does not use a feedback process to systematically monitor its 
language access services or those services provided by its funding 
recipients. SBA requires funding recipients to evaluate their programs 
regularly; however, these evaluations do not use a uniform tool to 
collect the information. Furthermore, while this information is used 
by the funding recipient to improve their program and language access 
services, SBA does not use the information to identify potential 
service improvements. SBA's only consistent effort to collect 
information and conduct oversight of its funding recipients is done by 
SBA's Office of Civil Rights Compliance, which investigates possible 
nondiscriminatory practices relative to Title VI compliance.

Opportunities Exist for Additional Collaboration and Leveraging 
Resources:

Collaboration among agencies to improve LEP access through planning 
and providing language access services is ongoing, but could be 
enhanced. Our prior work has found that by collaborating on 
crosscutting issues, federal agencies are able to deliver results more 
efficiently than when acting alone. As part of that effort, we have 
identified practices that agencies can employ to improve their 
collaboration.[Footnote 17] Of these practices, we found the following 
four practices applicable to agencies' efforts to improve language 
access services:

* Define and articulate a common outcome through identifying a 
compelling rationale for agencies to collaborate;

* Establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies by aligning 
agencies' activities, core processes, and resources to accomplish the 
common outcome;

* Agree on roles and responsibilities, including how the collaborative 
effort will be led, clarifying who will do what, organizing their 
joint and individual efforts, and facilitating decision making; and:

* Identify and address needs by leveraging each others' resources, 
thus obtaining additional benefits that would not be available if 
agencies were working separately.[Footnote 18]

Our work found that these collaboration practices are employed by the 
Federal Interagency Working Group on LEP, a network of federal 
agencies established in 2002 by DOJ to help foster governmentwide 
collaboration for serving LEP communities. The working group's 
invitation list includes 46 different federal agencies. DOJ estimates 
that approximately 24 federal agencies participate actively. The group 
includes the three selected agencies, several cabinet level 
departments, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, and 
several smaller agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board. 
The group's mission is to build awareness of the needs and methods for 
ensuring that LEP persons have meaningful access to federal and 
federally funded programs and activities.

The working group meets approximately twice a year to discuss topics 
such as language access services in emergency preparedness, promising 
practices in a variety of contexts, enforcement, and other cross- 
cutting language access issues. The working group also consists of 
committees that meet on a more frequent basis to work on various 
implementation issues. The working group's Federally Conducted 
Committee, for example, developed a guide of suggested practices for 
implementing language access services based on a survey it 
administered to federal agencies. In addition, the working group 
convenes larger conferences covering a broader range of issues, such 
as stakeholder partnerships, dealing with limited budgetary resources, 
and leveraging technology. COR coordinates these meetings, committees, 
and conferences.

The working group and its committees have sought to improve access for 
LEP populations by promoting collaboration among federal agencies and 
state and local government entities. These efforts include sharing 
information through the production and distribution of informational 
brochures and videos as well as surveying federal agencies about their 
initiatives to improve access for LEP persons. Additionally, the 
working group has sought to increase understanding and dissemination 
of language data from the U.S. Census Bureau and to strengthen 
enforcement efforts. According to DOJ officials, the working group 
reports that their efforts have improved inter-agency understanding of 
LEP issues, and in some cases, have helped to keep the implementation 
of the Executive Order and language access services a priority within 
agencies.

The working group's Web site, www.LEP.gov, which is maintained by COR, 
shares the information it has collected and the practices it has 
developed. The Web site includes information on Executive Order 13166, 
a list of links to agency recipient guidance, as well as some of the 
published LEP plans that agencies have sent to DOJ's Civil Rights 
Division. Agencies are able to share and learn from the information 
available on the LEP Web site and the site can be used as a resource 
by other agencies or organizations when creating their own LEP plans 
and recipient guidance. Moreover, the Web site posts best practices, 
planning and technical assistance tools, other tools and samples, and 
links to resources on topics such as interpretation, translation, and 
civil rights. For example, the general planning and technical 
assistance tools include information on how to access census data, a 
selection of census data on LEP populations by state, and an 
introduction to choosing language service providers, among other 
information. These efforts to share information have assisted agencies 
in addressing the executive order and in providing meaningful access 
to LEP populations. The Federally Conducted Committee has considered 
building upon these efforts by exploring the possibility of sharing 
resources among agencies, which is not currently done by the members 
of the working group. According to an official from the working group, 
the committee has discussed the possible benefits of creating an 
entity that would allow federal agencies to share translation and 
interpretation services as well as services for training translators 
and interpreters.

In addition to these efforts to share information, the working group 
has begun exploring how agencies might share resources to improve 
access to federal programs and services by LEP persons. Our prior work 
has examined how federal agencies have shared resources for various 
support services, such as human resource management, financial 
management, and other administrative services.[Footnote 19] A shared 
services approach enables agencies to leverage their resources by 
allowing multiple agencies to use the same service provider to meet a 
common need rather than each agency individually identifying and 
managing those services. Moreover, we have also found that this 
approach holds promise for enhancing the economy and efficiency of 
federal operations in an environment of increasingly constrained 
federal resources.

Selected Agencies Have Collaborated on LEP Access During Disaster 
Recovery:

Efforts at the Disaster Recovery Centers (DRC) demonstrate the four 
applicable collaboration practices. The National Response Framework, 
developed by the Department of Homeland Security, directs FEMA to 
coordinate disaster recovery activities, including IRS and SBA 
disaster assistance programs. FEMA partners with IRS's Office of 
Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief and SBA's Office of Disaster 
Assistance, among others, to operate DRCs, which are readily 
accessible facilities or mobile offices during the recovery from a 
disaster where applicants may obtain information about disaster 
assistance programs. FEMA shares information on affected LEP 
communities with IRS and SBA, and the agencies share oral and written 
language access services for LEP persons. For example, an IRS official 
stated that while at a DRC, FEMA personnel assess the English-language 
ability of taxpayers seeking assistance and are responsible for 
providing interpreter services as needed.

FEMA and SBA staff have collaborated on providing language access 
services at the DRCs in Austin, Texas for Hurricanes Ike and Gustav as 
well as in Bismarck, North Dakota for the Midwest floods. For example, 
according to a senior SBA official, during Hurricane Ike and Gustov, 
SBA worked very closely with officials from FEMA's Individual 
Assistance and Public Assistance programs to prepare the preliminary 
damage assessment when the disasters first occurred. In addition, in 
Bismarck, North Dakota, FEMA and SBA provided interpretation and 
translation services in multiple languages to LEP disaster victims 
that applied for federal assistance. Collaboration among the selected 
agencies facilitated LEP persons applying for federal aid after the 
disasters.

Shared Services Approach May Enable Agencies to Leverage Foreign 
Language Capabilities:

The approaches used by DOJ and the selected agencies are two examples 
of how agencies can leverage resources to provide LEP persons access 
to programs and services. A third example is the use of a shared 
services approach, which is used to leverage foreign language 
capabilities among the federal intelligence community. The National 
Virtual Translation Center (NVTC), created by statute and housed by 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, makes translation services 
available to 15 federal intelligence agencies on an as needed basis. 
[Footnote 20] Intelligence agencies requiring linguists in critical 
foreign language skills, such as Arabic or Somali, may use NVTC's 
services through reimbursable agreements or military payment 
arrangements. NVTC uses independent contractor linguists with security 
clearances to provide these translation services. To reduce costs, 
these contractors work from locations across the country, either from 
their homes or nearby government offices. Documents needing 
translation are distributed to the contractors via secure channels. 
Rather than each agency expanding its own workforce to include 
additional translators with critical foreign language capabilities, 
this collaborative effort enables the intelligence community to share 
these capabilities more efficiently while meeting the demands of their 
missions. Although the NVTC illustrates a possible shared services 
approach for providing translation services among domestic agencies, 
this approach may be limited due to the technical nature of some of 
the documents needing translation, such as IRS's tax forms and 
instructions. Despite this potential limitation, the shared services 
approach still provides domestic agencies an example for translating 
basic information on agency programs and services more efficiently.

Conclusions:

Governmentwide, 22 federal departments and agencies have completed 
their recipient guidance for their funding recipients, which are used 
to clarify the funding recipients' obligations under Title VI. 
Regarding the Executive Order's requirement that agencies prepare LEP 
plans, DOJ officials reported receiving LEP plans from 58 federal 
agencies, with 17 of these plans listed on LEP.gov, as of December 
2009. Because the Executive Order makes agencies responsible for 
determining their need to complete recipient guidance and an LEP plan, 
we could not determine which agencies still needed to complete either 
the recipient guidance or the LEP plan; if an agency decides it is not 
required to complete a recipient guidance or LEP plan, they do not 
need to report this decision to DOJ.

Moving forward, it will be important for DOJ to continue to encourage 
federal agencies to complete and submit their recipient guidance to 
DOJ for review and approval as mandated by the Executive Order. 
Furthermore, although not required by the Executive Order, publicly 
available LEP plans could provide LEP communities and other 
stakeholders the opportunity to review agencies' strategies for 
improving access to federal programs and activities by LEP persons. By 
increasing the transparency of these LEP plans, agencies could obtain 
additional feedback from stakeholders on potential improvements to 
their efforts for serving LEP persons.

Aside from the preparation of their LEP plans and recipient guidance, 
we identified other opportunities to improve how the three selected 
agencies implement the Executive Order. For example, assessing the 
needs of LEP persons is integral to understanding the demand for 
services, and can be effective when needs assessment incorporates 
diverse strategies. Both IRS and FEMA conduct needs assessments that 
profile LEP persons at a national and local level. In regard to SBA, 
because it does not conduct a systematic needs assessment, the agency 
cannot determine if offices and funding recipients are fully meeting 
the needs of LEP persons.

Unlike IRS, FEMA has not developed criteria for determining which of 
its documents are vital. Translating vital documents would ensure that 
LEP persons can have meaningful access to federal programs and 
services. Implementing a policy for classifying documents considered 
vital might include criteria for translating documents, including 
regularly assessing the language needs of the populations frequently 
encountered or potentially affected by the program or activity. 
Additionally, the policy could include a process for ensuring that the 
FEMA office responsible for managing language access services has 
complete and accurate information about the agency's efforts to 
translate documents classified as vital.

With respect to monitoring their efforts, while TAS collects limited 
information on its service provisions, it could take additional steps 
to collect more comprehensive and verifiable data to identify 
opportunities to improve service delivery. By collecting and using 
more comprehensive data as part of the existing data collection 
efforts, TAS will be better positioned to ensure that the local 
taxpayer advocate offices are not missing LEP populations in their 
jurisdictions or inadequately addressing the needs of existing LEP 
populations. TAS may want to assess whether it would be beneficial to 
collect this data from its funding recipients to identify potential 
improvements to the services provided to LEP persons. The limited 
information that FEMA collects from internal and external stakeholders 
after completing disaster response and recovery activities is not 
systematic enough to substantively improve current activities. SBA 
does not monitor or evaluate its services to LEP populations. With 
more systematic monitoring, FEMA and SBA would be able to determine 
whether LEP persons were able to access programs and services and 
whether those services met their needs or identify any potential 
improvements to those services.

Collaboration among federal agencies participating in the Federal 
Interagency Working Group on LEP provides an opportunity to enhance 
collaborative efforts across the selected agencies and governmentwide. 
Building on its past and current efforts, DOJ could encourage the 
Federal Interagency Working Group on LEP to share additional practices 
and resources for use across federal agencies, such as exploring a 
shared services approach for leveraging translation and interpretation 
services.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

We are making nine recommendations to the Attorney General, Secretary 
of Homeland Security, and the Administrators of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency and the Small Business Administration.

Department of Justice:

To help ensure access to federal programs and services for LEP 
populations, as well as to promote greater transparency for LEP 
stakeholders, we recommend that the Attorney General direct the 
appropriate DOJ officials to issue a letter to the heads of all 
federal agencies reminding them of their obligations under the 
Executive Order. Specifically, the letter's content should encourage 
federal agencies to:

* Complete and submit their LEP plans and recipient guidance to DOJ 
for review and approval, and:

* Make their completed LEP plans available to the public.

Additionally, in cases when an agency has determined that it is not 
required to draft recipient guidance or an LEP plan, the Assistant 
Attorney General should request agencies to report the results of this 
determination to DOJ.

To promote more efficient improvements to LEP persons' access across 
the government, we also recommend that the Attorney General direct the 
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights to work with members of 
the Federal Interagency Working Group on LEP to explore possible 
sharing of resources and foreign language capabilities. For example, 
members of the working group may consider leveraging their shared 
resources to produce routine and frequently used documents needing to 
be translated in less common foreign languages.

Internal Revenue Service, Taxpayer Advocate Service:

To improve service to LEP populations, we recommend that the National 
Taxpayer Advocate determine whether any potential service improvements 
could be derived from requiring Low Income Tax Clinics to collect more 
detailed data on LEP populations they serve.

Department of Homeland Security:

To comply with the Executive Order and provide recipient guidance for 
DHS's components such as FEMA to follow when assessing the need to 
provide language access services for their programs, services, and 
activities, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security 
finalize and issue the department's LEP plan and recipient guidance.

Federal Emergency Management Agency:

To provide more meaningful access for LEP communities, we recommend 
that the Administrator of FEMA take the following actions:

* Develop criteria for determining vital documents needed for 
translation, and make available general disaster information in the 
regularly encountered languages.

* Develop mechanisms to monitor and evaluate services provided to LEP 
persons.

Small Business Administration:

To provide more meaningful access to LEP populations, we recommend 
that the Administrator take the following actions:

* Finalize and issue its LEP plan and recipient guidance.

* Complete a comprehensive national needs assessment which should 
include data from its existing funding recipients on the number of LEP 
persons served and how they are served.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We provided a copy of the draft report to the Secretaries of the 
Department of Department of Homeland Security and the Department of 
Justice; the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service; and the 
Administrator of the Small Business Administration for their review 
and comment. We received written comments on the draft report from 
DHS, IRS, and SBA, which are summarized below and reprinted in 
Appendices II, III, and IV. DOJ provided written technical comments, 
which we incorporated as appropriate. DOJ, DHS, IRS, and SBA concurred 
with all our recommendations.

Specifically, the DOJ Civil Rights Division concurred with our 
recommendations that DOJ issue a letter to all heads of all federal 
agencies reminding them of their obligation under the Executive Order 
and work with members of the Federal Interagency Working Group on LEP 
to explore the possibility of sharing resources. DOJ Civil Rights 
Division stated that this report would help to further federal 
initiatives to ensure meaningful access to federally conducted and 
assisted activities for persons with limited English proficiency and 
would take steps to address the recommendation.

DHS agreed with our recommendation that DHS finalize and issue its 
recipient guidance and LEP plan and stated that it is taking steps to 
finalize and publish its recipient guidance in the Federal Register 
for comment. Furthermore, the DHS stated that its Office of Civil 
Rights and Civil Liberties has assumed responsibility for completing 
the agency's LEP plan and will collaborate with FEMA to develop 
criteria for determining what documents should be translated and the 
mechanism to be used for monitoring and evaluating services to LEP 
populations.

Although the IRS/Taxpayer Advocate Service agreed with our 
recommendation that the Taxpayer Advocate Service determine whether 
any potential service improvements could be derived from requiring Low 
Income Taxpayer Clinics collect more detail data on LEP populations 
they serve, the IRS/Taxpayer Advocate Service stated that the Low 
Income Taxpayer Clinics lack resources to collect detailed data on the 
LEP populations that they serve.

SBA agrees with our recommendations to finalize and issue its 
recipient guidance and LEP plan and conduct a national needs 
assessment. SBA stated that it is initiating actions to implement the 
recommendations and provide more meaningful access to SBA's LEP 
populations.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of the 
Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, the Commissioner of the 
Internal Revenue Service, Administrators of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency and the Small Business Administration and other 
interested parties. This report will also be available at no charge on 
GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your 
staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at 
(202) 512-9110 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. 

Signed by: 

Robert Goldenkoff, Director: 
Strategic Issues Team:

[End of section]

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

To review agencies' progress in improving access to federal programs 
and services and how specific federal agencies were meeting the 
Executive Order's requirements, we (1) determined which executive 
branch agencies have completed their recipient guidance and Limited 
English Proficiency (LEP) plans; (2) assessed the extent to which 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA), and Small Business Administration (SBA) have implemented the 
Executive Order consistent with Department of Justice's (DOJ) 
guidance, and (3) reviewed DOJ's and the selected agencies' efforts to 
enhance collaboration to improve access to federal programs and 
services for LEP populations, as well as other potential collaboration 
opportunities.

To determine which executive branch agencies have completed recipient 
guidance and LEP plans, we identified which agencies and departments 
had posted completed recipient guidance on LEP.gov as of December 1, 
2009. We also reviewed the requirements of the Executive Order and 
DOJ's guidance and interviewed DOJ officials regarding the technical 
advice they provided to federal agencies on preparing recipient 
guidance and LEP plans. We assessed whether the selected agencies 
implemented four elements discussed in the DOJ guidance, specifically 
(1) agency commitment, (2) needs assessment, (3) service delivery, and 
(4) monitoring. These elements were assessed as to whether they were 
implemented, partially implemented, or not implemented. For example, 
an agency would be assessed as having implemented the "agency 
commitment" element if it had completed its recipient guidance and/or 
LEP plan and had incorporated services to LEP populations into its 
agency mission, strategic plans, processes, and resource allocation. 
Additionally, if its recipient guidance and/or LEP plan had not been 
formalized and/or it had not integrated its language access efforts 
into all aspects of its plans, processes, or resources, the agency 
would be assessed as having partially implemented the agency 
commitment element. An agency would be assessed as not implementing 
this element if it had taken no actions or minimal actions to address 
the element.

To assess how specific federal agencies have implemented the Executive 
Order, this review, we considered federal agencies based on the amount 
and significance of agency interaction with LEP populations, the types 
of services provided, agency size, agency mission, the status of each 
agency's LEP plan and/or recipient guidance, and the diversity of LEP 
populations served. To avoid duplication, we also coordinated our 
selection of agencies with work being conducted by other GAO teams in 
this area. Based on these criteria, we selected the IRS, FEMA, and 
SBA, as agencies that would provide a broad perspective on how a 
diverse group of agencies are addressing the Executive Order.

To review the extent to which these three agencies implemented 
Executive Order 13166 consistent with DOJ's guidance, we reviewed and 
analyzed the Executive Order, DOJ's guidance, the agencies' LEP plans 
and recipient guidance, and agencies' language access plans. The 
information contained in these documents explained the agencies' 
strategies for providing access to their programs and services. To 
better understand the agencywide language access policies and standard 
operating procedures for providing language assistance services to LEP 
populations, we also interviewed headquarters officials to obtain an 
understanding of the process used to develop recipient guidance and 
LEP plans for agencies and their components.

To determine how the selected agencies provide services to LEP 
populations, we interviewed senior officials at the three agencies' 
headquarters who were responsible for implementation of LEP plans and 
recipient guidance, such as civil rights officers, disaster assistance 
staff, and individuals responsible for providing language access 
services. We also conducted field visits at agency locations described 
below to observe the agencies' language assistance services and to 
obtain views of agency officials who interact directly with LEP 
persons. In consultation with senior agency officials responsible for 
language assistance services, we chose our field site visits based on 
opportunity to see direct service being provided to LEP persons.

To examine how IRS provides direct service to LEP populations, we 
visited IRS Call Centers, Taxpayer Assistance Centers, Low Income Tax 
Clinics and Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Centers in Atlanta, 
Georgia; Austin, Texas; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Los Angeles, 
California. We also visited Taxpayer Advocate Service locations in 
Atlanta and New Orleans. We interviewed staff in the Los Angeles local 
taxpayer advocate service office on the phone.

To examine how FEMA serves LEP populations in disasters, how that 
process has changed, and what lessons could be applied to future 
disasters, we included past and current disasters in different phases 
of recovery. We visited the Louisiana Transitional Recovery Office in 
New Orleans, Louisiana (for information regarding Hurricane Katrina in 
2005); and Joint Field Offices in Austin, Texas (for information 
regarding Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008); and Bismarck, North 
Dakota (for information regarding the North Dakota floods of 2009).

To examine how SBA provides access to its programs and services for 
LEP populations, we visited Women's Business Centers and Small 
Business Development Centers in Atlanta, Georgia, and New Orleans. We 
spoke to Pacific Asian Consortium Employment (PACE) in Los Angeles, 
California on the phone. In addition, we visited SBA's Office of 
Disaster Assistance, which is co-located with FEMA's joint field 
offices in Austin and Bismarck.

To assess ongoing collaborative efforts to support and improve 
agencies' language access services, we reviewed selected agency 
documentation of these efforts and compared the efforts with GAO- 
identified practices that help sustain and enhance 
collaboration.[Footnote 21] In short, GAO's practices that enhance and 
sustain collaboration are:

* define and articulate common outcomes;

* establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies;

* identify and address needs by leveraging resources; agree on roles 
and responsibilities;

* establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to 
operate across agency boundaries;

* develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results;

* reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts; and:

* reinforce individual accountability for collaborative efforts.

For the purpose of this review, we focused on the practices that were 
most applicable to federal agencies seeking to collaborate on 
providing language access services to LEP persons and communities. As 
such, we selected the following four of the eight collaboration 
practices as criteria for this review:

* Define and articulate a common outcome through identifying a 
compelling rationale for agencies to collaborate;

* Establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies by aligning 
agencies' activities, core processes, and resources to accomplish the 
common outcome;

* Agree on roles and responsibilities, including how the collaborative 
effort will be led, clarifying who will do what, organizing their 
joint and individual efforts, and facilitating decision making; and:

* Identify and address needs by leveraging each others' resources, 
thus obtaining additional benefits that would not be available if 
agencies were working separately.

Additionally, we interviewed officials who convene interagency 
language groups and officials from the selected agencies that 
participate in those efforts, specifically senior officials of the 
Federal Interagency Working Group. During interviews with officials 
from DOJ's Coordination and Review Section, we sought suggestions for 
other federal entities involved with acquiring and maintaining foreign 
language capabilities. DOJ officials suggested that we interview the 
Director of the National Virtual Translation Center to gain an 
understanding of how the intelligence agencies collaborate and 
leverage foreign language capabilities for a common goal.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

April 8, 2010: 

Mr. Robert Goldenkoff: 
Director: 
Strategic Issues Team: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Subject: GAO 10-91, Language Access: Selected Agencies Can Improve 
Services to Limited English Proficient Persons: 

Dear Mr. Goldenkoff: 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the opportunity 
to review and comment on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's 
(GAO) draft report referenced above. GAO provided several conclusions 
and made two recommendations for Executive Action relevant to the 
Department of Homeland Security. The Department concurs with the 
recommendations as referenced below. 

Recommendation: To comply with the Executive Order and provide 
recipient guidance for DHS's components such as FEMA to follow when 
assessing the need to provide language access services for their 
programs, services, and activities, we recommend that the Secretary of 
Homeland Security finalize and issue the department's LEP plan and 
recipient guidance. 

Response: Concur. The report states: "As of December 1, 2009, DHS had 
not completed its recipient guidance or LEP plan, although FEMA 
officials stated that DHS has a preliminary draft of their LEP plan. 
Despite multiple requests, DHS officials did not provide us with a 
copy of either their draft LEP plan or recipient guidance." 

DHS submitted its draft recipient guidance to the U.S. Department of 
Justice (DOJ) in April, 2009 and was awaiting approval of the 
recipient guidance from DOJ as of December 1, 2009. DHS recently 
received DOJ's approval of the guidance provided incorporation of 
several comments in the final draft. The revised guidance is attached 
and will be sent to OMB for publication in the Federal Register this 
month. 

Furthermore, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will lead 
the Department in finalizing the Department's LEP plan for improving 
access to its federally conducted programs and activities by eligible 
LEP person.

Also, in this context, it is important to point out that in 2009, FEMA 
initiated a pilot program to develop communication mechanisms that 
expanded the ability to reach several LEP communities impacted by the 
Midwest floods; this program has been expanded and currently includes 
availability of communication strategies targeted to Arabic, Bosnian, 
Chinese Simplified, Dinka, Farsi, Kirundi, Kurdish, Nepali, Somali, 
Spanish, Swahili and Vietnamese LEP communities. In addition, 
following the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA), 
guidelines were developed and implemented pursuant to section 689 of 
PKEMRA and which include LEP communities (Section 689 (e)). 

Recommendation: To provide more meaningful access for LEP communities, 
we recommend that the Administrator of FEMA take the following actions: 

* Develop criteria for determining vital documents needed for 
translation, and make available general disaster information in the 
regularly encountered languages. 

* Develop mechanisms to monitor and evaluate services provided to LEP 
persons. 

Response: Concur. The report states: "FEMA has demonstrated agency 
commitment, identified LEP populations, and delivered services during 
disasters, but it lacks a structured approach to monitor these 
services." The Department's Office for Civil Rights and Civil 
Liberties, which has delegated authority from the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
as amended and to assure compliance with Executive Order 13166, will 
collaborate with FEMA on the development of criteria for determining 
which vital documents should he translated and mechanisms for 
monitoring and evaluating services for LEP persons. 

In addition to the above responses I request that you correct a 
particular reference to communities FEMA assisted in 2009. The 
language currently contained on page 21 currently reads: 

"FEMA initiated this pilot program while responding to a flood 
affecting North Dakota and Minnesota in the spring of 2009; the 
program enabled FEMA officials to develop communication strategies 
targeted to Farsi, Nepali, Bosnian, and Vietnamese LEP communities. 
FEMA officials stated that they have formalized these procedures for 
use in responding to future presidentially declared disasters." 

Given that FEMA currently has processes in place to reach multiple LEP 
communities, we request that the above language be revised to reflect 
this as follows: 

"FEMA initiated this pilot program while responding to a flood 
affecting North Dakota and Minnesota in the spring of 2009; the 
program enabled FEMA officials to develop communication strategies 
targeted to Arabic, Bosnian, Chinese Simpliffe4 Dinka, Farsi, Kirundi; 
Kurdish, Nepali, Somali, Spanish, Swahili and Vietnamese LEP 
communities FEMA officials stated that they have formalized these 
procedures for use in responding to future presidentially declared 
disasters." 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Draft Report and we 
look forward to working with you on future homeland security issues. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jerald E. Levine: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section]

Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Small Business Administration:

U.S. Small Business Administration: 
Washington, DC 20416: 

April 2, 2010: 

Mr. Robert Goldenkoff: 
Director: 
Strategic Issues Team: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Goldenkoff: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report, "Language Access: Selected 
Agencies Can Improve Services to Limited English Proficient Persons." 
In the report, you present the GAO's recommendations for agencies, 
including the Small Business Administration, to provide more 
meaningful access to Limited English Proficient (LEP) populations. 

During the audit, the GAO found that SBA had fully implemented the 
"service delivery" element of LEP access by systematically and 
strategically providing services and outreach to LEP populations 
through internal resources, technology, and partner organizations. The 
GAO also identified areas where SBA could improve LEP access, 
particularly with respect to collecting data on the size of SBA's 
customer base, the frequency of SBA's contact with the LEP 
populations, and the level of service needed to provide access to 
SBA's LEP populations. The GAO recommends that SBA finalize and issue 
its LEP plan and recipient guidance and complete a comprehensive needs 
assessment. SBA agrees with the GAO's recommendations and is 
initiating actions to implement the recommendations and provide more 
meaningful access to SBA's LEP populations. 

After reviewing the draft report, SBA has identified several areas 
that require clarification as set forth in detail below: 

1. GAO Comment: Page 15, Second Paragraph — "Disaster Recovery Plan 
does not mention services in non-English languages..." 

SBA Response: The SBA Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP), dated November 15, 
2009, states that SBA's national call center, the "Customer Service 
Center" (CSC), utilizes Interpretalk, a technology-based translation 
service. Interpretalk is the single point of contact for disaster 
victims, and it is responsible for, among other things, coordinating 
the provision of Spanish applications to the CSC. (See Attachment 1). 

2. GAO Comment: Page 22, First Paragraph — "During a disaster recovery 
operation, SBA mainly relies on FEMA's resources to identify language 
needs for interpretation and translation services, and the 
effectiveness of SBA's efforts is dependent on the accuracy of FEMA's 
assessment." 

SBA Response: In addition to working with FEMA to identify language 
needs, the SBA conducts its own rigorous outreach efforts during a 
disaster recovery operation to ensure the needs of LEP populations are 
fully met. Specifically, Customer Service Representatives in the SBA's 
Office of Disaster Assistance's (ODA) perform outreach in each 
community where a disaster occurs and alert management when they 
determine there is a language need. ODA regularly attends community 
meetings and continually collaborates with FEMA regarding particular 
language needs for interpreters in specific areas. In addition, SBA 
provides interpretation services to anyone that visits a Disaster 
Recovery Center (DRC) by utilizing 1) the SBA staff on site, 2) FEMA 
personnel (where applicable), 3) SBA staff from other centers who 
provide language interpretation via phone, and 4) the Translation 
Services line. In the past, ODA has hired translators to work at DRCs 
and has had informational materials translated into different 
languages. Finally, SBA also tracks data regarding language needs to 
determine how long a specific language skill may be required at a 
temporary disaster location or if there is a specialized outreach 
need. The SBA communicates this information to the Public Information 
Officer who then coordinates with field operations and/or FEMA 
regarding the specific interpreter needs and duration. 

3. GAO Comment: Page 30, First Paragraph — "In contrast to IRS and 
FEMA, SBA does not use technology to service LEP persons, apart from 
its over-the-phone interpretation service." 

SBA Response: SBA uses technology in a variety of ways to service LEP 
persons. In addition to providing interpretation services by phone, 
SBA operates a national call center (CSC) through its Office of 
Disaster Assistance (1-800-U-ASK-SBA), which provides information in 
both English and Spanish (see Attachment 2). The CSC is a single point 
of contact for disaster victims who have questions about SBA disaster 
loans. Moreover, SBA maintains a Spanish website (see Attachment 3) 
that provides information on all of SBA's programs, on disaster 
preparedness, and on what assistance is available for home and 
business owners who have been affected by a disaster 
(http.//www.sba.gov/espanoi/Asistencimn_Cams_de_Desastre/). The SBA 
website also provides information in Other Languages (see Attachment 
4). SBA utilizes a variety of technologies to provide services and 
resources to LEP persons and will continue to develop such services 
going forward. 

SBA is committed to improving services to LEP persons. Thank you again 
for the opportunity to comment on the draft report, and we look 
forward to reporting back to GAO on our continued progress. 

Respectfully, 

Signed by: 

Margaret J. Bennett: 
Assistant Administrator: 
Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights Compliance: 

Attachments - 4: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

Steven Lozano and Kisha Clark managed this engagement. Scott 
Doubleday, Robin Ghertner, and Pamela Harris made key contributions to 
all aspects of the report. In addition, Virginia Chanley provided 
design methodology support, Andrea Levine provided legal support, and 
Melanie Papasian and Robert Gebhart provided communications support.

[End of section]

Related GAO Products:

Department of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent 
Foreign Language Shortfalls. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-955]. Washington, D.C.: September 
17, 2009.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: CMS Should Develop an 
Agencywide Policy for Translating Medicare Documents into Languages 
Other Than English. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-752R]. Washington, D.C.: July 30, 
2009.

English Language Learning: Diverse Federal and State Efforts to 
Support Adult English Language Learning Could Benefit from More 
Coordination. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-575]. 
Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2009.

Military Training: DOD Needs a Strategic Plan and Better Inventory and 
Requirements Data to Guide Development of Language Skills and Regional 
Proficiency. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-568]. 
Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2009.

Medicare: Callers Can Access 1-800-MEDICARE Services, but 
Responsibility within CMS for Limited English Proficiency Plan 
Unclear. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-104]. 
Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2008.

Child Care and Early Childhood Education: More Information Sharing and 
Program Review by HHS Could Enhance Access for Families with Limited 
English Proficiency. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-807]. Washington, D.C.: August 17, 
2006.

Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT's 
Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English Proficient 
Population. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-52]. 
Washington, D.C.: November 6, 2005.

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] 2007 American Community Survey (ACS). The total number of adults 
that speak English less than "very well" was determined in the ACS 
from the number of adults ages 18 and over, who indicated that they 
speak a language other than English at home and also report speaking 
limited English. 

[2] 42 U.S.C. § 200d.

[3] Full-time equivalent (FTE) employment means the total number of 
regular straight-time hours (i.e., not including overtime or holiday 
hours) worked by employees divided, by the number of compensable hours 
applicable to each fiscal year. Annual leave, sick leave, compensatory 
time off and other approved leave categories are considered "hours 
worked" for purposes of defining full-time equivalent employment that 
is reported in the employment summary (see section 85.6). This 
definition is consistent with guidance provided by the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) in connection with reporting FTE data as 
part of the SF 113G reporting system. A list of compensable days (with 
associated hours) is provided in section 85.5(b). Office of Management 
and Budget Circular A-11.

[4] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration Among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: October 21, 
2005). 

[5] See GAO, 2010 Census: Communications Campaign Has Potential to 
Boost Participation, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-525T] (Washington, D.C.: March 23, 
2009); 2010 Census: Diversity in Human Capital, Outreach Efforts Can 
Benefit the 2010 Census, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1132T] (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 
2007); and Decennial Census: Lessons Learned for Locating and Counting 
Migrant and Seasonal Workers, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-605] (Washington, D.C.: July 3, 
2003). 

[6] The Executive Order does not specifically identify which agencies 
have activities or services that may impact LEP persons.

[7] Office Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum for the Heads of 
Executive Departments and Agencies on the Open Government Directive, M-
10-06.

[8] IRS is a component of the Department of the Treasury, which issued 
the departmentwide LEP guidance in 2005.

[9] FEMA is a component of the Department of Homeland Security, which 
is responsible for issuing LEP guidance for the entire department. 

[10] The DOJ guidance list five elements of an effective plan on 
language assistance for LEP persons: (1) Identifying LEP individuals 
who need Language Assistance; (2) Language Assistance Measures; (3) 
Training Staff; (4) Providing Notice to LEP Persons; and (5) 
Monitoring and Updating the LEP plan. The criterion used for this 
review was based on our review and synthesis of the five elements 
outlined in the DOJ guidance.

[11] IRS's LEP plan and recipient guidance also cover the activities 
of the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS), an independent office within 
IRS created to assist taxpayers in resolving individual and systemic 
problems dealing with IRS.

[12] 42 U.S.C. § 5196f(3). Section (a)(3) requires that FEMA shall 
"develop and maintain an informational clearinghouse of model language 
assistance programs and best practices for State and local governments 
in providing services related to a major disaster or emergency."

[13] IRS funds LITCs through a grant program established in the IRS 
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, 26 U.S.C § 7526. LITCs are 
independent from the IRS and usually are operated by nonprofit 
organizations or law, business, or accounting schools. 

[14] GAO, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: CMS Should 
Develop an Agencywide Policy for Translating Medicare Documents into 
Languages Other Than English, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-752R] (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 
2009).

[15] The remaining eight documents have text in Spanish that refers to 
an IRS toll-free number to obtain assistance in Spanish.

[16] GAO, High Performing Organizations: Metrics, Measurement, and 
Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance in the 21st Century Public 
Management Environment, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-343SP] (Washington, D.C.: February 
13, 2004).

[17] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: October 21, 
2005).

[18] The remaining four collaboration practices were not applicable to 
agencies' efforts to improve access to federal programs and services 
for LEP persons.

[19] GAO, Financial Management Systems: OMB's Financial Management 
Line of Business Initiative Continues but Future Success Remains 
Uncertain, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-328] 
(Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2009); GAO, Human Resource Lines of 
Business, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1163R] 
(Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2008); GAO, Homeland Security: 
Management Challenges Remain in Transforming Immigration Programs, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-81] (Washington, D.C.: 
October 4, 2004).

[20] Section 313 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2003.

[21] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: October 21, 
2005).

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: