D.C. Real Estate Classes
11 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Suite 450
Washington, D.C. 20036
Check back here soon for the time and date of the next real estate class.
Publications, Studies and Research
Failure to Communicate: Report on Language Barriers in D.C. Government Services
October 2007
The Equal Rights Center
11 Dupont Circle N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
202-234-3062
Summary
Over the last six months the Equal Rights Center (ERC) investigated the extent to which five major departments of the Washington, DC government are in compliance with the D.C. Language Access Act (LAA). Specifically, the ERC conducted a total of seventy-eight (78) language access tests spread among the Department of Human Services (DHS), Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Employment Services (DES), Alcoholic Beverages Regulation Administration (ABRA), and the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) in Washington, DC.
Forty-three (43) site tests were conducted during which testers spoke Amharic, Chinese, English, Korean, Spanish, or Vietnamese. The tests took place at five specific locations: the DHS office at 645 H St. NE, the DMV office at 95 M St. SW, the DES office at 609 H St. NE, and ABRA office at 941 N. Capitol St. NE, and the DCRA’s Basic Business Licensing center (BBL) at 941 N. Capitol ST. NE. Where possible, each site was tested in each language. Additionally, thirty-five (35) telephone tests were conducted on the same five Department offices.
In total, 13 testers were recruited and trained to conduct both the site visit testing as well as the telephone testing. Tests conducted in non-English languages were performed by testers who were bilingual in the language being tested as well as English. Completion of the investigation required nearly eight hundred hours of staff and testing time. Throughout the course of the investigation the Test Coordinator spent approximately 200 hours recruiting and training testers, 50 hours conducting research and developing forms and methodologies for the project, roughly 80 hours working with testers to coordinate actual tests, another 115 hours consulting with ERC staff, counsel, and stake holders in the limited English proficiency (LEP) community. Test data analysis and preparing this report took an additional 97 hours. The 13 testers worked for 250 hours performing on site and telephone tests.
The purpose of the study was to ascertain whether residents of the District who are not able “to adequately understand or to express oneself in the spoken or written English language” could complete the task which brought them to seek one service or another from a DC government department. The LAA makes clear its purpose on page one: “ ‘Access or participate’ means to be informed of, participate in, and benefit from public services, programs, and activities offered by a covered entity at a level equal to English proficient individuals.”
Completing the task means receiving the oral and document assistance needed in the language required. That is what the Language Access Act promises. The Act explains (pp 2-3) that “ ‘Oral language services’ means the provision of oral information necessary to enable limited or no-English proficiency residents to access or participate in programs or services offered by a covered entity. The term ‘oral language services’ shall include placement of interpreters; contracting with telephone interpreter programs; contracting with private interpreter services; and using interpreters made available through community service organizations that are publicly funded for that purpose.”
The Act continues to explain (p. 3) that “ ‘Vital documents’ means applications, notices, complaint forms, legal contracts, and outreach materials published by a covered entity in a tangible format that inform individuals about their rights or eligibility requirements for benefits and participation.” The Act states on page 4 in Sec.4. (a) that “A covered entity shall provide translations of vital documents into any non-English language spoken by a limiter or no-English proficient population that constitutes 3% or 500 individuals, whichever is less, of the population served or encountered, or likely to be served or encountered, by the covered entity in the District of Columbia.”
Therefore, to complete the task and pass a test, employees at an ‘entity’ of DC government would have to arrange for the oral translation services and, when requested, the written/documents required.
Of the 38 site tests DC government entities passed 13.1% of the time and failed 86.9% of the time. All five government departments tested were supposed to have attained full compliance with the provisions of the LAA before the end of 2004, two and one half years before the ERC testing began.
In the 68 tests conducted in a non-English language, verbal translations were provided 79.4% of the time: 89.5% of the time for on site tests and only 67% of the time for phone tests. The testers calling a DC government entity did not request documents be sent to them by mail. The testers sought verbal assistance in their native language (Amharic, Chinese, Korean, Spanish or Vietnamese.) The government failure rate for the phone tests reached 33%. However, when we consider that frequently tester callers were directed by employees at the government offices contacted to go to that entity’s web site to obtain necessary documents, the City’s success rate declines sharply. None of the entities within the government departments tested provide on-line documents in each of the five non-English languages used by our testers. ABRA offers forms in Spanish and Korean; DHS offers an application form in Spanish; the other entities offer forms only in English. Therefore, the rate at which callers could receive the oral and document translation services needed is far less than 68%. The DC government has failed overwhelmingly to achieve compliance with the provisions of the Language Access Act, well after the compliance deadline has been reached and passed.
Project Design
As of October 1, 2006 all 26 departments of the DC Government which were specifically identified in the text of the DC Language Access Act of 2004 were to be fully compliant. After extensive reconnaissance and consultation with the Language Access Coalition, the ERC identified and tested the provision of services at the aforementioned Departmental offices which were to have achieved compliance no later than October 1, 2004. Specifically the investigation examined the Driver’s License application process at the DMV, the Medicaid enrollment process at the DHS, the Apprenticeship program a the DES, the Liquor Licensing process at the ABRA, and the Basic Business Licensing process at the DCRA. The main goal of the project was to ascertain how accessible basic sets of information about these programs and services would be to DC residents using any of the five non English languages.
For the purposes of analysis, a test of each location was conducted by a native English speaker to serve as a point of comparison for each subsequent test conducted in a non-English language. Each test was designed to reveal three measures of government staff compliance:
1. Identify a customer who needs language translation services.
2. Identify and confirm the language being spoken.
3. Provide verbal and document assistance in the language being spoken.
Using the control tests conducted in English it was then possible to determine comparatively whether information being provided through translation was accurate and on par with information received by English speaking customers. One telephone test per department was conducted in English to also serve as a point of comparison for the tests conducted in the other five languages.
Testers objectively recorded the details of each test on a Test Report Form, which asked for information regarding time of arrival and departure; time spent waiting to speak with a government employee, whether or not verbal translation services were provided, whether or not forms were provided, and other details. The testers wrote a narrative detailing the test experience from beginning to end. After each test, the tester was professionally debriefed by the ERC test coordinator.
Methodology and Training
Recruitment and Training
A highly trained group of bilingual testers was utilized throughout the course of this investigation. Testers had to meet high standards of selection. Testers were required to be fluently bilingual in one of the five languages as well as written and spoken English. Fluency in the non-English language was necessary to ensure tester credibility, especially with translators. Fluency in English was necessary to ensure that testers were able to complete a rigorous training module, fully understand all instruction provided by the test coordinator, and capable of documenting the fine details of each test. Testers for this project were also required to have at least six hours of uninterrupted free time between the hours of 9am and 4pm during at least one day Monday through Friday. Recruitment for the project involved contacting numerous cultural and community organizations serving the Chinese, Ethiopian, Korean, Spanish and Vietnamese populations as well as conducting outreach campaigns at local universities, and places of worship.
Beyond scheduling and language skills requirements, testers were also required to demonstrate a refined skill set well suited to testing. Specifically, it was absolutely essential for testers to demonstrate capability as role players since non-English language testers were expected to pose as customers with an extremely limited understanding of written and spoken English. Furthermore, testers were required to demonstrate solid observation and writing skills, both of which are essential to producing objective, accurate and detailed test reports.
Once selected, testers underwent rigorous training. Testers were trained to memorize the floors and room numbers where offices were located as well as specific instructions for meeting with a government staff person. The testers also had to memorize specific sets of information about each department being tested. Testers had to be carefully trained to limit their non-verbal response in the testing environment. Testers also spent significant time practicing hand, body and facial gestures which were used to provide non-verbal responses to government employees. Aside from the practical training necessary for testers to credibly conduct each test, each tester was well trained on the fundamentals and basic tenets of testing. Specifically, testers were trained to remain objective at all times and were instructed to carefully observe and record their experiences in a highly detailed manner.
Methodology
It was important that the employees at the Departmental offices did not suspect for any reason that the tester was competent in English. Therefore a carefully crafted test methodology and rigorous tester training were both necessary. The communication of non-English testers with government workers was restricted almost entirely to the non-English language. This was done to ensure that a uniform, predictable barrier to communication could be established.
Testers were instructed to interact with government workers in a very specific manner. First, testers spoke using the non-English language in which the test was being conducted. If the testers experienced discernable, non-verbal resistance (for example, shrugged shoulders, raised eyebrows, rolled eyes, or hand gestures indicating confusion) testers then stated the English word for the language they were speaking (Amharic, Chinese, Korean, Spanish or Vietnamese) repeatedly while gesturing towards themselves. Testers were also instructed to use non-verbal responses (shaking their heads for example) if they heard the word ‘English’ being stated repeatedly. Finally testers were instructed to continue speaking in the non-English language in which the test was being conducted until the government employee either: ended the test by physically motioning for the tester to leave; or attempted to further assist the tester.
Following the site visit portion of the test, testers recorded and documented their accounts on a report form as well as in a written narrative. These two documents provided critical details including when the test began and ended, descriptions and names of the government employees with whom the testers interacted, the type of information received (verbal and written), and of course, whether or not testers were able to speak with a translator and receive the documents needed to complete the task and pass the test..
The methodology for the telephone testing component of the investigation was nearly identical to the methodology for the on site testing. In the event that testers encountered an automated answering system when calling a particular department, testers were trained not to follow any of the automated instructions unless options were presented in the non-English language being tested. If options were presented, testers were instructed to follow the available prompts to try to obtain information specific to the department being tested. If no options were presented in the language being tested, testers were instructed to remain on the line until either an operator answered the call or the call was disconnected. If and when testers were able to speak personally with a government employee, testers were instructed to follow the same series of steps for interaction as in the on site tests. However, since non-verbal communication was not feasible, testers were instructed to verbally stress the language they were speaking with even greater emphasis than during the on site tests. Following each telephone test, testers recorded and documented their accounts on a specific telephone report form in addition to completing a written narrative.
Reconnaissance
Since communication between testers and Departmental office staff was so limited, careful advanced reconnaissance was essential to ensuring that testers would be able to navigate the service protocols of the various departments without having to resort to asking questions in English. In the planning stages of the investigation ERC staff visited all the Departmental offices being tested to inquire about various types of services. This advanced reconnaissance ensured that the Test Coordinator was fully aware of the standard operating procedures at each Departmental office. The insights gathered during this stage of the investigation were invaluable for training and preparing the testers. A clear working knowledge of Departmental protocol was also essential to creating a realistic, viable test methodology.
Results
In order to analyze the testing data, a standard for success had to be identified. Each test was then measured against this standard to determine compliance. Therefore, each non-English language test was analyzed to determine the following:
- Was the staff of the Departmental office able to provide verbal translation services sufficient to allow the tester to make an inquiry regarding services?
- Was the staff of the Departmental office able to answer the testers’ questions in the non-English language being spoken and provide information related to the services being inquired about?
- (On site tests only) Was the staff of the Departmental office able to provide vital documents in the non-English language being tested?
Non-English language tests in which all three of these standards were met were deemed compliant. Additionally, each non-English language test of a Departmental office was compared against its English language counterpart to measure disparate treatment.
A total of 43 on site tests were conducted, 38 of which were conducted in a non-English language. In 34 of the 38 non-English language tests (89.5%) conducted across all five departments, some form of verbal translation services were provided and testers were able to effectively communicate their requests to the employees. Of those tests 79% of the translations were provided over the telephone by accessing the Language Line translation service. In six instances, 17% of the time, translation services were provided by a staff member in person; in all but one of those instances the staff member who provided translation services was a Spanish speaker. On one occasion a non-tester customer who happened to overhear an Amharic tester attempting to communicate with an employee interceded and acted as a translator before services could be provided by the department employees.
In 13.1% of the non-English language tests conducted across all five departments, the testers were able to obtain forms in the non-English language needed.
Of the 38 on site tests conducted in a non-English language, only five tests met the three pronged standard for compliance. These figures represent a 13.1% rate of compliance for all five Departmental offices taken as a whole.
A total of 35 telephone tests were conducted in which testers spoke Chinese, English, Korean, and Spanish. A total of 30 tests were conducted on all five departments in a non-English language. Of the 30 non-English language telephone tests, testers were able to communicate with an employee, a translator, or navigate an automated system in the non-English languages on 20 occasions, roughly 67% of the time. During the other ten telephone tests, testers were unable to communicate with an employee and obtain any information for one of two reasons, either: the automated system did not offer instructions in the non-English language being tested, or, the Departmental employee failed to connect the tester to a translator. In 11 of the 20 passing phone tests, testers were told to go to the departmental offices web site to obtain documents, wherein documents in the needed language were almost always unavailable.
Results in Detail
On Site Testing
Explanation of tables:
The tables below demonstrate the performance of each Departmental office for each non-English language in which tests were conducted. The second question, which asks, “Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in (non-English language)?” measures two factors: whether employees were able to deliver information to the tester in the non-English language being spoken; and whether the level of information received was comparable to that received by the English speaking tester. The answer “Yes” is recorded only when both requirements are met.
Department of Motor Vehicles
At the Department of Motor Vehicles, testers inquired about the process for applying for a first time driver’s license, not a license renewal. In the English language based tests, testers were provided with an application form as well as specific instructions about which types of identification documents to bring when applying. The results for the tests conducted in the non-English languages appear in the tables below.
DMV – Amharic |
|||||
Test 1 |
Test 2 |
||||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Amharic? |
No |
Yes |
|||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Amharic? |
No |
Yes |
|||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
No |
Yes |
|||
Did the tester receive forms in Amharic related to the request? |
No |
No |
|||
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
No |
|||
DMV - Chinese |
|||||
Test 1 |
Test 2 |
||||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Chinese? |
No |
Yes |
|||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Chinese? |
No |
Yes |
|||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
No |
No |
|||
Did the tester receive forms in Chinese related to the request? |
No |
No |
|||
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
No |
|||
DMV - Vietnamese |
|||||
Test 1 |
|||||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Vietnamese? |
Yes |
||||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Vietnamese? |
Yes |
||||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
||||
Did the tester receive forms in Vietnamese related to the request? |
No |
||||
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
||||
DMV – Spanish |
|||||
Test 1 |
Test 2 |
Test 3 |
|||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Spanish? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Spanish? |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
||
Did the tester receive forms in Spanish related to the request? |
No |
No |
No |
||
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
No |
No |
||
DMV - Korean |
|||||
Test 1 |
|||||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Korean? |
Yes |
||||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Korean? |
Yes |
||||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
||||
Did the tester receive forms in Korean related to the request? |
No |
||||
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
||||
The Department of Motor Vehicles showed 0% compliance in on site tests across all non-English languages tested.
Department of Employment Services
At the Department of Employment Services, testers inquired about the process for enrolling in the Apprenticeship program. In the English language based tests, testers were provided with an information sheet as well as specific instruction about how to contact unions which administered certain apprenticeship programs.
DES – Chinese |
||
Test 1 |
Test 2 |
|
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Chinese? |
Yes |
Yes |
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Chinese? |
Yes |
Yes |
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
Yes |
Did the tester receive forms in Chinese related to the request? |
No |
No |
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
No |
DES – Spanish |
|||
Test 1 |
Test 2 |
||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Spanish? |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Spanish? |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Did the tester receive forms in Spanish related to the request? |
No |
No |
|
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
No |
|
The Department of Employment Services showed 0% compliance across all non-English languages tested.
Department of Human Services
At the Department of Human Services, testers inquired about the process of enrolling in Medicaid for the first time. In the English language based tests, testers were provided with an application form and given specific instruction as to where to appear in order to complete the enrollment process.
DHS - Amharic |
||||
Test 1 |
Test 2 |
|||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Amharic? |
No |
Yes |
||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Amharic? |
No |
Yes |
||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
No |
Yes |
||
Did the tester receive forms in Amharic related to the request? |
No |
No |
||
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
No |
||
DHS - Chinese |
||||
Test 1 |
Test 2 |
|||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Chinese? |
Yes |
Yes |
||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Chinese? |
Yes |
Yes |
||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
Yes |
||
Did the tester receive forms in Chinese related to the request? |
No |
No |
||
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
No |
||
DHS - Vietnamese |
||||
Test 1 |
||||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Vietnamese? |
Yes |
|||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Vietnamese? |
Yes |
|||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
|||
Did the tester receive forms in Vietnamese related to the request? |
No |
|||
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
|||
DHS – Spanish |
||||
Test 1 |
Test 2 |
|||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Spanish? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Spanish? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Did the tester receive forms in Spanish related to the request? |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
Did the test show full compliance? |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
DHS - Korean |
||||
Test 1 |
||||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Korean? |
Yes |
|||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Korean? |
Yes |
|||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
|||
Did the tester receive forms in Korean related to the request? |
No |
|||
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
|||
The Department of Human Services showed 11% compliance across non-English languages tested.
Alcoholic Beverages Regulation Administration
At the Alcoholic Beverages Regulation Administration, testers inquired about the process of applying for a Liquor License to serve liquor, beer and wine at a restaurant. In the English language tests, testers were provided with an application as well as instruction to return with the completed application in order to meet with a licensing specialist.
ABRA - Amharic |
||||||
Test 1 |
Test 2 |
|||||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Amharic? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Amharic? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Did the tester receive forms in Amharic related to the request? |
No |
No |
||||
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
No |
||||
ABRA - Chinese |
||||||
Test 1 |
Test 2 |
|||||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Chinese? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Chinese? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Did the tester receive forms in Chinese related to the request? |
No |
No |
||||
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
No |
||||
ABRA - Vietnamese |
||||||
Test 1 |
||||||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Vietnamese? |
Yes |
|||||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Vietnamese? |
Yes |
|||||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
|||||
Did the tester receive forms in Vietnamese related to the request? |
Yes |
|||||
Did the test show full compliance? |
Yes |
|||||
ABRA – Spanish |
||||||
Test 1 |
Test 2 |
|||||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Spanish? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Spanish? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Did the tester receive forms in Spanish related to the request? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Did the test show full compliance? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
ABRA – Korean |
||||||
Test 1 |
||||||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Korean? |
Yes |
|||||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Korean? |
Yes |
|||||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
|||||
Did the tester receive forms in Korean related to the request? |
Yes |
|||||
Did the test show full compliance? |
Yes |
|||||
The Alcoholic Beverages Regulation Administration showed 50% compliance across all non-English languages tested.
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
At the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs office of Basic Business Licensing, testers inquired about the process of applying for a permit to operate a Delicatessen. In the English language based tests, testers were provided with an instructional fact sheet, application, as well as a tax registration form. The English speaking tester was also instructed to return to the BBL office with the completed form to meet with a licensing specialist.
DCRA – Amharic |
||||||
Test 1 |
Test 2 |
|||||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Amharic? |
No |
No |
||||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Amharic? |
No |
No |
||||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Did the tester receive forms in Amharic related to the request? |
No |
No |
||||
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
No |
||||
DCRA- Chinese |
||||||
Test 1 |
Test 2 |
|||||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Chinese? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Chinese? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Did the tester receive forms in Chinese related to the request? |
No |
No |
||||
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
No |
||||
DCRA - Vietnamese |
||||||
Test 1 |
||||||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Vietnamese? |
Yes |
|||||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Vietnamese? |
Yes |
|||||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
|||||
Did the tester receive forms in Vietnamese related to the request? |
No |
|||||
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
|||||
DCRA – Spanish |
||||||
Test 1 |
Test 2 |
|||||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Spanish? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Spanish? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
Yes |
||||
Did the tester receive forms in Spanish related to the request? |
No |
No |
||||
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
No |
||||
DCRA – Korean |
||||||
Test 1 |
||||||
Was the tester able to communicate and inquire about services in Korean? |
Yes |
|||||
Was the tester given verbal instruction related to the request in Korean? |
Yes |
|||||
Did the tester receive forms related to the request? |
Yes |
|||||
Did the tester receive forms in Korean related to the request? |
No |
|||||
Did the test show full compliance? |
No |
|||||
The Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs showed 0% compliance across all non-English languages tested.
Telephone Testing
DMV |
|||
Language |
# of tests |
# translations provided |
Percent translated |
Chinese |
2 |
0 |
0.00% |
English |
1 |
0 |
0.00% |
Korean |
1 |
1 |
100.00% |
Spanish |
3 |
1 |
33.33% |
DES |
|||
Language |
# of tests |
# translations provided |
Percent translated |
Chinese |
2 |
1 |
50.00% |
English |
1 |
0 |
0.00% |
Korean |
1 |
1 |
100.00% |
Spanish |
3 |
3 |
100.00% |
DHS |
|||
Language |
# of tests |
# translations provided |
Percent translated |
Chinese |
2 |
0 |
0.00% |
English |
1 |
0 |
0.00% |
Korean |
1 |
1 |
100.00% |
Spanish |
2 |
0 |
0.00% |
ABRA |
|||
Language |
# of tests |
# translations provided |
Percent translated |
Chinese |
3 |
3 |
100.00% |
English |
1 |
0 |
0.00% |
Korean |
1 |
1 |
100.00% |
Spanish |
3 |
3 |
100.00% |
DCRA |
|||
Language |
# of tests |
# translations provided |
Percent translated |
Chinese |
2 |
1 |
50.00% |
English |
1 |
0 |
0.00% |
Korean |
1 |
1 |
100.00% |
Spanish |
3 |
3 |
100.00% |
Note: The DMV utilizes an automated system in which options are available in English and Spanish only; however, on one occasion after navigating the system a Spanish speaking tester was disconnected before obtaining the desired information. On another occasion a Spanish speaking tester fully accessed the information desired however it was listed in English at the final step.
Analysis
The analysis of tester narratives from the on site portion of the testing project demonstrate three clear trends. The first, and most promising, trend is that in all five locations tested, anticipating the need for translation services was in evidence. Specifically there were either posters or sheets of paper on which the translation services were advertised. Additionally these documents were written in several languages, in some cases up to 20. These documents serve two effective purposes. The first is to remind government employees and their customers that translation services are available if needed. Perhaps more useful, however, is the fact that staff can use these documents to help determine what language is being spoken. On several occasions, particularly during the Asian language tests, government employees asked the testers to identify which language they were speaking by pointing to a written phrase on either a poster or sheet of paper. This practice helped avoid confusion and ensured that the correct translators were procured through the Language Line Service. Furthermore, information and instructions on how to contact Language Line is readily available and easy for government employees and their LEP customers to utilize. In fact, the whole process of procuring a translator through Language Line proved remarkably fast in several cases, often resulting in total visit times of 15 minutes or less for testers projecting extremely Limited English Proficiency.
Although there does appear to be a system in place for acknowledging the need for translation services and for linking to LEP customer with oral translation, the degree to which government employees are trained to respond to LEP customers varies widely. For example, a Chinese language test at DMV revealed a government employee unwilling to assist the tester through the Language Line. Fortunately, another staff member intervened and assisted the tester. Ironically the second employee admonished the first employee that she ought to learn how to use the system since she might be tested one day.
In another test of the DMV, this time in Amharic, an employee recognized that the tester might be better assisted by using Language Line, however the employee did not understand that she would need to also be present during the call and therefore simply gave the tester a 1-800 telephone number. This assistance proved useless. The government employee was needed to interact with the translator and tester. ABRA, DCRA, and DES best demonstrated how effective the Language Line system can be when staff are adequately aware of its function and effectively trained in its use. ABRA, DCRA and DES scored perfectly in providing oral translation services for the testers who visited their offices. Moreover, as some testers noted in their narratives, high levels of activity within the offices did not seem to negatively impact performance or wait times.
The downside of the study is that on site testers were provided documents in the non-English language needed only 13.1% of the time. As many testers noted in their debriefing sessions, it is highly unlikely that a customer with limited English proficiency would be able to navigate the English versions of the forms. On at least a few occasions employees seemed to recognize the absurdity of the situation: one ABRA employee remarked that she thought the forms were supposed to have been translated by now. An occasional lack of cultural understanding was an additional problem which did not rise to the level of a discernable trend but which bears noting nonetheless. On the Vietnamese language test of the DMV the employee wondered aloud how the tester would manage to drive if she could not speak English. On another occasion an employee mistook Amharic for Arabic, insisted that the tester needed assistance in Arabic despite the tester’s protestations to the contrary, and ultimately connected the tester with an Arabic translator who then informed the employee that the tester was in fact speaking Amharic and not Arabic.
The telephone testing segment of the investigation also yielded two troubling trends. First and foremost is the use of automated systems such as the one in place at the DMV which provides options in only English and Spanish and then disconnects the caller. The DHS also showed some systemic flaws in its telephone testing. On four occasions a DHS employee actually spoke with a tester, identified the language which the tester was speaking and then disconnected the call, indicating that they were unable to assist. Given the performance of the employees at the DCRA, ABRA and DES it seems unlikely that an employee at the DHS would have been unable to conference in a translator to assist the tester.
The District government has a long way to go to attain full compliance with the provisions of the Language Access Act, now more than three years after its passage into law.
Data on the specific rates of compliance for each individual Departmental office are available in the section titled “Results in Detail.”