002.01.23 Ark. Code R. 022
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Limited English Proficiency Plan and Policy
March 2023
The purpose of this language access plan and policy (the Plan) is to make reasonable efforts to eliminate or reduce limited English proficiency as a barrier to accessing AGFC programs, activities, or services. This Plan was created by the AGFC Language Access Working Group (LAWG), an agency-wide group consisting of representatives from multiple divisions as well as leadership.
This Plan establishes guidelines in accordance with Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, 65 Fed. Reg. 50,121 (Aug. 16, 2000), which requires that Federal agencies work to ensure that recipients of Federal financial assistance provide meaningful access to LEP individuals. AGFC receives Federal financial assistance, including from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which prohibits recipients from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability in any program, activity, or facility, consistent with the requirements of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. These guidelines are designed to comply with those requirements under Federal law. AGFC staff must make reasonable efforts to provide timely language assistance services to ensure that LEP individuals have substantially equal and meaningfully effective access to AGFC programs, activities, and services.
AGFC staff should take reasonable steps to provide language assistance services to LEP individuals when they encounter or have reason to believe that they may encounter LEP individuals in the course of fulfilling AGFC's mission. Subject to guidelines set forth herein, AGFC staff should take reasonable steps to provide language assistance services upon request by an LEP individual who wishes to access AGFC programs, activities, or services or to whom AGFC staff wishes to communicate.
This directive is intended only to improve the internal management of AGFC's language access program, and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the AGFC, the State of Arkansas, the United States, their respective agencies, officers, or employees, or any person. Because this document is intended for the internal management of the AGFC language access program, it is not intended to be cited in any judicial or administrative proceeding. Administration of the Plan is within AGFC's sole discretion. AGFC will create and post a process for obtaining feedback regarding AGFC's implementation of this Plan.
AGFC staff regularly communicate with persons who seek to access AGFC programs, activities, and services. In furtherance of that, AGFC generates correspondence, hosts web pages, conducts outreach, produces brochures and other publications, maintains hotlines, and establishes procedures for members of the public to make inquiries or complaints about AGFC programs, activities, and services.
These and other examples highlight that the AGFC's mission depends on accurate communication with members of the public, regardless of their level of English proficiency. In compliance with the Executive Order 13166 requirements imposed upon AGFC as a recipient of Federal financial assistance, this Plan details AGFC's initiatives to enhance access to its programs, activities, and services by LEP individuals.
On August 11, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services by Persons with Limited English Proficiency. See 65 Fed. Reg. at 50,121. The Executive Order has two broad objectives: The first directs each Federal agency to develop and implement a system to ensure that LEP individuals can meaningfully access the agency's Federally conducted programs and activities; the second directs Federal agencies providing Federal financial assistance to issue guidance to recipients of such assistance regarding their legal obligation to ensure meaningful access for LEP individuals under the national origin nondiscrimination provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and implementing regulations. In short, Executive Order 13166 tasks AGFC, as a recipient of Federal financial assistance, with improving accessibility for LEP individuals in all AGFC programs, activities, and services.
The AGFC has established a Language Access Working Group (LAWG), which is an agency-wide group consisting of representatives from multiple divisions as well as leadership. The purpose of the LAWG is to guide and oversee AGFC's efforts toward full compliance with this Plan. The LAWG's responsibilities include:
Over time, it is anticipated that AGFC's understanding of the need for language assistance services will expand, the diversity of non-English languages encountered will grow, and available methods for providing language services will evolve. The LAWG encourages AGFC divisions to use the Language Access Assessment and Planning Tool for Federally Conducted and Federally Assisted Programs, available at http://www.lep.gov/resources/2011_Language_Access_Assessment_and_Planning_Tool.pdf, at least annually to self-assess and determine their own capacity and need to provide services to LEP individuals. This tool is a practical application of the four-factor analysis set out in guidance issued in accordance with Executive Order 13166.
The four-factor analysis is a flexible and fact-dependent standard that is used to determine the appropriate language assistance services to ensure an LEP individual has meaningful access to AGFC's programs, activities, and services. The four-factor analysis considers:
Ensuring the quality and accuracy of language assistance services provided by AGFC is critical to providing LEP individuals with meaningful access to AGFC programs, activities, and services. AGFC divisions should take reasonable steps to ensure that all staff or contracted personnel who serve as translators or interpreters, or who communicate "in-language" with LEP individuals, are competent to do so. Considerations of competency in light of particular tasks may include:
* Demonstrated proficiency in and ability to communicate information accurately in both English and the other language;
* Identifying and employing the appropriate mode of interpreting (e.g., consecutive, simultaneous, or sight translation), translating, or communicating fluently in the target language;
* Knowledge in both languages of any specialized terms or concepts particular to the division's program, activity, or service and of any particularized vocabulary used by the LEP individual;
* Understanding and following confidentiality, impartiality, and ethical rules to the same extent as AGFC staff;
* Understanding and adhering to their role as interpreters, translators, or multilingual staff.
AGFC divisions should also take reasonable steps to ensure that all staff or contracted personnel who serve as translators are briefed by division staff on the context and intended audience for the translated text. For example, divisions may elect to provide guidance with respect to style, technical word choice, phrasing, or reading level depending on the context or target audience.1
Absent exigent circumstances, AGFC staff should avoid using family members (including children), neighbors, friends, acquaintances, bystanders, and parties to a dispute to provide language assistance services.2 Using family, friends, bystanders, or parties to a dispute to interpret could result in a breach of confidentiality, a conflict of interest, or inadequate interpretation.
The AGFC prioritizes translation of vital documents. Classification of a document as "vital" depends upon the importance of the information, encounter, program, activity, or service involved, and the consequence to the LEP individual if the information in question is not provided accurately or in a timely manner. The determination of what documents are considered "vital" is left to the discretion of individual AGFC divisions, which are in the best position to evaluate their circumstances and programs, activities, and services within their language access planning materials.
Essentially, there are two distinct types of vital documents - those that are meant for the general public or a broad audience and those that are specific communications regarding a matter between an individual and the AGFC. Each AGFC division should exercise its discretion in creating a process for identifying and prioritizing vital documents or texts to translate.3 AGFC divisions should also ensure that all translations are completed by qualified translators.
Documents that may be considered "vital" may include, but are not limited to, certain:
* Public outreach or educational materials (including web-based material);
* License or permit application and issuance forms;
* Complaint, release, or waiver forms;
* Written notices of the denial or revocation of an individual's licenses, rights, or permits and of any related administrative proceedings or hearings;
* Notices of public meetings or other community outreach; and
* Notices regarding the availability of language assistance services provided by the AGFC at no cost to LEP individuals.
Under most circumstances, materials primarily directed to internal staff or the other public agencies with whom AGFC collaborates will not be considered "vital" for these purposes. Some AGFC divisions with core legal functions (e.g. Enforcement and Legal) may also be subject to applicable legal standards. Those divisions will necessarily be guided by those legal standards in making decisions as to translation, and this Plan is not intended to supersede or alter those requirements.
Recognizing that translations can be resource and time intensive, AGFC divisions are encouraged to seek stakeholder input in determining which documents should be prioritized for translation. AGFC divisions are also encouraged to pursue resource-sharing and cost-saving initiatives across the AGFC when translating documents. For example, AGFC divisions may consider sharing glossaries of commonly used terms to reduce the cost of translating terms of art or technical terms. Ultimately, AGFC divisions will assess the considerations in this Plan, including the four-factor analysis, and make decisions within their discretion and consistent with this Plan, and their language access procedures implementing this Plan, as to how to provide meaningful access to written texts.
The AGFC Communications Division shall take reasonable steps to translate AGFC's public website content and electronic documents that contain vital information about AGFC programs, activities, and services. The division shall identify the appropriate languages for translation and shall determine which electronic documents contain vital information. Translations of web content may include web pages that contain important information intended for the general public, such as information about the AGFC's mission, information about how to file a complaint, information about how to contact the AGFC (including how to request language assistance services), and information designed to educate individuals about the programs, activities, and services AGFC offers and the individuals' rights under the law. Division staff are encouraged to review the Federal General Services Administration's guidance on multilingual websites, available at https://digital.gov/resources/top-10-best-practices-for-multilingual-websites/, when including multilingual content on an AGFC website.
AGFC staff should, at the point of first contact with an LEP individual, make reasonable efforts to conduct or arrange for an initial assessment of the need for language assistance services, and AGFC divisions should make reasonable efforts to obtain such services if they are needed to effectively communicate with the individual. AGFC staff can determine whether a person needs language assistance in several ways:
* Self-identification by the non-English speaker, LEP individual or companion;
* Inquiring as to the primary language of the individual if they have self-identified as needing language assistance services;
* Asking a multilingual staff or qualified interpreter to verify an individual's primary language;
* Using an "I Speak" language identification card or poster (examples of such cards are available at https://www.lep.gov/translation).
Each AGFC division should collect data regarding its provision of language assistance services during each fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) and provide this data to the AGFC LEP Coordinator in order for the AGFC LAWG to assess the effectiveness of this Plan and AGFC's language assistance services. At a minimum, the data collected should include the number and types of cases, matters, or outreach initiatives in which language assistance services were provided; the primary languages of communication with the LEP individuals; the cost of any language assistance services provided; and the type of language assistance provided, if any. The AGFC LEP Coordinator shall identify and communicate to AGFC divisions any additional data that should be collected to improve the ability to assess the effectiveness of this Plan.
AGFC staff need to know how and when to access language assistance services. For this Plan to be effective, AGFC divisions should take reasonable efforts to ensure that new and existing division staff members periodically receive training on the content of this Plan and any division procedures implementing it; identification of language access needs; and provision of language assistance services to LEP individuals. The AGFC LEP Coordinator will develop a basic language access training that AGFC divisions could use as training for staff having the potential to interact or communicate with LEP individuals, staff whose job it is to arrange for language support services, and supervisors of such staff. The AGFC LEP Coordinator will make this training available to AGFC staff in the same manner as AGFC's other established training opportunities. AGFC divisions have the discretion to determine the nature, form, and frequency of the training. The AGFC LEP Coordinator will develop and review available training options and make any further recommendations as appropriate.
Training may include, but is not limited to, the following topics:
* Identifying the language needs of an LEP individual;
* Working with an interpreter in person or on the telephone;
* Requesting documents for translation;
* Accessing and providing language assistance services through multilingual employees, in-house interpreters and translators, or contracted personnel;
* Duties of ethics and professional responsibility with respect to LEP individuals;
* Interpreter ethics;
* Tracking the use of language assistance services; and
* Tips on providing effective assistance to LEP individuals.
AGFC divisions are encouraged to offer technical training to multilingual staff (e.g., interpreter ethics, interactive online language access courses, etc.) to maintain and improve their language assistance skills.
The AGFC values the multilingual skills of its employees. When considering human resource and hiring needs, each AGFC division should assess the extent to which non-English language proficiency in particular languages is necessary or useful for particular positions or to fulfill the AGFC's mission. Upon assessment of their language needs, AGFC divisions are encouraged to provide opportunities for professional development of language skills for all qualified AGFC employees. It is left to AGFC divisions' discretion to identify and develop the language skills of AGFC employees who could serve as multilingual employees. However, all AGFC divisions should take reasonable steps to develop quality control procedures to ensure that AGFC employees who communicate or correspond in a non-English language with LEP individuals do so in an accurate and competent manner. Multilingual employees with frequent interaction with LEP individuals, or whose workplan includes the provision of language assistance services, are encouraged to undergo language testing and proficiency assessments. Each AGFC division should track the composition of existing and new staff by non-English languages spoken and level of oral and written proficiency. Maintaining an inventory of multilingual staff could be useful for future resource-sharing initiatives within AGFC. Supervisors are encouraged to take into account the amount of time an employee has spent providing language assistance services when assessing workload and productivity.
If an AGFC division elects to procure language assistance services, it should take reasonable efforts to ensure that the procurement documents (e.g. a Request for Proposals or bid advertisement) and resulting contract for language assistance services clearly specifies AGFC's requirements and vendor's responsibilities, assigns liability, sets compensation rates, and provides for dispute resolution. For example, a contracted language assistance service vendor should meet the following minimum requirements:
* Qualified and competent translators and interpreters, including second checks for translations;
* Mechanisms to ensure confidentiality and avoid conflicts of interest;
* Ability to meet the AGFC division's stated demand for interpreters;
* Ability to meet the AGFC division's stated demand for translation, including the delivery of the translation in editable electronic or other required formats;
* Reasonable cancellation fees;
* On-time service delivery;
* Acceptable emergency response time (if applicable);
* Rational scheduling of qualified interpreters;
* Any requirements for tracking usage;
* Rapid rates of connection to interpreters via telephone, video, or electronically; and
* Effective complaint resolution when translation or interpretation errors occur.
Potential vendors for language assistance services contracts should also be required to commit to an adequate quality control process for all deliverables. AGFC divisions are encouraged to work together and with the AGFC LEP Coordinator to identify and disseminate best practices learned with respect to negotiating and securing high quality language assistance services.
Each AGFC division should make reasonable efforts to notify the public about the availability of language assistance services, including by the AGFC Communications Division posting notice on official AGFC websites and social media. AGFC divisions should determine what information will be provided in English and in appropriate non-English languages using, for example, websites, translated documents, and community-focused outreach.
When language assistance services are not readily available or an LEP individual does not know about the availability of language assistance services, LEP individuals will be less likely to participate in AGFC's programs, activities, and services. Organizations that have significant contact with LEP individuals, such as schools, faith-based organizations, community groups, and groups working with new immigrants can provide important input into the language access planning process and can often assist in identifying populations for whom outreach is needed and who would benefit from AGFC's programs, activities, and services where language services are provided. AGFC divisions may also consider consulting with entities representing LEP interests to obtain feedback on the accuracy and quality of AGFC's language assistance services.
AGFC divisions are encouraged to collaborate with each other to share resources, improve efficiency, and standardize terminology when providing language assistance services. For example, procurement officials from various AGFC divisions may meet to discuss and test whether an agency-wide contract for interpretation or translation services, designed and structured to meet the needs of multiple AGFC divisions, would be more beneficial to AGFC and LEP individuals than separate contracts for the AGFC divisions needing such services.
The AGFC supports sharing promising LEP practices and exploring agency-wide initiatives that could potentially streamline and improve our ability to provide meaningful access to LEP individuals. To that end, the AGFC LEP Coordinator will work with the AGFC divisions to identify ongoing or additional cross-cutting LEP implementation concerns that may benefit from an agency-wide solution.
Each AGFC division should periodically reassess and, where appropriate, update its own language access procedures implementing this Plan to ensure that the scope and nature of language assistance services provided reflect updated information on relevant LEP populations, the division's language assistance needs, changes in technology, and the division's experience under this Plan. Further, each division should take reasonable efforts to ensure that its in-house and contract language services, directory of translated documents, signs, and web-based services meet current language needs of the AGFC and division.
Every two years, using the data collected and provided by the AGFC divisions as described above, the AGFC LEP Coordinator and LAWG should assess the effectiveness of AGFC divisions' language assistance services by, among other things, conducting an inventory of languages most frequently encountered by AGFC divisions, identifying the primary channels of contact with LEP community members (whether telephonic, in person, correspondence, web-based, etc.), reviewing AGFC programs, activities, and services for language accessibility, reviewing plans and protocols, reviewing the annual cost of translation and interpreter services, and consulting with outside stakeholders. The AGFC LEP Coordinator and LAWG should work collectively to identify the appropriate language access metrics to monitor, evaluate, and improve the AGFC's ability to overcome language barriers.
1 The LEP Guidance to Recipients, 67 Fed. Reg. at 41,464, provides that "[t]ranslators should understand the expected reading level of the audience and, where appropriate, have fundamental knowledge about the target language group's vocabulary and phraseology. Sometimes direct translation of materials results in a translation that is written at a much more difficult level than the English language version or has no relevant equivalent meaning. Community organizations may be able to help consider whether a document is written at a good level for the audience. Likewise, consistency in the words and phrases used to translate terms of art, legal, or other technical concepts helps avoid confusion by LEP individuals and may reduce costs."
2 AGFC divisions should provide staff with further guidance regarding circumstances that would rise to the level of exigent circumstances and procedures for providing language assistance services during those circumstances.
3 AGFC divisions may find it useful to consider the top languages spoken by LEP individuals in Arkansas when considering the target languages for translation of vital documents meant for the general public or a broad audience that includes LEP individuals. For example, the top six languages spoken at home by LEP individuals age 5 years or older according to American Community Survey (ACS) 2006-2010 multi-year data are: Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Tagalog, and Russian.
002.01.23 Ark. Code R. 022