1 INTRODUCTION
advertisement
MassDOT Title VI Report 2011 INTRODUCTION On December 14, 2005, the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) published revised guidance for its funding recipients on the implementation of Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” U.S. DOT guidance defines limited English proficient (LEP) persons as “individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English.” The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) serves a broad and diverse community. Providing practical access to information for all citizens who use MassDOT’s programs and services is a high priority for the agency. MassDOT supports the goals of the U.S. DOT LEP guidance and is committed to taking reasonable steps to provide meaningful access for LEP individuals who use MassDOT’s services, facilities, and programs and for those who attend MassDOT’s meetings and events. To ensure that MassDOT complies with the requirements of Title VI, Executive Order 13166, and the U.S. DOT LEP implementation guidance, this Language Access Plan incorporates the five elements that the federal guidance identifies as necessary for providing language assistance to LEP persons. LEGAL BASIS FOR LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS The LEP requirements have their roots in the civil rights movement and the legislation it engendered. 1. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., and its implementing regulations provide that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that receives federal financial assistance. The Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), interpreted Title VI regulations promulgated by the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to hold that Title VI prohibits conduct that has a disproportionate effect on LEP persons because such conduct constitutes discrimination on the basis of national origin. 2. Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,” reprinted at 65 FR 50121 (August 16, 2000), directs each federal agency to examine the services it provides and develop and implement a system by which LEP persons can meaningfully access those services. Federal agencies are instructed to publish guidance for their respective funding recipients in order to assist them with their obligations to LEP persons under Title VI. The Executive Order states that recipients must take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to their programs and activities by LEP persons. U.S. DOT published revised LEP guidance for its recipients on December 15, 2005, that reflects Executive Order 13166, stating that Title VI and its implementing regulations require that its recipients take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to their programs and activities by LEP persons. The Federal Transit Administration published its LEP guidance in its Circular 4702.1A, “Title VI and Title VI Dependent Guidelines for FTA Recipients,” on April 13, 2007, which requires recipients to provide meaningful access to LEP persons and recommends development of a language access plan consistent with the provisions of Section VII of the U.S. DOT LEP guidance. As a recipient of federal funding from U.S. DOT, MassDOT must assess the language access needs of LEP populations in relation to all MassDOT programs, activities, and services. This needs assessment, as defined by U.S. DOT and incorporated into this MassDOT Language Access Plan, is based on an analysis of four factors. The first two of the four factors are used to identify individuals who need language assistance. The third and fourth factors are used to determine appropriate language assistance measures. Factor 1: The Number and Proportion of Persons in the Service Population Who Are LEP The greater the number or proportion of LEP persons from a particular language group served or encountered in the eligible service population, the more likely it is that language services are needed for those persons. For its quantitative analysis, MassDOT is currently using data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Beginning in 2010, the decennial census reports only on a limited set of demographic data, including the number of persons per household and their gender, age, and race. The more detailed data that were previously collected through the decennial census “long form” are now collected through the American Community Survey (ACS), which combines sample data from five years to provide estimates of specific demographic characteristics at geographic levels down to census tract. Questions regarding languages spoken at home and whether individuals speak English “very well,” “well,” “less than well,” or “not at all” are now a part of the ACS. LEP persons are defined as those who speak English “less than well” or “not at all.” The total LEP population of MassDOT’s service area has been estimated as the sum of the LEP populations of all census tracts in the state as determined using the ACS data for 2006–2010. Using the 2006–2010 ACS data, MassDOT has analyzed the numbers of LEP persons statewide in Massachusetts by language spoken. The total LEP population, including all languages, is 264,264, which represents 4.3 percent of the total statewide population. The largest proportion of these LEP persons speak Spanish and make up 2 percent of the commonwealth’s population. The LEP populations meeting the U.S. DOT definition of LEP “safe harbor” thresholds statewide (5% or 1,000 individuals, whichever is less) are: • Spanish (113,855) • Portuguese (47,460) • Chinese – all dialects (22,187) • Vietnamese (13,969) • French Creole (9,337) • Russian (9,237) • Mon-Khmer, Cambodian (6,553) • Italian (4,994) • French (4,476) • Polish (3,083) • Greek (3,017) • Korean (2,863) • Arabic (2,806) • Mandarin (1,969) • Albanian (1,890) • Japanese (1,355) • Gujarati (1,139) 1 Census data are from the 2006–2010 ACS Public Use Microdata 5% Sample, a dataset that allows the language spoken at home to be cross-tabulated with LEP status statewide. Appendix D: Language Access Plan IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE MassDOT Title VI Report 2011 Figure 1 presents the percentage of total LEP persons statewide by language for the top five languages spoken. Figure 1 Percentage of Total LEP Persons Statewide by Language for the Top Five Languages Spoken 18.2% 8.7% Spanish Portuguese 3.3% 3.1% 2.2% Chinese French Creole Russian The 2006-2010 ACS dataset does not permit the cross-tabulation of the language spoken at home with LEP status at the census-tract geographic level. However, MassDOT has mapped the ACS data to provide a geographic representation of where concentrations of LEP persons live and to show what languages are spoken at home in those areas. As a context for this, Figure 2 presents the distribution of population for all language speakers in Massachusetts— that is, the overall population density—and shows the greatest densities occurring, naturally, in the urban areas. Figure 3 presents the percentage of LEP persons by census tract, regardless of language spoken at home. The highest LEP percentages primarily occur in urban areas. Figures 4 through 8 present the distributions of individuals for whom the primary language spoken at home is Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese (all dialects), French Creole, and Vietnamese, respectively, overlaid on the LEP percentages presented in Figure 3. These are the five languages, after English, which are reported as being the most frequently spoken at home and which show the highest levels of limited English proficiency statewide.2 From the figures it is apparent that some languages are spoken primarily in and around Boston, while others are more broadly distributed. Spanish speakers, for example, have a large population in Boston but also in Lawrence and Springfield, while Chinese speakers are more concentrated in and around Boston. Finally, Figure 9 presents the combined distribution of individuals speaking languages at home other than English or the five languages identified in Figures 4 through 8. The number of these individuals is also identified in each city or town by language spoken. MassDOT has also obtained data for 2011 from the Massachusetts Department of Education indicating the number of LEP students enrolled in the public schools, by language, for each municipality in the commonwealth. Although the school population does not have a one-to-one correlation with the overall population of a municipality, the languages that students speak can give additional insight into language composition and proficiency and the areas where assistance is likely to be needed. Tables 1 and 2 show the numbers of LEP students by language and the percentages they make up of the total school population for the neighborhoods of Boston (Table 1) and for all other Massachusetts municipalities (Table 2). The tables include all languages that meet the safe harbor threshold of 1,000 individuals or 5% (based on total enrollment in the neighborhood or municipality). This data supports the census data patterns shown in Figures 1 through 9 in terms of the general distribution of LEP populations and languages spoken. 2 Note that the top five languages (other than English) most often spoken at home are not the same as the five languages with the most LEP persons, presented in Figure 1. For the purposes of Figures 4 through 8 the top five LEP languages statewide are displayed. As a result, the order of the languages differs from the order in Figure 1, because some languages with more speakers have fewer who identified as having limited English proficiency. Boylston FIGURE 2 Holden Tyngs­ borough Population Distribution of All Language Speakers (ACS 2010 5-year summaries) Shrewsbury Worcester Burlington Methuen Lowell Merri­ mac Belmont Franklin Wrentham A Granby Lawrence ld Tops fie lem Sa Reading Stoughton Sharon Easton Mansfield rth ug h N o or o b ttle Hol­ brook Abing­ ton Attleboro Berkley Plympton Wellfleet Plymouth Carver Wareham t Freetown r se Swansea So Rochester Dartmouth Matt a­ poisett Dennis Barnstable no s Go Harwich Chatham Freetown Swansea Fall River ld y ur West Tisbury 6,108,770 Dots are placed randomly in census tracts (boundaries not shown). Data are from the American Community Survey 2010 5-year summaries. Brewster b Tis Springfield Dartmouth Somerset Falmouth Wilbraham West Springfield Yarmouth Mashpee en 4,823,127 457,990 180,975 98,735 53,724 35,306 458,913 Sandwich Bourne ha v Fair Westport hnet Fall River Fairhaven Kingston Lakeville me Seeko nk Ludlow New Bedford Truro Or leans Holyoke Dighton Pro­ vincetown Raynham Middle­ borough Rehoboth Marshfield Duxbury Halifax Weymouth Acushnet Pembroke Hanson Bridgewater Taunton Hanover East Bridge­ water Wes t Bridgewater Norton Scituate Norwell Brockton Foxborough Plainville Braintree Weymout h Ma y nard Wayland in e kl Br oo Canton Hingham Eastham Black­ stone Braintree Co­ hasset Marion Uxbridge Bellingham Broo gt on Huntin co ck H an Stockbridge Wes Sto ck t br idge t m on Egre Norwood Walpole Norfolk Westwood l All languages od Milton m N ew d Bedf or Spanish Portuguese Chinese French Creole Vietnamese Other ha Quincy Acus Statewide Population by Language Spoken at Home tw o Quincy Milton ul Northbridge Chicopee Numbers reflect population over five years of age. Englireflect sh population over five years of age. Numbers ed d Douglas W es D Rocklan Webster Medway Dover Millis Dedham Needham Medfield Holliston Milford Mendon Dudley South Hadley Each dot in the main map represents 500 language speakers. Each dot in the detail maps represents 100 language speakers. Grafton Upton Sutton Sherborn Hopkinton sley Needham Dover Av on South­ bridge Oxford Ashland e Well Boston Marble­ head Swampscott Lynn h Charlton Sturbridge Millbury Natick Manchester Beverly Brookline Wellesley H Auburn Wes tborough Glou­ cester Boston o lp Wales Holland Spencer Shrewsbury Newton ge nd Monson Worcester r id Essex Wenham us East Hampden Long­ Long­ meadow meadow Brimfield Leicester Hamilton Danvers n Wilbraham Warren Paxton North Brookfield mb Ra Agawam Palmer Wes t Brookfield Newton Rockpor t Peabody Wake­ field ug Southwick Springfield Ludlow Ware Southborough Framingham Ca Win­ throp Newbury Malden Me dfo rd Weston Chelsea Rowley Ipswich Sa Granville West Spring­ field Belchertown Northborough Marlborough Woburn Waltham e Tolland New Braintree Boylston Bur­ lington Lexington Lincoln Sudbury al Sandisfield Chicopee Oakham Hudson Berlin Concord ed New Marlborough Granby Holden Stow Bedford Acton op Westfield Sheffield South Hadley Hardwick Bolton Carlisle H Mt . Wash ington Russell Rutland Amherst Holyoke er y Blandford East­ hamp­ ton Sterling Barre Pelham Hadley Lan­ caster Princeton E. Broo kfld . Otis om Mont erey Southampton Shutesbury Harvard North Reading Wilmington Billerica Somerville Watertown N bu ew r yp t. n tow ld Chester Becket West­ hampt on Northamp ton Petersham New Salem Chelmsford Ayer Littleton Leominster Hubbardston Leverett Hatfield Middlefield ntg Mo Grea t Barrington Williamsburg Chesterfield Washington Tyringham Alford Whately Worthington Westminster Tewksbury nfie Peru Goshen Shirley ge Cambridge Salisbury Boxford Andover Lowell Westford Groton Lunenburg Fitchburg Gardner Pepperell Townsend or Ge North Andover n Ly Cummington Deerfield Conway Templet on n Richmond Lee Athol ipsto Hinsdale Ashfield Plainfield Windsor Dalton Lenox Montague Wendell Lanesborough Pittsfield Buckland Hawley Orange Phill Cheshire Erving Ashby Ashburnham Dracut le to Savoy Gill Winchendon Tyngsborough d Mid Shelburne Warwick Dunstable Bo xb oug o rh Adams New Ashford Greenfield Royalston Clinto Charlemont Northfield Millville Bernards­ ton Colrain West Boylston Heath n Leyden Rowe Florida North Adams Sunde rland Williams­ town Grove­ land Methuen kf ie ld Monroe Revere Everett Amesbury West Newbury Haverhill Malden Arlington Billerica Millbury Melrose Medford Andover Lynn Saugus North Andover Chelmsford Salem Wakefield Winchester Lexington Lawrence Waltham Clarksburg Stoneham Woburn Tewksbury Auburn Bedford Haverhill Dracut Edgar town Chilmark Agawam Longmeadow East Longmeadow Westport Nantucket MASSDOT Language Access Implementation Plan: 2011 Page intentionally blank Boylston FIGURE 3 Holden Tyngs­ borough Percentage of Limited English Proficiency Speakers (ACS 2010 5-year summaries) Shrewsbury Worcester Burlington Methuen Lowell Merri­ mac Belmont Lawrence ld Reading Tops fie lem Sa Weymout h Halifax Plympton Wellfleet Berkley Plymouth Carver Lakeville Wareham Freetown t Swansea So Fall River Dartmouth Rochester Matt a­ poisett Dennis Barnstable en no Fall River ld b Tis y ur West Tisbury 6,108,770 Census tracts (boundaries not shown) are shaded according to the percentage of residents who speak English not well or not at all. Data are from the American Community Survey 2010 5-year summaries. Freetown Swansea Somerset Falmouth s Go Springfield Brewster Harwich Chatham Yarmouth Mashpee Wilbraham West Springfield Sandwich Bourne ha v Fair Westport 4,823,127 753,681 269,004 184,885 78,073 Dartmouth Raynham r se Seeko nk Dighton Fairhaven Kingston Or leans Ludlow Rehoboth New Bedford Truro Eastham Taunton Pro­ vincetown Marion Wayland in e kl Br oo Attleboro Marshfield Duxbury Bridgewater Norton me Broo gt on Huntin co ck H an Stockbridge Wes Sto ck t br idge t m on Egre Ma y nard Bellingham Wes t Bridgewater Weymouth Acushnet Pembroke Hanson hnet Total Mansfield rth ug h N o or o b ttle Scituate East Bridge­ water N ew d Bedf or Speak only English Speak English very well Speak English well Speak English not well Speak English not at all Easton Hanover Middle­ borough Statewide Population by Level of Proficiency in English Numbers reflect population over five years of age. Plainville Holbrook Abing­ ton Norwell Brockton Wrentham Foxborough A Chicopee More than 30% Braintree Hingham Acus 20% - 30% Franklin Granby Holyoke 11% - 20% Black­ stone Braintree l 6% - 10% Uxbridge Westwood ul Less than 5% H Douglas Stoughton Sharon Quincy Milton Co­ hasset d Webster South Hadley Percent not proficient in English by tract Quincy Rocklan Mendon Dudley Norfolk Needham Boston Needham D ed Ashland W ha es Milton m Dover tw Sherborn oo Hopkinton d Medfield NorHolliston wood Upton Canton Milford Millis Walpole Medway Northbridge Boston Dedham Av on South­ bridge Sutton Manchester Beverly Brookline Wellesley Dover h Holland Oxford Glou­ cester ge o lp Wales Charlton Sturbridge Newton Marble­ head Swampscott Lynn nd Monson r id Essex Wenham us East Long­ Hampden Long­ meadow meadow Brimfield sley Rockpor t Hamilton Danvers n Agawam Wilbraham e Well Newton mb Ra Southwick Springfield Grafton Natick Ca Weston Win­ throp Rowley Ipswich Peabody ug Granville West Spring­ field Leicester Framingham e Tolland Southborough Wes tborough Shrews­ bury Auburn Millbury Marlborough Wake­ field Chelsea Newbury n tow Malden Me dfo rd Waltham al Sandisfield Warren Spencer Worcester Northborough Woburn Lexington Lincoln Sudbury ed New Marlborough Palmer Paxton North Brookfield Hudson Berlin Bedford Concord op Sheffield Ludlow Wes t Brookfield Ware Boylston Stow Acton Bur­ lington H Westfield Mt . Wash ington Chicopee Oakham New Braintree Belchertown Granby Holden Bolton Carlisle North Reading Wilmington Billerica Sa Russell South Hadley Hardwick E. Broo kfld . Blandford Rutland Amherst Holyoke er y Mont erey Southampton East­ hamp­ ton om Otis Northamp ton Barre Pelham Hadley Sterling Chelmsford Somerville Watertown N bu ew r yp t. ld Chester Becket West­ hampt on Shutesbury Tewksbury Ayer Harvard Lan­ caster Princeton Lowell Little ton Leominster Petersham New Salem Shirley Westminster Hubbardston Leverett Hatfield Middlefield ntg Mo Grea t Barrington Williamsburg Chesterfield Washington Tyringham Alford Whately Worthington Lunenburg ge Andover nfie Peru Goshen Westford Groton Fitchburg Gardner Pepperell Townsend or Ge Cambridge Salisbury North Boxford Andover n Ly Cummington Deerfield Conway Templet on n Richmond Lee Athol ipsto Hinsdale Ashfield Plainfield Windsor Dalton Lenox Montague Wendell Lanesborough Pittsfield Buckland Hawley Orange Phill Cheshire Erving Ashby Ashburnham Dracut le to Savoy Gill Winchendon Tyngsborough d Mid Shelburne Warwick Dunstable Bo xb oug o rh Adams New Ashford Greenfield Royalston Clinto Charlemont Northfield Millville Leyden Bernardston Colrain West Boylston Heath kf ie ld Rowe Florida North Adams Sunde rland Williamstown Grove­ land Methuen n Monroe Revere Everett Amesbury West Newbury Haverhill Malden Arlington Billerica Millbury Melrose Medford Andover Lynn Saugus North Andover Chelmsford Salem Wakefield Winchester Lexington Lawrence Waltham Clarksburg Stoneham Woburn Tewksbury Auburn Bedford Haverhill Dracut Edgar town Chilmark Agawam Longmeadow East Longmeadow Westport Nantucket MASSDOT Language Access Implementation Plan: 2011 Page intentionally blank Boylston FIGURE 4 Holden Tyngs­ borough Population Distribution of Those Speaking Spanish at Home (ACS 2010 5-year summaries) Shrewsbury Worcester Burlington Methuen Lowell Merri­ mac Belmont Lawrence Norwood Stoughton Sharon Easton Mansfield rth ug h N o or o b ttle Tops fie lem Braintree Hol­ brook Abing­ ton Attleboro Wellfleet Plymouth Carver Lakeville Wareham Freetown t Swansea So Fall River Dartmouth Rochester Dennis Barnstable no s Go Harwich Chatham Freetown Swansea Fall River ld y ur West Tisbury 6,108,770 Dots are placed randomly in census tracts (boundaries not shown). Data are from the American Community Survey 2010 5-year summaries. Brewster b Tis Springfield Dartmouth Somerset Falmouth Wilbraham West Springfield Yarmouth Mashpee en 4,823,127 457,990 180,975 98,735 53,724 35,306 458,913 Sandwich Bourne ha v Fair Westport Matt a­ poisett Fairhaven Kingston Plympton hnet Chicopee Berkley r se Seeko nk Ludlow New Bedford Truro Or leans Holyoke Dighton Pro­ vincetown Raynham Middle­ borough Rehoboth Marshfield Duxbury Halifax Weymouth Acushnet Pembroke Hanson Bridgewater Taunton Hanover East Bridge­ water Wes t Bridgewater Norton Scituate Norwell Brockton Foxborough Plainville A ld Canton Hingham Eastham Wrentham Braintree Co­ hasset Marion Franklin Sa Reading Milton m Weymout h Wayland in e kl Br oo od Quincy me Broo gt on Huntin co ck H an Stockbridge Wes Sto ck t br idge t m on Egre Ma y nard Bellingham Black­ stone Westwood l Uxbridge Quincy Milton ul tw o ha Walpole Norfolk Granby South Hadley H All languages Douglas ed N ew d Bedf or Spanish Portuguese Chinese French Creole Vietnamese Other Webster Millis W es D Acus Numbers reflect population over five years of age. Englire shflect population over five years of age. Numbers Northbridge Mendon Dudley Medway Dover Medfield Holliston Milford Needham d Statewide Population by Language Spoken at Home Grafton Upton Sutton Sherborn Hopkinton sley Needham Dedham Rocklan Less than 5% 6% - 10% 11% - 20% 20% - 30% More than 30% South­ bridge Oxford Ashland e Well Boston Dover Av on Percent not proficient in English by tract Charlton Sturbridge Millbury Natick Manchester Beverly Brookline Wellesley Marble­ head Swampscott Lynn h Each dot in the main map represents 200 Spanish speakers. Each dot in the detail maps represents 50 Spanish speakers. Auburn Wes tborough Glou­ cester Boston o lp Wales Holland Spencer Shrewsbury Newton ge nd Monson Worcester r id Essex Wenham us East Hampden Long­ Long­ meadow meadow Brimfield Leicester Hamilton Danvers n Wilbraham Warren Paxton North Brookfield mb Ra Agawam Palmer Wes t Brookfield Newton Rockpor t Peabody Wake­ field ug Southwick Springfield Ludlow Ware Southborough Framingham e Granville West Spring­ field Belchertown Northborough Marlborough Ca Weston Win­ throp Newbury Malden Me dfo rd Waltham al Tolland New Braintree Boylston Lexington Lincoln Sudbury ed Sandisfield Chicopee Oakham Hudson Berlin op New Marlborough South Hadley Granby Holden Stow Woburn H Westfield Sheffield Hardwick Bolton Concord Chelsea Rowley Ipswich Sa Russell Rutland Amherst Holyoke er y Blandford Barre Pelham Hadley Sterling Bedford Acton Bur­ lington Somerville Watertown N bu ew r yp t. n tow ld Otis Shutesbury Carlisle North Reading Wilmington Billerica Harvard Lan­ caster Princeton E. Broo kfld . Southampton East­ hamp­ ton Petersham New Salem Chelmsford Ayer Littleton Leominster Tewksbury nfie Chester Becket West­ hampt on Northamp ton Westminster Hubbardston Leverett Hatfield Middlefield om Mt . Wash ington Williamsburg Chesterfield Washington Mont erey Whately Worthington ntg Mo Grea t Barrington Goshen Shirley ge Cambridge Salisbury Boxford Andover Lowell Westford Groton Lunenburg Fitchburg Gardner Pepperell Townsend or Ge North Andover n Ly Peru Deerfield Conway Templet on n Cummington Tyringham Alford Athol ipsto Richmond Lee Montague Phill Hinsdale Ashfield Plainfield Windsor Dalton Lenox Orange Wendell Lanesborough Pittsfield Buckland Hawley Cheshire Erving Ashby Ashburnham Dracut le to Savoy Gill Winchendon Tyngsborough d Mid Shelburne Warwick Dunstable Bo xb oug o rh Adams New Ashford Greenfield Royalston Clinto Charlemont Northfield Millville Bernards­ ton Colrain West Boylston Heath n Leyden Rowe Florida North Adams Sunde rland Williams­ town Grove­ land Methuen kf ie ld Monroe Revere Everett Amesbury West Newbury Haverhill Malden Arlington Billerica Millbury Melrose Medford Andover Lynn Saugus North Andover Chelmsford Salem Wakefield Winchester Lexington Lawrence Waltham Clarksburg Stoneham Woburn Tewksbury Auburn Bedford Haverhill Dracut Edgar town Chilmark Agawam Longmeadow East Longmeadow Westport Nantucket MASSDOT Language Access Implementation Plan: 2011 Page intentionally blank Boylston FIGURE 5 Holden Tyngs­ borough Population Distribution of Those Speaking Portuguese at Home (ACS 2010 5-year summaries) Shrewsbury Worcester Burlington Methuen Lowell Merri­ mac Belmont Lawrence Norwood Stoughton Sharon Easton Mansfield rth ug h N o or o b ttle Tops fie lem Braintree Hol­ brook Abing­ ton Attleboro Wellfleet Plymouth Carver Lakeville Wareham Freetown t Swansea So Fall River Dartmouth Rochester Dennis Barnstable no s Go Harwich Chatham Freetown Swansea Fall River ld y ur West Tisbury 6,108,770 Dots are placed randomly in census tracts (boundaries not shown). Data are from the American Community Survey 2010 5-year summaries. Brewster b Tis Springfield Dartmouth Somerset Falmouth Wilbraham West Springfield Yarmouth Mashpee en 4,823,127 457,990 180,975 98,735 53,724 35,306 458,913 Sandwich Bourne ha v Fair Westport Matt a­ poisett Fairhaven Kingston Plympton hnet Chicopee Berkley r se Seeko nk Ludlow New Bedford Truro Or leans Holyoke Dighton Pro­ vincetown Raynham Middle­ borough Rehoboth Marshfield Duxbury Halifax Weymouth Acushnet Pembroke Hanson Bridgewater Taunton Hanover East Bridge­ water Wes t Bridgewater Norton Scituate Norwell Brockton Foxborough Plainville A ld Canton Hingham Eastham Wrentham Braintree Co­ hasset Marion Franklin Sa Reading Milton m Weymout h Wayland in e kl Br oo od Quincy me Broo gt on Huntin co ck H an Stockbridge Wes Sto ck t br idge t m on Egre Ma y nard Bellingham Black­ stone Westwood l Uxbridge Quincy Milton ul tw o ha Walpole Norfolk Granby South Hadley H Douglas ed N ew d Bedf or All languages Webster Millis W es D Acus Spanish Portuguese Chinese French Creole Vietnamese Other Northbridge Mendon Dudley Medway Dover Medfield Holliston Milford Needham d Statewide Population by Language Spoken at Home Numbers reflect population over five years of age. English reflect population over five years of age. Numbers Grafton Upton Sutton Sherborn Hopkinton sley Needham Dedham Rocklan Less than 5% 6% - 10% 11% - 20% 20% - 30% More than 30% South­ bridge Oxford Ashland e Well Boston Dover Av on Percent not proficient in English by tract Charlton Sturbridge Millbury Natick Manchester Beverly Brookline Wellesley Marble­ head Swampscott Lynn h Each dot in the main map represents 200 Portuguese speakers. Each dot in the detail maps represents 50 Portuguese speakers. Auburn Wes tborough Glou­ cester Boston o lp Wales Holland Spencer Shrewsbury Newton ge nd Monson Worcester r id Essex Wenham us East Hampden Long­ Long­ meadow meadow Brimfield Leicester Hamilton Danvers n Wilbraham Warren Paxton North Brookfield mb Ra Agawam Palmer Wes t Brookfield Newton Rockpor t Peabody Wake­ field ug Southwick Springfield Ludlow Ware Southborough Framingham Ca Win­ throp Newbury Malden Me dfo rd Weston Chelsea Rowley Ipswich Sa Granville West Spring­ field Belchertown Northborough Marlborough Woburn Waltham e Tolland New Braintree Boylston Bur­ lington Lexington Lincoln Sudbury al Sandisfield Chicopee Oakham Hudson Berlin Concord ed New Marlborough Granby Holden Stow Bedford Acton op Westfield Sheffield South Hadley Hardwick Bolton Carlisle H Mt . Wash ington Russell Rutland Amherst Holyoke er y Blandford East­ hamp­ ton Sterling Barre Pelham Hadley Lan­ caster Princeton E. Broo kfld . Otis om Mont erey Southampton Shutesbury Harvard North Reading Wilmington Billerica Somerville Watertown N bu ew r yp t. n tow ld Chester Becket West­ hampt on Northamp ton Petersham New Salem Chelmsford Ayer Littleton Leominster Hubbardston Leverett Hatfield Middlefield ntg Mo Grea t Barrington Williamsburg Chesterfield Washington Tyringham Alford Whately Worthington Westminster Tewksbury nfie Peru Goshen Shirley ge Cambridge Salisbury Boxford Andover Lowell Westford Groton Lunenburg Fitchburg Gardner Pepperell Townsend or Ge North Andover n Ly Cummington Deerfield Conway Templet on n Richmond Lee Athol ipsto Hinsdale Ashfield Plainfield Windsor Dalton Lenox Montague Wendell Lanesborough Pittsfield Buckland Hawley Orange Phill Cheshire Erving Ashby Ashburnham Dracut le to Savoy Gill Winchendon Tyngsborough d Mid Shelburne Warwick Dunstable Bo xb oug o rh Adams New Ashford Greenfield Royalston Clinto Charlemont Northfield Millville Bernards­ ton Colrain West Boylston Heath n Leyden Rowe Florida North Adams Sunde rland Williams­ town Grove­ land Methuen kf ie ld Monroe Revere Everett Amesbury West Newbury Haverhill Malden Arlington Billerica Millbury Melrose Medford Andover Lynn Saugus North Andover Chelmsford Salem Wakefield Winchester Lexington Lawrence Waltham Clarksburg Stoneham Woburn Tewksbury Auburn Bedford Haverhill Dracut Edgar town Chilmark Agawam Longmeadow East Longmeadow Westport Nantucket MASSDOT Language Access Implementation Plan: 2011 Page intentionally blank Boylston FIGURE 6 Holden Tyngs­ borough Population Distribution of Those Speaking Chinese at Home (ACS 2010 5-year summaries) Shrewsbury Worcester Burlington Methuen Lowell Merri­ mac Belmont Lawrence Norwood Stoughton Sharon Easton Mansfield rth ug h N o or o b ttle Tops fie lem Abing­ ton Attleboro Taunton Pembroke Hanson Halifax Dighton Berkley Plympton Wellfleet Plymouth Carver Lakeville t Freetown So Rochester Dartmouth Matt a­ poisett Dennis Barnstable Dartmouth en no Brewster Harwich Chatham Freetown Swansea Somerset Falmouth s Go Fall River ld b Tis Springfield Yarmouth Mashpee Wilbraham West Springfield Sandwich Bourne ha v Fair Westport hnet Fall River Fairhaven Kingston Wareham Swansea New Bedford Truro Raynham r se Seeko nk Rehoboth Pro­ vincetown Duxbury Bridgewater Norton Marshfield East Bridge­ water Wes t Bridgewater Acushnet Norwell Hanover Weymouth Or leans Ludlow Chicopee y ur West Tisbury 6,108,770 Dots are placed randomly in census tracts (boundaries not shown). Data are from the American Community Survey 2010 5-year summaries. Hol­ brook Scituate Middle­ borough Holyoke 4,823,127 457,990 180,975 98,735 53,724 35,306 458,913 Braintree Brockton Foxborough Plainville A ld Canton Hingham Eastham Wrentham Braintree Co­ hasset Marion Franklin Sa Reading Milton m Weymout h Wayland in e kl Br oo od Quincy me Broo gt on Huntin co ck H an Stockbridge Wes Sto ck t br idge t m on Egre Ma y nard Bellingham Black­ stone Westwood l Uxbridge Quincy Milton ul tw o ha Walpole Norfolk Granby South Hadley H All languages Douglas ed N ew d Bedf or Spanish Portuguese Chinese French Creole Vietnamese Other Webster Millis W es D Acus Numbers reflect population over five years of age. English Numbers reflect population over five years of age. Northbridge Mendon Dudley Medway Dover Medfield Holliston Milford Needham d Statewide Population by Language Spoken at Home Grafton Upton Sutton Sherborn Hopkinton sley Needham Dedham Rocklan Less than 5% 6% - 10% 11% - 20% 20% - 30% More than 30% South­ bridge Oxford Ashland e Well Boston Dover Av on Percent not proficient in English by tract Charlton Sturbridge Millbury Natick Manchester Beverly Brookline Wellesley Marble­ head Swampscott Lynn h Each dot in the main map represents 200 Chinese speakers. Each dot in the detail maps represents 50 Chinese speakers. Auburn Wes tborough Glou­ cester Boston o lp Wales Holland Spencer Shrewsbury Newton ge nd Monson Worcester r id Essex Wenham us East Hampden Long­ Long­ meadow meadow Brimfield Leicester Hamilton Danvers n Wilbraham Warren Paxton North Brookfield mb Ra Agawam Palmer Wes t Brookfield Newton Rockpor t Peabody Wake­ field ug Southwick Springfield Ludlow Ware Southborough Framingham Ca Win­ throp Newbury Malden Me dfo rd Weston Chelsea Rowley Ipswich Sa Granville West Spring­ field Belchertown Northborough Marlborough Woburn Waltham e Tolland New Braintree Boylston Bur­ lington Lexington Lincoln Sudbury al Sandisfield Chicopee Oakham Hudson Berlin Concord ed New Marlborough Granby Holden Stow Bedford Acton op Westfield Sheffield South Hadley Hardwick Bolton Carlisle H Mt . Wash ington Russell Rutland Amherst Holyoke er y Blandford East­ hamp­ ton Sterling Barre Pelham Hadley Lan­ caster Princeton E. Broo kfld . Otis om Mont erey Southampton Shutesbury Harvard North Reading Wilmington Billerica Somerville Watertown N bu ew r yp t. n tow ld Chester Becket West­ hampt on Northamp ton Petersham New Salem Chelmsford Ayer Littleton Leominster Hubbardston Leverett Hatfield Middlefield ntg Mo Grea t Barrington Williamsburg Chesterfield Washington Tyringham Alford Whately Worthington Westminster Tewksbury nfie Peru Goshen Shirley ge Cambridge Salisbury Boxford Andover Lowell Westford Groton Lunenburg Fitchburg Gardner Pepperell Townsend or Ge North Andover n Ly Cummington Deerfield Conway Templet on n Richmond Lee Athol ipsto Hinsdale Ashfield Plainfield Windsor Dalton Lenox Montague Wendell Lanesborough Pittsfield Buckland Hawley Orange Phill Cheshire Erving Ashby Ashburnham Dracut le to Savoy Gill Winchendon Tyngsborough d Mid Shelburne Warwick Dunstable Bo xb oug o rh Adams New Ashford Greenfield Royalston Clinto Charlemont Northfield Millville Bernards­ ton Colrain West Boylston Heath n Leyden Rowe Florida North Adams Sunde rland Williams­ town Grove­ land Methuen kf ie ld Monroe Revere Everett Amesbury West Newbury Haverhill Malden Arlington Billerica Millbury Melrose Medford Andover Lynn Saugus North Andover Chelmsford Salem Wakefield Winchester Lexington Lawrence Waltham Clarksburg Stoneham Woburn Tewksbury Auburn Bedford Haverhill Dracut Edgar town Chilmark Agawam Longmeadow East Longmeadow Westport Nantucket MASSDOT Language Access Implementation Plan: 2011 Page intentionally blank Boylston FIGURE 7 Holden Tyngs­ borough Population Distribution of Those Speaking French Creole at Home (ACS 2010 5-year summaries) Shrewsbury Worcester Burlington Methuen Lowell Merri­ mac Belmont Lawrence ld Reading Tops fie lem Sa Abing­ ton Easton Attleboro Halifax Plympton Plymouth Carver Lakeville t Freetown So Fall River Rochester Dartmouth Matt a­ poisett Dennis Barnstable Harwich Chatham Freetown Swansea Fall River ld y ur Dots are placed randomly in census tracts (boundaries not shown). Data are from the American Community Survey 2010 5-year summaries. Brewster b Tis 6,108,770 no s Go Springfield Dartmouth Somerset Falmouth Wilbraham West Springfield Yarmouth Mashpee en 4,823,127 457,990 180,975 98,735 53,724 35,306 458,913 Sandwich Bourne ha v Fair Westport hnet Chicopee Wellfleet Wareham Swansea r se Seeko nk Ludlow Berkley Fairhaven Kingston Or leans Holyoke Dighton New Bedford Truro Raynham Middle­ borough Rehoboth Pro­ vincetown Duxbury Bridgewater Taunton Pembroke Hanson East Bridge­ water Wes t Bridgewater Norton Marshfield Eastham Mansfield Hanover Weymouth Acushnet Norwell Brockton Foxborough rth ug h N o or o b ttle Hol­ brook Scituate Marion A Stoughton Sharon Plainville Braintree Weymout h Wayland in e kl Br oo Canton Hingham N ew d Bedf or All languages Wrentham Braintree Co­ hasset Acus Spanish Portuguese Chinese French Creole Vietnamese Other Norwood me Broo gt on Huntin co ck H an Stockbridge Wes Sto ck t br idge t m on Egre Ma y nard Bellingham Franklin Westwood l Black­ stone Quincy Milton ul Uxbridge Statewide Population by Language Spoken at Home Numbers reflect population over five years of age. Numbers Englishreflect population over five years of age. od Milton m Walpole Norfolk Granby South Hadley H Douglas tw o ha Quincy d Webster Medway Millis ed Rocklan Northbridge Mendon Dudley Medfield Holliston Milford Dover W es Needham Dedham Needham D Boston Dover Av on Less than 5% 6% - 10% 11% - 20% 20% - 30% More than 30% Grafton Upton Sutton Sherborn Hopkinton sley Manchester Beverly Brookline Wellesley Marble­ head Swampscott Lynn h Percent not proficient in English by tract South­ bridge Oxford Ashland e Well Glou­ cester Boston o lp Each dot in the main map represents 200 French Creole speakers. Each dot in the detail maps represents 50 French Creole speakers. Charlton Sturbridge Millbury Natick Newton ge nd Wales Holland Auburn Wes tborough r id Essex Wenham us Monson Spencer Shrewsbury Hamilton Danvers n East Hampden Long­ Long­ meadow meadow Brimfield Worcester mb Ra Agawam Wilbraham Leicester Newton Rockpor t Peabody Wake­ field ug Southwick Springfield Paxton North Brookfield Southborough Framingham Ca Win­ throp Newbury Malden Me dfo rd Weston Chelsea Rowley Ipswich Sa Granville West Spring­ field Warren Northborough Marlborough Woburn Waltham e Tolland Palmer Wes t Brookfield Boylston Bur­ lington Lexington Lincoln Sudbury al Sandisfield Ludlow Ware Hudson Berlin Concord ed New Marlborough Chicopee Oakham New Braintree Belchertown Granby Holden Stow Bedford Acton op Westfield Sheffield South Hadley Hardwick Bolton Carlisle H Mt . Wash ington Russell Rutland Amherst Holyoke er y Blandford East­ hamp­ ton Sterling Barre Pelham Hadley Lan­ caster Princeton E. Broo kfld . Otis om Mont erey Southampton Shutesbury Harvard North Reading Wilmington Billerica Somerville Watertown N bu ew r yp t. n tow ld Chester Becket West­ hampt on Northamp ton Petersham New Salem Chelmsford Ayer Littleton Leominster Hubbardston Leverett Hatfield Middlefield ntg Mo Grea t Barrington Williamsburg Chesterfield Washington Tyringham Alford Whately Worthington Westminster Tewksbury nfie Peru Goshen Shirley ge Cambridge Salisbury Boxford Andover Lowell Westford Groton Lunenburg Fitchburg Gardner Pepperell Townsend or Ge North Andover n Ly Cummington Deerfield Conway Templet on n Richmond Lee Athol ipsto Hinsdale Ashfield Plainfield Windsor Dalton Lenox Montague Wendell Lanesborough Pittsfield Buckland Hawley Orange Phill Cheshire Erving Ashby Ashburnham Dracut le to Savoy Gill Winchendon Tyngsborough d Mid Shelburne Warwick Dunstable Bo xb oug o rh Adams New Ashford Greenfield Royalston Clinto Charlemont Northfield Millville Bernards­ ton Colrain West Boylston Heath n Leyden Rowe Florida North Adams Sunde rland Williams­ town Grove­ land Methuen kf ie ld Monroe Revere Everett Amesbury West Newbury Haverhill Malden Arlington Billerica Millbury Melrose Medford Andover Lynn Saugus North Andover Chelmsford Salem Wakefield Winchester Lexington Lawrence Waltham Clarksburg Stoneham Woburn Tewksbury Auburn Bedford Haverhill Dracut West Tisbury Edgar town Chilmark Agawam Longmeadow East Longmeadow Westport Nantucket MASSDOT Language Access Implementation Plan: 2011 Page intentionally blank Boylston FIGURE 8 Holden Tyngs­ borough Population Distribution of Those Speaking Vietnamese at Home (ACS 2010 5-year summaries) Shrewsbury Worcester Burlington Methuen Lowell Merri­ mac Belmont Lawrence ld Reading Tops fie lem Sa Abing­ ton Easton Attleboro Halifax Plympton Plymouth Carver Lakeville t Freetown So Fall River Rochester Dartmouth Matt a­ poisett Dennis Barnstable Harwich Chatham Freetown Swansea Fall River ld y ur Dots are placed randomly in census tracts (boundaries not shown). Data are from the American Community Survey 2010 5-year summaries. Brewster b Tis 6,108,770 no s Go Springfield Dartmouth Somerset Falmouth Wilbraham West Springfield Yarmouth Mashpee en 4,823,127 457,990 180,975 98,735 53,724 35,306 458,913 Sandwich Bourne ha v Fair Westport hnet Chicopee Wellfleet Wareham Swansea r se Seeko nk Ludlow Berkley Fairhaven Kingston Or leans Holyoke Dighton New Bedford Truro Raynham Middle­ borough Rehoboth Pro­ vincetown Duxbury Bridgewater Taunton Pembroke Hanson East Bridge­ water Wes t Bridgewater Norton Marshfield Eastham Mansfield Hanover Weymouth Acushnet Norwell Brockton Foxborough rth ug h N o or o b ttle Hol­ brook Scituate Marion A Stoughton Sharon Plainville Braintree Weymout h Wayland in e kl Br oo Canton Hingham N ew d Bedf or All languages Wrentham Braintree Co­ hasset Acus Spanish Portuguese Chinese French Creole Vietnamese Other Norwood me Broo gt on Huntin co ck H an Stockbridge Wes Sto ck t br idge t m on Egre Ma y nard Bellingham Franklin Westwood l Black­ stone Quincy Milton ul Uxbridge Statewide Population by Language Spoken at Home Numbers reflect population over five years of age. Numbers Englishreflect population over five years of age. od Milton m Walpole Norfolk Granby South Hadley H Douglas tw o ha Quincy d Webster Medway Millis ed Rocklan Northbridge Mendon Dudley Medfield Holliston Milford Dover W es Needham Dedham Needham D Boston Dover Av on Less than 5% 6% - 10% 11% - 20% 20% - 30% More than 30% Grafton Upton Sutton Sherborn Hopkinton sley Manchester Beverly Brookline Wellesley Marble­ head Swampscott Lynn h Percent not proficient in English by tract South­ bridge Oxford Ashland e Well Glou­ cester Boston o lp Each dot in the main map represents 200 Vietnamese speakers. Each dot in the detail maps represents 50 Vietnamese speakers. Charlton Sturbridge Millbury Natick Newton ge nd Wales Holland Auburn Wes tborough r id Essex Wenham us Monson Spencer Shrewsbury Hamilton Danvers n East Hampden Long­ Long­ meadow meadow Brimfield Worcester mb Ra Agawam Wilbraham Leicester Newton Rockpor t Peabody Wake­ field ug Southwick Springfield Paxton North Brookfield Southborough Framingham Ca Win­ throp Newbury Malden Me dfo rd Weston Chelsea Rowley Ipswich Sa Granville West Spring­ field Warren Northborough Marlborough Woburn Waltham e Tolland Palmer Wes t Brookfield Boylston Bur­ lington Lexington Lincoln Sudbury al Sandisfield Ludlow Ware Hudson Berlin Concord ed New Marlborough Chicopee Oakham New Braintree Belchertown Granby Holden Stow Bedford Acton op Westfield Sheffield South Hadley Hardwick Bolton Carlisle H Mt . Wash ington Russell Rutland Amherst Holyoke er y Blandford East­ hamp­ ton Sterling Barre Pelham Hadley Lan­ caster Princeton E. Broo kfld . Otis om Mont erey Southampton Shutesbury Harvard North Reading Wilmington Billerica Somerville Watertown N bu ew r yp t. n tow ld Chester Becket West­ hampt on Northamp ton Petersham New Salem Chelmsford Ayer Littleton Leominster Hubbardston Leverett Hatfield Middlefield ntg Mo Grea t Barrington Williamsburg Chesterfield Washington Tyringham Alford Whately Worthington Westminster Tewksbury nfie Peru Goshen Shirley ge Cambridge Salisbury Boxford Andover Lowell Westford Groton Lunenburg Fitchburg Gardner Pepperell Townsend or Ge North Andover n Ly Cummington Deerfield Conway Templet on n Richmond Lee Athol ipsto Hinsdale Ashfield Plainfield Windsor Dalton Lenox Montague Wendell Lanesborough Pittsfield Buckland Hawley Orange Phill Cheshire Erving Ashby Ashburnham Dracut le to Savoy Gill Winchendon Tyngsborough d Mid Shelburne Warwick Dunstable Bo xb oug o rh Adams New Ashford Greenfield Royalston Clinto Charlemont Northfield Millville Bernards­ ton Colrain West Boylston Heath n Leyden Rowe Florida North Adams Sunde rland Williams­ town Grove­ land Methuen kf ie ld Monroe Revere Everett Amesbury West Newbury Haverhill Malden Arlington Billerica Millbury Melrose Medford Andover Lynn Saugus North Andover Chelmsford Salem Wakefield Winchester Lexington Lawrence Waltham Clarksburg Stoneham Woburn Tewksbury Auburn Bedford Haverhill Dracut West Tisbury Edgar town Chilmark Agawam Longmeadow East Longmeadow Westport Nantucket MASSDOT Language Access Implementation Plan: 2011 Page intentionally blank FIGURE 9 Population Distribution of Those Speaking Languages at Home Other Than the Top Six Statewide (ACS 2010 5-year summaries) Lawrence od Norwood Franklin 40% 24% Attleboro ld Taunton Hanover Dighton Marshfield Pembroke Tops fie Hanson East Bridge­ water Pro­ vincetown Duxbury Halifax Wellfleet Plymouth Carver Lakeville Wareham Freetown me So Fall River Dartmouth Rochester Matt a­ poisett Dennis Sandwich Bourne Barnstable Yarmouth ha v Fair en Mashpee Falmouth no s Go Dartmouth Brewster Harwich Chatham Freetown Swansea Fall Ri ver French Cambodian 1,137 1,027 Somerset 30% 27% Fall River ld b Tis Springfield Fairhaven Kingston Plympton hnet West Springfield New Bedford Truro Raynham Berkley Weymouth Acushnet Wilbraham y ur West Tisbury 6,108,770 Dots are placed randomly in census tracts (boundaries not shown). Data are from the American Community Survey 2010 5-year summaries. Abing­ ton Scituate Middle­ borough Swansea Chicopee Braintree Norwell Bridgewater Westport 4,823,127 457,990 180,975 98,735 53,724 35,306 458,913 Hol­ brook Wes t Bridgewater Norton Rehoboth Quincy Milton 24% 18% 10% 8% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% Or leans Ludlow Easton Mansfield rth ug h N o or o b ttle Braintree Hingham Brockton Foxborough t 2,010 1,194 Stoughton r se A lem Reading Canton Sharon Plainville Granby Holyoke Wrentham Sa Bo xb oug o rh Black­ stone 2,197 Westwood 29% Dedham 9,905 5,472 4,514 2,704 2,376 2,171 2,142 2,091 Co­ hasset Marion Norfolk Quincy Milton m Weymout h Wayland in e kl Br oo tw o ha Walpole Seeko nk Chicopee Polish French Ma y nard Clinto South Hadley Uxbridge Douglas Bellingham Broo gt on Huntin co ck H an Stockbridge Wes Sto ck t br idge t m on Egre West Boylston Webster ed 3,392 l Dudley W es D Brookline ul All languages Northbridge Mendon South­ bridge Medway Dover Millis Brookline Dover Russian Needham Medfield Holliston Milford sley Boston French Russian Italian Arabic Korean Hindi Greek Japanese Boston Boston N ew d Bedf or Statewide Population by Language Spoken at Home Numbers reflect population over five years of age. English Numbers reflect population over five years of age. Spanish Portuguese Chinese French Creole Vietnamese Other Grafton Sutton Sherborn Hopkinton e Well Win­ throp Needham Acus Less than 5% 6% - 10% 11% - 20% 20% - 30% More than 30% Ashland Upton Oxford Natick Chelsea Wellesley Newton Russian d Percent not proficient in English Wes tborough Beverly Rocklan Charlton Wales Holland Millbury Auburn Sturbridge Each dot in the main map represents 200 language speakers. Each dot in the detail maps represents 50 language speakers. Town Percent Languages, other than Num. of the top six statewide, speakers of all nonof each top-six spoken at home by language languages more than 1,000 in town in town speakers in the town (2,000 in Boston area) Spencer Shrewsbury Glou­ cester Manchester ge Av on Monson Worcester Essex Marble­ head Swampscott Lynn h East Hampden Long­ Long­ meadow meadow Brimfield Leicester r id o lp Wilbraham Warren Paxton North Brookfield Newton mb nd Palmer Wes t Brookfield Framingham Weston Newton H Ludlow Ware Southborough Ca Somerville 36% Rockpor t Hamilton Malden Me dfo rd Waltham 1,367 Wenham us Belchertown Northborough Lincoln Sudbury Marlborough Lexington Cambridge Rowley Danvers n Agawam Springfield New Braintree Boylston Woburn Revere Peabody Wake­ field Ra Chicopee Holden Oakham Hudson Berlin e Southwick Hardwick Stow al Granville Rutland Bolton Concord Bur­ lington ug Holyoke West Spring­ field Barre Amherst Granby Sterling Bedford Acton ed Tolland Shutesbury Princeton op Sandisfield Petersham New Salem Carlisle North Reading Wilmington Billerica Harvard Lan­ caster Hubbardston Leverett Ayer Littleton Leominster Tewksbury Chelmsford Malden Watertown Peabody Newbury Greek Ipswich Sa Russell Shirley Westminster Pelham South Hadley Fitchburg Gardner ge Medford Belmont Salisbury Boxford Andover Lowell Westford Groton Lunenburg or Ge North Andover Lynn Saugus Everett N bu ew r yp t. n tow ld Blandford Templet on Townsend Dracut H New Marlborough Athol Ashburnham Tyngsborough nfie Southampton Westfield Sheffield Orange Winchendon E. Broo kfld . Otis 34% East­ hamp­ ton Grove­ land n Ly 1,073 Northamp ton er y Mt . Wash ington Erving Hatfield Hadley 46% 27% Arlington Amesbury West Newbury Haverhill 2,638 Melrose Winchester 13% Salem Wakefield 36% Waltham Merri­ mac Pepperell 2,168 Billerica le to Chester Becket Westfield Russian West­ hampt on om Mont erey Williamsburg ntg Mo Grea t Barrington Whately Worthington Middlefield Tyringham Alford Gill Deerfield Conway 57% 8% 6% Dunstable Ashby n Lee Royalston Warwick Montague Goshen Chesterfield Washington 11,744 1,558 1,160 Lynn Stoneham Cambodian Woburn Andover Northfield ipsto Richmond Cummington Peru Millbury Phill Dalton Hinsdale Ashfield Plainfield Windsor North Andover Methuen Wendell Lanesborough Lenox Chelmsford Lowell Cambodian French Greek Burlington Cambri dge Lexington 2,100 French Lawrence Tewksbury Auburn Bedford Haverhill 31% Medford Italian Lowell d Mid Shelburne Buckland Hawley Cheshire Pittsfield Greenfield 1,063 Methuen Millville Bernards­ ton Colrain Adams Savoy Shrewsbury kf ie ld Heath Charlemont New Ashford Tyngs­ borough Worcester Lawrence Cambodian Dracut n Leyden Rowe Florida North Adams Sunde rland Williams­ town Boylston 8% 8% 7% Leominster French 1,302 Monroe Clarksburg 1,461 1,410 1,267 Eastham Worcester Holden French Poli sh Arabic West Springfield Agawam Russian 2,132 45% Longmeadow Springfield French Eas1,198 t Longmeadow Edgar town Chilmark 17% Westport Nantucket MASSDOT Language Access Implementation Plan: 2011 Page intentionally blank • Attendance at community meetings or public hearings hosted by MassDOT • Visits to MassDOT’s headquarters or branch offices • Phone calls to MassDOT • Access to MassDOT’s website • Customer surveys • Informational materials and notifications Table 1: Number and Percentage of LEP Students, by Language, by Boston Neighborhood Number of LEP Students LEP % of Total Neighborhood Enrollment Boston Neighborhood Language Allston Spanish 214 17.54% Boston* Chinese 465 6.81% Boston* Spanish 582 8.52% Brighton Spanish 465 14.25% Charlestown Chinese 326 13.59% Charlestown Spanish 240 10.01% Dorchester Spanish 1,232 9.70% East Boston Spanish 1,897 46.34% Hyde Park Haitian Creole 261 8.63% Hyde Park Spanish 171 5.66% Jamaica Plain Spanish 1,140 31.68% Mattapan Haitian Creole 353 12.88% Mattapan Spanish 168 6.13% Roslindale Spanish 323 15.24% (cont.) Appendix D: Language Access Plan In addition to conducting quantitative analyses using census data, MassDOT will undertake qualitative analyses. To do so, MassDOT will examine its past experiences with LEP individuals. This will involve reviewing the relevant services, activities, and information provided by MassDOT and evaluating the extent to which LEP persons have come into contact with these functions. Some potential channels through which LEP persons may come into contact with MassDOT include: MassDOT Title VI Report 2011 Table 1 (cont.) Number and Percentage of LEP Students, by Language, by Boston Neighborhood LEP % of Total Neighborhood Enrollment Boston Neighborhood Language Number of LEP Students Roxbury Cape Verdean 392 5.42% Roxbury Spanish 1,276 17.65% South Boston Spanish 168 5.45% South Boston Vietnamese 170 5.51% West Roxbury Spanish 272 8.61% *Includes schools in Boston Proper and the Fenway and Longwood areas Table 2: Number and Percentage of LEP Students, by Language, by Municipality (Outside of Boston) Municipality Language Amherst Spanish Brockton Cape Verdean Chelsea Number of LEP Students LEP % of Total Municipal Enrollment 65 5.20% 1,607 10.10% Spanish 837 15.00% Fitchburg Spanish 500 10.30% Framingham Spanish 608 7.40% Framingham Portuguese 593 7.20% Holyoke Spanish 1,513 27.00% Lawrence Spanish 2,961 23.30% Lowell Khmer 1,713 12.80% Lowell Spanish 1,626 12.10% Lynn Spanish 2,272 16.20% Marlborough Spanish 260 5.70% (cont.) Number of LEP Students LEP % of Total Municipal Enrollment Municipality Language Marlborough Portuguese 229 5.00% Salem Spanish 449 9.90% Somerville Spanish 424 8.80% Springfield Spanish 3,179 12.50% Waltham Spanish 342 7.30% Worcester Spanish 4,519 18.60% MassDOT will work with community-based organizations (CBOs), as well as state legislators and other government entities or interested parties, to identify LEP populations that may need translation services for specific programs or activities. MassDOT will conduct outreach to community-based CBOs that work with LEP populations, such as neighborhood community service centers, community development corporations, and ethnic/cultural organizations. These organizations may be able to provide information that is not included in the census or state and local resources, such as information on specific languages spoken by the LEP population, population trends, and what services are most frequently sought by the LEP population. This outreach may be conducted through surveys, focus groups, or individual interviews. MassDOT will first identify CBOs that serve LEP populations, either by referring to previous outreach, reviewing information in the local phone directory, on-line searches, or obtaining referrals from local government agencies. MassDOT will then contact the relevant CBOs to explain MassDOT’s objectives and request information about the population served by the organization. This information will include feedback from the organization on the size of the population it serves; the needs of the population with respect to MassDOT’s mission; which programs, activities, and services are most beneficial; whether they are aware of the types of language assistance MassDOT provides; what, if any, additional language assistance measures would be most beneficial; any demographic trends within the population; and how to obtain input from the population itself. A preliminary list of CBOs can be found in Attachment A. Factor 2: The Frequency of Contact The greater the frequency with which LEP individuals from different language groups come into contact with MassDOT programs, activities, or services, the more likely enhanced language services will be needed. MassDOT is conducting a survey of its staff to identify the employees (by job function) who regularly come into contact with LEP individuals, the frequency with which contact occurs, the languages encountered (if identifiable), and suggested steps that MassDOT could take to facilitate communication with LEP persons. Attachments B and C are the surveys developed for functional area heads and front-line employees, respectively. The LEP and language maps and data, along with data collected from the surveys, will be used to estimate how often LEP individuals are likely to come into contact with programs, activities, or services provided by MassDOT. In addition, MassDOT is currently evaluating web translation services so that its website will be accessible to nonEnglish speakers in other languages. This will provide additional data for evaluating frequency of contact in the future. The Title VI Specialist will also collect data from the Office of Transportation Planning regarding the frequency with which foreign language interpreters are requested at public outreach meetings. Appendix D: Language Access Plan Table 2 (cont.) Number and Percentage of LEP Students, by Language, by Municipality (Outside of Boston) MassDOT Title VI Report 2011 Factor 3: The Importance to LEP Persons of MassDOT Programs, Activities, and Services The more important the activity, information, service, or program, or the greater the possible consequences of the contact with the LEP individuals, the more likely language services are needed. Importance is based on whether denial or delay of access to services or information could have serious or even life-threatening implications for the LEP individual. The survey for functional area heads is the first step toward identifying vital MassDOT documents that may need to be translated. The MassDOT Title VI Specialist, in collaboration with the Title VI Working Group and the Title VI Liaisons, will continue to identify vital documents and evaluate the importance of each MassDOT program, activity, and service in terms of whether or not language assistance is necessary. For all public participation efforts, MassDOT will look at the results of factors 1 and 2 above to help determine the areas where public outreach should be targeted and the languages into which flyers and other announcements should be translated, as well as the meetings at which language interpreters may need to be provided and for what languages. Factor 4: The Resources Available to MassDOT and Costs The level of resources and the costs imposed by providing language assistance may have an impact on the extent to which meaningful access can be provided for LEP persons. The Title VI Specialist will identify existing translation resources that are available to MassDOT, both internally, and externally through collaboration with other agencies or community organizations. MassDOT will also identify professional translation services and determine the costs and benefits of each of the translation strategies it identifies. In some instances, MassDOT may determine that “reasonable steps” are not reasonable if the costs imposed substantially exceed the benefits. MassDOT will take steps to reduce costs associated with providing language assistance by adopting technological advances, reasonable business practices, and the sharing of language assistance materials and services among and between recipients, advocacy groups, affected populations, and federal agencies. Depending on the nature of the assistance needed, MassDOT may use some or all of the following practices to reduce costs: • Training bilingual staff to act as interpreters and translators • Sharing information through industry groups • Utilizing telephonic and video conferencing interpretation services • Translating vital documents posted on websites • Pooling resources and standardizing documents to reduce translation needs • Using qualified translators and interpreters to ensure that documents need not be “fixed” later and that inaccurate interpretations do not cause delay or additional costs • Centralizing interpreter and translator services to achieve economies of scale • Employing formalized use of qualified community volunteers • Using translation software/web-based translation technologies MassDOT will not use resource limitations as a reason for not providing a type of LEP assistance unless these limitations can be well and justifiably substantiated. Four-Factor Analysis: Implementation Worksheet MassDOT has developed a worksheet template for use by the functional areas to complete the four-factor analysis for each relevant program, activity, or service. The template is provided below, followed by a completed four-factor analysis worksheet for MassDOT’s Notice of Civil Rights, to serve as an example. MassDOT will continue to conduct four-factor analyses, using the worksheet, for other programs, activities, and services. Types of Language Service Based on the four-factor analysis, MassDOT is identifying the categories of language service that are called for and appropriate. Each category consists of a type of communication (e.g., a vital document) and an appropriate language-assistance method (e.g., written translation). The categories include, but are not limited to: 1. 2. Written translation of vital documents As indicated above, MassDOT is in the process of identifying currently existing vital documents. Whether a document is deemed to be “vital” depends on the importance of the program, information, encounter, or service involved and the consequences for the LEP person if the information is not accurately communicated or is not timely. Because whether or not a document is vital is not always clear, particularly in the context of public outreach, MassDOT will regularly assess whether certain critical outreach materials should be translated. CBOs may be helpful in determining which outreach materials may be most helpful to translate, and some such translations may be made more effective when done in tandem with outreach methods, including using ethnic media, schools, religious organizations, and CBOs to spread a message. Although written translation of a vital document generally means the replacement of a written text in one language by an equivalent written text in another language, in some instances MassDOT may decide to replace written text with pictograms/universal icons as the most effective method of providing meaningful access to vital information. Written translation of non-vital yet important outreach documents Although not required to, MassDOT may choose to translate some key yet non-vital documents, such as project fact sheets, open house notices and materials, and other MassDOT documents that are available to the general public. At the discretion of the project manager and based on the four-factor analysis and consultation with Civil Rights staff, these documents will include a notice in the three most prominent LEP languages in the project area that the document will be translated upon request. In most cases, this will be reserved for: • Projects where there is a large LEP population within the project area • Any project where a significant impact on the population has been found • Large projects where there is intense public interest and engagement FOUR-FACTOR ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Template LANGUAGE SERVICE CATEGORY Choose the appropriate category: Written Translation, Interpretation, Training Staff, Notification, or Monitoring. LANGUAGE SERVICE PLAN Provide the name of the program, activity, or service for which language service is needed. PURPOSE Provide a description of the purpose of this language service. RESPONSIBILITY Specify the division/department responsible for providing this language service. PROCEDURE List the steps necessary to provide the language service. Appendix D: Language Access Plan LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE MEASURES MassDOT Title VI Report 2011 FOUR-FACTOR ANALYSIS 1) The Number and Proportion of Eligible LEP Persons Served Define a service area; present quantitative data; present qualitative data; present conclusions. 2) The Frequency of Contact Describe where contact typically occurs; describe how frequency of contact is determined; describe frequency of contact at each point of contact; present conclusions. 3) The Importance to LEP Persons Describe how importance is determined; present conclusions. 4) The Resources Available and Costs Present the breakdown of the costs of providing the service; present the ratio of total service cost to frequency of contact; present conclusions. FOUR-FACTOR ANALYSIS WORKSHEET As Completed for Notice of Civil Rights LANGUAGE SERVICE CATEGORY Written Translation LANGUAGE SERVICE PLAN Notice of Civil Rights PURPOSE This document informs members of the public of their right to protection against discrimination provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It also provides information on how to file a complaint if they believe that they have encountered discrimination as a result of any MassDOT activity, service, or program. RESPONSIBILITY MassDOT Office of Civil Rights PROCEDURE Contact translation service and contract for translation of the Notice of Civil Rights into the languages indicated in the four-factor analysis. FOUR-FACTOR ANALYSIS 1) The Number and Proportion of Eligible LEP Persons Served Using the data and maps presented in Figures 1-9, MassDOT has determined that, initially, it will translate the Notice of Civil Rights into Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese. Over the next year, MassDOT will collect data on the number of times the foreign language translation services on the MassDOT website are used and the languages that are accessed. MassDOT will also collect data on the number of requests for translations of other materials and the languages requested. These data sources will provide additional information that MassDOT will use to determine whether the Notice of Civil Rights should be translated into additional languages in the future. 2) The Frequency of Contact Contact will occur primarily via the MassDOT website. However, MassDOT will also post the notice at all MassDOT facilities throughout the state, based on the language concentrations in the areas where offices are located. In its oversight capacity, MassDOT will ensure that, in their Notices of Civil Rights, the RTAs and RPAs include reference to MassDOT’s role in receiving complaints and appeals. 3) The Importance to LEP Persons This is considered a vital document, as it is required under 49 CFR Section 21.9(d), which states that recipients shall apprise the public of the protections against discrimination assured them by Title VI. 4) The Resources Available and Costs The cost of translating the Notice of Civil Rights into commonly occurring languages is estimated to be $100 per language. Therefore, translating the Notice of Civil Rights into Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese will cost approximately $300. In-person interpreter services at public hearings and meetings, upon request Public hearings and public meetings provide opportunities for the public to learn about and, at designated times, participate in MassDOT’s decision-making process. Public hearings are held for all projects subsequent to the review and acceptance of the 25 Percent Design Plans by MassDOT, as required by USC 23 §128. Other public hearings are held for most projects that would have a direct impact on private property (land takings or easements), travel (detours, temporary traffic patterns, or new traffic signals), or environmental resources (cutting trees, filling wetland, or extreme construction noise). MassDOT has defined standard operating procedures for project managers to follow when scheduling and coordinating public hearings (MassDOT SOP 301, Scheduling and Coordinating a Public Hearing). OCR staff have worked with the Director of Project Management in order to include instructions to provide accommodation to members of the public upon request, including language assistance. The instructions provide language to be used in the public notice, including contact information, specific accommodations that can be made available, and the deadline for requests. The updated procedure will be incorporated and disseminated to the project managers once approved by senior management. MassDOT holds public information meetings in addition to public hearings in order to give the public an opportunity to ask questions of staff and to interact with decision makers. These meetings are typically held when a project has a significant impact on residents and customers and there is intense public interest. Although there are no federal requirements, MassDOT strives to provide notice and accommodations to the public for these meetings similar to those provided for public hearings. Subject to application of the four-factor analysis, MassDOT will take reasonable steps to provide LEP community members with the opportunity to learn about and participate in MassDOT public meetings and hearings in accordance with established MassDOT procedures. These steps include providing notification that interpretive services at meetings may be requested in specific languages (identified via the four-factor analysis) and providing such services when requested at least two weeks in advance of the meeting. 4. 5. In some instances, MassDOT may decide, based on the four-factor analysis, that it will provide oral interpreter services in a certain language or languages without a specific request. In these instances, this information will be provided in the materials informing the public of the meetings. Sign-in sheets in multiple languages informing LEP clients about available language services Telephone interpretation for basic questions and assistance in virtually any language Ensuring Competence of Interpreters and Translation Services Interpretation and translations arranged by MassDOT will be performed by approved vendors and/or individuals whose competency has been established. This task will be accomplished using a combination of methods to provide reliability, flexibility, and cost efficiency. MassDOT will work with professional organizations offering services in the fields of interpreting and translation, make use of bilingual MassDOT staff members where qualified, and evaluate and apply key elements from successful programs of state and local governments. MassDOT will make every effort to use certified interpreters to ensure competency and objectivity. Using this approach, MassDOT will ensure that all interpreters and translators working for MassDOT meet the following standards: • Communicate fluently—orally and in writing—in both English and the primary language of the LEP individual • Demonstrate cultural understanding of the LEP customer served • Accurately and impartially interpret and/or translate to and from such languages and English • Demonstrate an understanding of the role and the ethics associated with being an interpreter or translator Appendix D: Language Access Plan 3. MassDOT Title VI Report 2011 MassDOT will also do the following: • When appropriate, train interpreters and/or translators in specialized terms and concepts associated with MassDOT programs, services, and activities. MassDOT will make every effort to avoid the use of jargon in its dealings with the public and will provide interpreters with the definitions of any technical terminology. Bilingual staff may be used to assist in this effort. • Instruct the interpreters and translators that they should not deviate into the role of a counselor, legal advisor, or any other role aside from interpreting or translating, and require them to sign a statement to this effect. • Ask interpreters and translators to attest that they do not have a conflict of interest, and require them to sign a statement to this effect. • Incorporate language into contracts requiring vendors to certify their proficiency in target languages, and require them to sign a statement to this effect. In addition, MassDOT will survey its staff to determine existing bilingual resources and develop a plan for defining conditions under which MassDOT staff might be asked to help with interpretation or translation between MassDOT and LEP customers. TRAINING STAFF The purpose of the training program is to ensure that MassDOT staff members understand their obligation to provide meaningful access to information and services for LEP persons. MassDOT will develop and maintain an LEP training module that will be integrated into its larger Title VI/nondiscrimination training programs. MassDOT currently has plans to provide four types of internal Title VI/nondiscrimination training: one for all employees who interact with the public, one for high-level managers, one for Title VI Liaisons, and one for project managers. The LEP training module may be tailored for each of these different types of training, but all will focus on the following elements: • MassDOT’s responsibilities under the DOT LEP guidance • LEP populations in the MassDOT service area • Summary of the four-factor analysis • Description of the language services available to LEP customers and staff • Instructions on how staff and LEP customers can access the language services • Training in how to work effectively with interpreters in person and over the telephone • Cultural-competency training to instruct staff in how to communicate with LEP persons face to face, over the telephone, and in writing • Instructions on how to respond to civil rights complaints The MassDOT Title VI Specialist is currently working on coordinating training efforts with existing Department training programs. MassDOT is currently developing an interactive mapping tool that will be accessible to all MassDOT employees and allow users to identify languages spoken and LEP populations at various levels of geography. Once the tool is completed and online, training/instructions will be given to those staff members that interface with the public the most. The intended users are the project managers, public affairs personnel, and Civil Rights staff that communicate regularly with the public. The mapping tool will be referenced in the Title VI/Nondiscrimination Program, Public Participation Plan, and relevant MassDOT operations manuals. • “Breaking Down the Language Barrier: Translating Limited English Proficiency into Practice.” This video, which is available on DVD and as a streaming video link on www.lep.gov, explains the language access requirements of Title VI and Executive Order 13166 through vignettes that demonstrate the problems resulting from the absence of language assistance. The video goes on to show how these same situations could have been handled more appropriately if the service provider took reasonable steps to provide meaningful access. • “Providing Language Access for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,” a PowerPoint presentation produced by the FTA Office of Civil Rights and available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/title6/civil_rights_5102.html. • “How to Engage Low-Literacy and Limited English Proficient Populations in Transportation Decision Making,” available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/lowlim. This report documents “best practices” in identifying and engaging low-literacy and LEP populations in transportation decision making. These “best practices” were collected during telephone interviews with individuals in 30 states. PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO SUBRECIPIENTS MassDOT will provide LEP training and technical assistance to subrecipients as part of its larger Title VI/Nondiscrimination training program. To do so, the Title VI Specialist will develop training programs to provide comprehensive information on FHWA’s Title VI/Nondiscrimination Program and associated requirements for subrecipients. The training materials may include webinars, PowerPoint guides, and/or manuals that will provide detailed information about the measures subrecipients must take to comply with Title VI, including LEP requirements. MassDOT will organize, conduct, and lead additional training efforts in order to provide more direct guidance and answer questions that may be region-specific. At least two training efforts will be provided for subrecipients throughout the year, at which LEP issues may be addressed. The Specialist will hold three workshops in the first year in different geographic areas of the state to assists MPOs and colleges and universities in that area with their Title VI requirements, including LEP. In addition, the Specialist will hold three workshops in the first year in different geographic areas of the state to provide training to local government subrecipients in those areas regarding their Title VI responsibilities, including LEP. In subsequent years, the Specialist will hold at least one workshop for MPOs and colleges and universities and one for local government subrecipients to provide ongoing assistance. The Specialist will always be available to answer individual subrecipient questions as they arise. PROVIDING NOTICE TO LEP PERSONS Once MassDOT has determined, based on the four-factor analysis, that it will provide a language service, it is important that LEP persons be informed that the service is available free of charge. LEP notification points will include venues likely to be patronized by a high volume of LEP customers looking for MassDOT information. Notices will be translated into the most common languages encountered and will explain how to obtain the necessary language assistance. Both the updated Notice to Beneficiaries and the standard Public Meeting Notice contain information on these services. Examples of notice formats MassDOT might employ include: • Signs and handouts available at MassDOT customer service offices • Outreach documents • MassDOT website • Automated telephone voice mail attendant or menu system Appendix D: Language Access Plan MassDOT may use the following resources in the development of its LEP training program: MassDOT Title VI Report 2011 • Postings at CBOs partnering with MassDOT • Notices in non-English community newspapers • Announcements on non-English radio stations • Information tables at community events In order to implement culturally competent outreach to increase awareness of and access to MassDOT’s activities, services, and programs, MassDOT will determine the language needs of its LEP audience. This will include the following actions: • Test LEP materials with key LEP constituencies • Establish relationships and partner with key CBOs that represent the LEP audience • Conduct interviews with key community leaders who represent the LEP audience; this can include one-on-one meetings, telephone calls, and email messages INTEGRATING LANGUAGE ACCESS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES INTO MASSDOT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES MANUALS MassDOT’s Title VI Specialist is working with two subcommittees of its Title VI Working Group to integrate the language access and public participation policies and procedures into MassDOT’s standard operating procedures manuals. One of the subcommittees is focused on integrating the revised public participation and language access procedures into the design guide protocols. A second subcommittee is currently focusing on the identification and analysis of MassDOT directives and processes for Title VI purposes. Where appropriate, the standard operating procedures will be updated to incorporate the revised public participation and language access procedures. MONITORING AND UPDATING THE LANGUAGE ACCESS PLAN MassDOT’s Title VI Specialist will continually assess the effectiveness of its LAP through internal and external research such as: • Discussions with the Title VI Working Group and the Title VI Liaisons. • Internal meetings with MassDOT staff to evaluate the effectiveness of LEP communication methods, materials, and messaging. • Collection of program statistics such as the number of LEP trainings (group and individual), the number of LEP persons attending community meetings, and the number of new community partnerships and/or contacts made. • Surveys of front-line MassDOT staff to determine program awareness, the frequency of LEP contacts, and the communication methods used. • Analysis of data regarding the number of foreign-language translation requests made via the MassDOT website. • Analysis of all language assistance services to determine the cost of providing the services and the re sources available to MassDOT for providing the services. • Solicitation of input from CBOs regarding their awareness of the program and ideas for improvements. • Surveys of LEP community members who use MassDOT’s language assistance services. Every three years, MassDOT will re-evaluate the effectiveness of its LAP. Included in this review will be an analysis of any changes in demographics, types of services, or other needs. The review will include: • A new four-factor analysis using the most recently available data sources • A roundtable discussion (in addition to the ongoing meetings) with members of LEP communities to track any changes and to determine how well MassDOT’s LAP meets their needs. LAP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Activity/Task Frequency of contact • Complete frequency-of-contact surveys of functional area heads • Compile list of job functions and front-line employees who are likely to come into contact with LEP populations • Complete frequency-of-contact surveys of front-line employees • Complete four-factor analyses for all relevant program area segments Importance of MassDOT programs, activities, services, and documents to LEP individuals • Evaluate the importance of MassDOT programs, activities, and services with regard to language translations • Identify vital documents and determine languages for translation • Determine the need to translate any “non-vital” documents Language assistance measures • Select and implement translation service for MassDOT website • Determine existing in-house language expertise for informal communications and formal translations/interpretation • Select services for formal written translation, oral interpretation, and on-call phone translation • Have vital (and any identified non-vital) documents translated • Distribute “I speak” cards to employees who are likely to come into contact with LEP individuals Training staff and subrecipients • Develop LEP training module as part of the three-tiered Title VI/Nondiscrimination training program described in section 3.3 of this report • Training staff o Train high-level managers o Train Title VI Liaisons and Highway Division representatives o Train front-line employees who interface with LEP populations • Training subrecipients o Provide training to all MPO, college, and university subrecipients o Provide training to local public agency subrecipients Outreach to CBOs • Compile statewide list of CBOs • Meet with CBO representatives from top three LEP languages in the city of Boston (in Highway District 6) and Highway District 5 • Meet with CBO representatives from top three LEP languages in District 6 outside of Boston and in Highway District 4 • Meet with CBO representatives from top three LEP languages in Highway Districts 1, 2, and 3 Updating of standard operating procedures manuals Completion Date September 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 November 2011 November 2011 November 2011 October 2011 January 2012 January 2012 January 2012 January 2012 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 November 2012 November 2014 January 2012 September 2012 September 2013 September 2014 September 2014 Appendix D: Language Access Plan At the culmination of each three-year review, MassDOT will determine whether demographics, services, and needs have substantially changed and the extent to which language assistance services need to be adjusted to address these changes. Page intentionally blank ATTACHMENT A ORGANIZATIONS SERVING LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY POPULATIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS Populations Served Organization Telephone Address City ZIP RPA RTA Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers 617.787.0557 569 Cambridge Street Allston 02134 MAPC MBTA X Brazilian Immigrant Center 617.783.8001 14 Harvard Avenue, 2nd Floor Allston 02134 MAPC MBTA X Inquilinos Boricuas En Acción 617.927.1711 405 Shawmut Ave. Boston 02118 MAPC MBTA Asian CDC 617.482.2380 38 Oak St. Boston 02111 MAPC MBTA X Asian American Civic Association, Inc. 617.426.9492 87 Tyler Street Boston 02111 MAPC MBTA X Boston Chinatown Neighborhood Center 617.635.5129 885 Washington St. Boston 02111 MAPC MBTA X Chinatown Gateway Coalition 617.357.4499 38 Ash Street Boston 02111 MAPC MBTA X Massachusetts Latino Chamber of Commerce 617.208.7081 MAPC MBTA Russian Community Association of Massachusetts 617.731.7789 305-B Harvard Avenue Boston 02134 MAPC MBTA Citywide Boston Hispanic Center 617.348.6565 178 Tremont Street, 2nd Floor Boston 02111 MAPC MBTA X Massachusetts Office for Refugees and Immigrants 617.727.7888 18 Tremont Street, Suite 1020 Boston 02108 MAPC MBTA X Boston Chinatown Neighborhood Center 617.635.5129 38 Ash Street Boston 02111 MAPC MBTA Brockton CHASE AIDS (Massachusetts Community Health Services and Brockton Haitian Community) 508.427.6671 1106 Main Street, Suite 109 Brockton 02301 OCPC GATRA Cape Verdean Association of Brockton 508.559.0056 575 North Montello Street Brockton 02301 OCPC GATRA Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers 617.864.7600 1046 Cambridge Street Cambridge 02139 MAPC MBTA P.O. Box 302 Centreville 02601 CCC Cape Cod Immigrant Center Boston Chelsea [Human Services] Collaborative 617.889.6080 300 Broadway Chelsea 02150 MAPC MBTA Chelsea Neighborhood Developers, Inc. 617.889.1375 4 Gerrish Avenue Chelsea 02150 MAPC MBTA Roca, Inc. 617.889.5210 101 Park St. Chelsea 02150 MAPC MBTA Community Action Program Inter-City, Inc. 617.884.6130 100 Everett Ave. Unit 14 Chelsea 02150 MAPC MBTA Spanish Portuguese Chinese French/ Creole Russian Vietnamese X X X X X X X X X X X X X Other ATTACHMENT A ORGANIZATIONS SERVING LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY POPULATIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS Populations Served Organization Telephone Address City ZIP RPA RTA Viet-AID 617-822-3717 42 Charles St., Ste. E Dorchester 02122 MAPC MBTA Haitian Multi-Service Center/Catholic Charities 617.506.6600 185 Columbia Road Dorchester 02121 MAPC MBTA Vietnamese American Civic Association, Inc. 617.288.7344 1452 Dorchester Ave, 3rd Floor Dorchester 02122 MAPC MBTA Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers 617.825.5897 1 Stoughton Street Dorchester 02125 MAPC MBTA East Boston Ecumenical Community Council 617.567.2750 50 Meridian St. Suite B1 East Boston 02128 MAPC MBTA East Boston Area Planning Action Council 617.567.3359 21 Meridian St. East Boston 02128 MAPC MBTA Brazilian American Association (BRAMAS) 508.820.9400 129 Concord St., Ste. 9 Framingham 01702 MAPC MWRTA Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers 508.872.2652 24 Union Avenue, Suites 8 & 10 Framingham 01702 MAPC MBTA The Chinatown Coalition 508.875.6609 12 Holis Street Framingham 01702 MAPC MWRTA Massachusetts Latino Chamber of Commerce 413.391.0157 PVPC PVRTA X City Life/Vida Urbana 617.524.3541 284 Amory Street 1st Floor Jamaica Plain 02130 MAPC MBTA X Hispanic Office of Planning and Evaluation 617.524.8888 165 Brookside Avenue Ext. Jamaica Plain 02130 MAPC MBTA X 10 Pemberton Way Lawrence 01840 MVPC MVRTA Hispanic Office of Planning and Evaluation Holyoke Asian Center of Merrimack Valley 978.683.7316 1 Ballard Way Lawrence 01843 MVPC MVRTA Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers 978.970.1250 11 Mill Street Lowell 01852 NMCG LRTA Cambodian Mutual Assistance Association of Greater Lowell 978.454.6200 120 Cross Street Lowell 01854 NMCG LRTA One Lowell 978.654.6957 9 Central Street, Suite 203 Lowell 01852 NMCG LRTA Essex County Community Organization 781.586.0156 74 South Common Street Lynn 01902 MAPC MBTA Lynn Economic Opportunity, Inc. 781.581.7220 156 Broad Street Lynn 01901 MAPC MBTA Community Minority Cultural Center 781 598 5761 298 Union Street, 1st Floor Lynn 01901 MAPC MBTA North Shore Haitian American Association 339.440.5274 147 Munroe Street Lynn 01902 MAPC MBTA Spanish Portuguese Chinese French/ Creole Russian Vietnamese Other X X X X X X X X X Khmer X Khmer X X Khmer X ATTACHMENT A ORGANIZATIONS SERVING LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY POPULATIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS Populations Served Organization Telephone Address City ZIP RPA RTA Jewish Family and Children’s Service 781.593.0100 298 Union Street Lynn 01901 MAPC MBTA Association of Haitian Women in Boston 617.287.0096 330 Fuller Street Mattapan 02126 MAPC MBTA Haitian American Public Health Initiatives, Inc. 617.298.8076 10 Fairway Street Mattapan 02126 MAPC MBTA Haitian Americans United 617.846.5889 P.O. Box 260440 Mattapan 02126 MAPC MBTA Casa Latina (only Latino led and focused organization in Hampshire County) 413.586.1569 140 Pine Street Northampton PVPC PVRTA Center for New Americans 413.587.0084 42 Gothic Street Northampton 01060 PVPC PVTA North Shore Community Action Programs 978.531.0767 98 Main Street Peabody 01960 MAPC MBTA Berkshire Immigrant Center 413.445.4881 88 South Street Pittsfield 01201 BCRPC BRTA Quincy Asian Resources, Inc. (QARI) 617.472.2200 1509 Hancock St., St. 209 Quincy 02169 MAPC MBTA Quincy Community Action Programs 617.479.8187 1509 Hancock St. Quincy 02169 MAPC MBTA Asian American Service Association 617.773.5482 550 Hancock St. Quincy 02170 MAPC MBTA Quincy Hunger Network (Quincy Crisis Center, SW Community Center) 617.471.7075 282 Billings Road Quincy 02170 MAPC MBTA Germantown Neighborhood Center 617.376.1384 366 Palmer Street Quincy 02169 MAPC MBTA 61 Karen Drive Randolph 02368 MAPC MBTA Randolph Chinese American Neighborhood Development Organization Randolph Community Partnership 781.961.8888 70 Memorial Parkway Randolph 02368 MAPC MBTA Urban Edge 617 989 9000 1542 Columbus Ave., Ste. 2 Roxbury 02119 MAPC MBTA La Alianza Hispana 617.442.3343 2181 Washington St., Ste. 301 Roxbury 02119 MAPC MBTA Parker Hill Fenway Neighborhood Service Center 617.427.7175 409 Dudley St. Roxbury 02119 MAPC MBTA Nuestra Comunidad Development Corporation 617.541.3900 184 Dudley St., Ste. 102 Roxbury 02119 MAPC MBTA Grove Hall NDC 617.427.3599 56 Warren St., Ste. 200 Roxbury 02119 MAPC MBTA Spanish Portuguese Chinese French/ Creole Russian Vietnamese X X X X X X X X X Other ATTACHMENT A ORGANIZATIONS SERVING LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY POPULATIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS Populations Served Organization Telephone Address City ZIP RPA RTA Spanish Community Action Agency Of Somerville 978-745-8071 102 Lafayette St. Salem 01970 MAPC MBTA X Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers 617 776 5931 337 Somerville Ave., 2nd Floor Somerville 02143 MAPC MBTA Massachusetts Latino Chamber of Commerce 617.269.5160 424 W. Broadway South Boston 02127 MAPC MBTA Jewish Family and Children’s Service 413.746.1989 1655 Main Street, Suite 201 Springfield 01103 PVPC PVTA Massachusetts Latino Chamber of Commerce 781.647.5327 140 Main Street Waltham 02451 MAPC MBTA Centros Las Americas 508.538.7081 11 Sycamore Street Worcester 01608 CMRPC WRTA X MetroWest Latin American Center (MLAC) 508.798.1900 11 Sycamore Street Worcester 01609 CMRPC WRTA X Portuguese Chinese French/ Creole Russian X X X Vietnamese Other MassDOT, as a recipient of federal financial assistance, is required to provide written and oral translations of several types of communications for individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP)—that is, people who do not speak English well or at all. The determination of which written or spoken communications must be translated and the languages into which they must be translated is based on a four-factor analysis that considers the: • Number or proportion of the persons eligible to be served or likely to encounter a program, activity, or service who are LEP • Frequency with which LEP individuals come into contact with the program, activity, or service • Nature and importance of the program, activity, or service in people’s lives • Resources available and costs of providing translations To assist in the completion of this four-factor analysis, the MassDOT Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is requesting that you answer the following questions: 1. Approximately how many employees who work under you have direct contact with the public in some capacity? 2. What are the job titles and/or functions of those employees? 3. What vital documents does your area have that may need to be translated into other languages? When making an inventory of vital documents, please consider the following: USDOT guidance states that a document should be considered vital if it contains information that is critical for obtaining services and/or benefits, or if it is required by law. Vital documents include (but are not limited to), for example: notices of rights; notices advising LEP persons of the availability of free language assistance; letters or notices that require a response from the beneficiary or client; and consent and complaint forms. For instance, if a complaint form is necessary in order to file a claim with an agency, that complaint form would be vital. Non-vital information includes documents that are not critical to access such benefits and services. It may sometimes be difficult to draw a distinction between vital and non-vital documents, particularly when considering outreach documents or other documents designed to raise awareness of rights or services. It should be noted, however, that in some circumstances lack of awareness of the existence of a particular program may effectively deny LEP individuals meaningful access: for example, lack of awareness of the availability of language interpretation services at public meetings. In such cases, the outreach materials would be considered vital. Please return your completed survey to Elizabeth Moore (emoore@ctps.org) at the Central Transportation Planning Staff. CTPS will compile and analyze the results from all of the returned surveys. If you have any questions regarding the survey, please contact Elizabeth at 617-973-8495. THANK YOU. Appendix D: Language Access Plan ATTACHMENT B Communication with Limited English Proficient (LEP) Individuals: Survey for MassDOT Functional Area Heads MassDOT Title VI Report 2011 ATTACHMENT C Communication with Limited English Proficient (LEP) Individuals: Survey for Front-Line Employees of MassDOT MassDOT, as a recipient of federal financial assistance, is required to provide written and oral translations for individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP)—that is, people who do not speak English well or at all. The determination of which written or spoken communications must be translated and the languages into which they must be translated is based on a four-factor analysis that considers the: • Number or proportion of the persons eligible to be served by or likely to encounter a program, activity, or service who are LEP • Frequency with which LEP individuals come into contact with the program, activity, or service • Nature and importance of the program, activity, or service in people’s lives • Resources available and costs of providing translations Because you have been identified as an individual who has direct contact with the public in some capacity, your answers to the following questions will help the MassDOT Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to complete the required four-factor analysis. The information you provide is valuable and will be much appreciated. 1. What is your job title?____________________________________ 2. What is your job function?________________________________ 3. Please “x” the appropriate boxes in the table below to indicate how frequently you need to communicate with members of the public who do not speak English well or at all. Please answer individually for each language. Some of the most commonly spoken languages are listed in the table. If you have come into contact with individuals who speak other languages: (a) For languages you can identify—please enter them in the “Other” rows. (b) For languages you cannot identify—please mark your answer for all of them combined in the “All other languages” row. Language Most Days At Least Once/ Week At Least Once/ Month At Least Once/ Year Never Spanish Portuguese Chinese Haitian Creole Other:________ Other:________ All other languages 4. How do you communicate when you come into contact with members of the public who do not speak English well or at all? 5. Can you recommend ways in which MassDOT could improve your ability to communicate with members of the public who do not speak English well or at all? When you have answered the questions, please return your completed survey to Elizabeth Moore (emoore@ctps.org) at the Central Transportation Planning Staff. CTPS will compile and analyze the results from all of the returned surveys. If you have any questions regarding the survey, please contact Elizabeth at 617-973-8495. THANK YOU! Appendix D: Language Access Plan Frequency of Contact MassDOT Title VI Report 2011
