critical issues in serving the needs of limited ... - lep1. literature review 2. identify lep data...
TRANSCRIPT
Critical Issues in Serving the Needs of Critical Issues in Serving the Needs of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
Communities Communities
Rongfang (Rachel) Liu, PhD, AICP, PERongfang (Rachel) Liu, PhD, AICP, PENew Jersey Institute of TechnologyNew Jersey Institute of Technology
FEDERAL INTERAGENCY CONFERENCEON LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
September 3, 2008September 3, 2008
IntroductionIntroduction
• Research Background• LEP Definition Affecting Funding Allocations • Mobility Information Needs of LEP Population• Incorporating LEP in Emergency Evacuation Plan• Summary
Research BackgroundResearch Background• Mobility Information Need Study for New
Jersey Transit• Chicago Transit Authority Limited English
Proficiency Study • Emergency Response Planning• Immigration and Refugee Related Issues
Sampling ApproachesSampling Approaches
• NJ Transit Study• Research Objectives• Research Design• Data Sources• Survey and Analysis Results• Contrast and Comparison w/Other Fields• Lessons Learnt
Definition of LEP by DOTDefinition of LEP by DOT
LEP persons are those individuals with a primary or home language other than English who must, due to limited fluency in English, communicate in that primary or home language if they are to have an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from any aids or services provided by the transportation agency.
Research ObjectivesResearch Objectives
• Understand demographics of LEP travelers• Assess mobility information needs • Further NJDOT’s compliance w/Title VI • Provide NJ Transit w/a Best Practice Manual• Collect information on cost & schedule of
recommended practices
Research DesignResearch Design1. Literature Review2. Identify LEP Data Sources3. Classify LEP Populations in New Jersey 4. Generate Input from LEP Travelers in New Jersey5. Survey Peer Transportation Agencies6. Survey Internationally Oriented Activity Centers7. Survey Selected International Entities8. Develop a Non-verbal Communication Approach9. Synthesizing Verbal and Nonverbal Approaches10. Draft Final Report 11. Quarterly Progress Report, Final Report, and
Presentation to RSIP.
LEP Population Classification LEP Population Classification by Census 2000by Census 2000
ATLANTICATLANTICATLANTICATLANTICATLANTICATLANTICATLANTICATLANTICATLANTIC
BERGENBERGENBERGENBERGENBERGENBERGENBERGENBERGENBERGEN
BURLINGTONBURLINGTONBURLINGTONBURLINGTONBURLINGTONBURLINGTONBURLINGTONBURLINGTONBURLINGTONCAMDENCAMDENCAMDENCAMDENCAMDENCAMDENCAMDENCAMDENCAMDEN
CAPE MAYCAPE MAYCAPE MAYCAPE MAYCAPE MAYCAPE MAYCAPE MAYCAPE MAYCAPE MAY
CUMBERLANDCUMBERLANDCUMBERLANDCUMBERLANDCUMBERLANDCUMBERLANDCUMBERLANDCUMBERLANDCUMBERLAND
ESSEXESSEXESSEXESSEXESSEXESSEXESSEXESSEXESSEX
GLOUCESTERGLOUCESTERGLOUCESTERGLOUCESTERGLOUCESTERGLOUCESTERGLOUCESTERGLOUCESTERGLOUCESTER
HUDSONHUDSONHUDSONHUDSONHUDSONHUDSONHUDSONHUDSONHUDSON
HUNTERDONHUNTERDONHUNTERDONHUNTERDONHUNTERDONHUNTERDONHUNTERDONHUNTERDONHUNTERDON
MERCERMERCERMERCERMERCERMERCERMERCERMERCERMERCERMERCER
MIDDLESEXMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEX
MONMOUTHMONMOUTHMONMOUTHMONMOUTHMONMOUTHMONMOUTHMONMOUTHMONMOUTHMONMOUTH
MORRISMORRISMORRISMORRISMORRISMORRISMORRISMORRISMORRIS
OCEANOCEANOCEANOCEANOCEANOCEANOCEANOCEANOCEAN
PASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAIC
SALEMSALEMSALEMSALEMSALEMSALEMSALEMSALEMSALEM
SOMERSETSOMERSETSOMERSETSOMERSETSOMERSETSOMERSETSOMERSETSOMERSETSOMERSET
SUSSEXSUSSEXSUSSEXSUSSEXSUSSEXSUSSEXSUSSEXSUSSEXSUSSEX
UNIONUNIONUNIONUNIONUNIONUNIONUNIONUNIONUNION
WARRENWARRENWARRENWARRENWARRENWARRENWARRENWARRENWARREN
LEP POPULATIONLanguage Group by County, 2000
72,000
SpanishOther Indo-EuropeanAsian & Pacific IslandOther Languages
10,22510,22510,22510,22510,22510,22510,22510,22510,225
48,90048,90048,90048,90048,90048,90048,90048,90048,900
5,7935,7935,7935,7935,7935,7935,7935,7935,79314,82114,82114,82114,82114,82114,82114,82114,82114,821
976976976976976976976976976
6,5846,5846,5846,5846,5846,5846,5846,5846,584
50,85950,85950,85950,85950,85950,85950,85950,85950,859
1,9751,9751,9751,9751,9751,9751,9751,9751,975
87,76387,76387,76387,76387,76387,76387,76387,76387,763
990990990990990990990990990
12,68712,68712,68712,68712,68712,68712,68712,68712,687
41,87641,87641,87641,87641,87641,87641,87641,87641,876
14,11314,11314,11314,11314,11314,11314,11314,11314,113
14,06014,06014,06014,06014,06014,06014,06014,06014,060
7,6867,6867,6867,6867,6867,6867,6867,6867,686
51,76951,76951,76951,76951,76951,76951,76951,76951,769
800800800800800800800800800
10,74710,74710,74710,74710,74710,74710,74710,74710,747
1,1111,1111,1111,1111,1111,1111,1111,1111,111
41,73241,73241,73241,73241,73241,73241,73241,73241,732
1,1571,1571,1571,1571,1571,1571,1571,1571,157
ATLANTICATLANTICATLANTICATLANTICATLANTICATLANTICATLANTICATLANTICATLANTIC
BERGENBERGENBERGENBERGENBERGENBERGENBERGENBERGENBERGEN
BURLINGTONBURLINGTONBURLINGTONBURLINGTONBURLINGTONBURLINGTONBURLINGTONBURLINGTONBURLINGTONCAMDENCAMDENCAMDENCAMDENCAMDENCAMDENCAMDENCAMDENCAMDEN
CAPE MAYCAPE MAYCAPE MAYCAPE MAYCAPE MAYCAPE MAYCAPE MAYCAPE MAYCAPE MAY
CUMBERLANDCUMBERLANDCUMBERLANDCUMBERLANDCUMBERLANDCUMBERLANDCUMBERLANDCUMBERLANDCUMBERLAND
ESSEXESSEXESSEXESSEXESSEXESSEXESSEXESSEXESSEX
GLOUCESTERGLOUCESTERGLOUCESTERGLOUCESTERGLOUCESTERGLOUCESTERGLOUCESTERGLOUCESTERGLOUCESTER
HUDSONHUDSONHUDSONHUDSONHUDSONHUDSONHUDSONHUDSONHUDSON
HUNTERDONHUNTERDONHUNTERDONHUNTERDONHUNTERDONHUNTERDONHUNTERDONHUNTERDONHUNTERDON
MERCERMERCERMERCERMERCERMERCERMERCERMERCERMERCERMERCER
MIDDLESEXMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEX
MONMOUTHMONMOUTHMONMOUTHMONMOUTHMONMOUTHMONMOUTHMONMOUTHMONMOUTHMONMOUTH
MORRISMORRISMORRISMORRISMORRISMORRISMORRISMORRISMORRIS
OCEANOCEANOCEANOCEANOCEANOCEANOCEANOCEANOCEAN
PASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAIC
SALEMSALEMSALEMSALEMSALEMSALEMSALEMSALEMSALEM
SOMERSETSOMERSETSOMERSETSOMERSETSOMERSETSOMERSETSOMERSETSOMERSETSOMERSET
SUSSEXSUSSEXSUSSEXSUSSEXSUSSEXSUSSEXSUSSEXSUSSEXSUSSEX
UNIONUNIONUNIONUNIONUNIONUNIONUNIONUNIONUNION
WARRENWARRENWARRENWARRENWARRENWARRENWARRENWARRENWARREN
TOTAL LEP POPULATIONBy County, 2000
40,000 or More10,000 to 40,000Less Than 10,000
LEP and Language Groups LEP and Language Groups by Municipalityby Municipality
28,37528,37528,37528,37528,37528,37528,37528,37528,375
66,05566,05566,05566,05566,05566,05566,05566,05566,055
36,21636,21636,21636,21636,21636,21636,21636,21636,216
54,84554,84554,84554,84554,84554,84554,84554,84554,845
71,34471,34471,34471,34471,34471,34471,34471,34471,344 57,04857,04857,04857,04857,04857,04857,04857,04857,048
31,06931,06931,06931,06931,06931,06931,06931,06931,069
33,20133,20133,20133,20133,20133,20133,20133,20133,201
50,20950,20950,20950,20950,20950,20950,20950,20950,209
PERTH AMBOYPERTH AMBOYPERTH AMBOYPERTH AMBOYPERTH AMBOYPERTH AMBOYPERTH AMBOYPERTH AMBOYPERTH AMBOY
PASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAIC
PATERSONPATERSONPATERSONPATERSONPATERSONPATERSONPATERSONPATERSONPATERSON
NORTH BERGENNORTH BERGENNORTH BERGENNORTH BERGENNORTH BERGENNORTH BERGENNORTH BERGENNORTH BERGENNORTH BERGEN
ELIZABETHELIZABETHELIZABETHELIZABETHELIZABETHELIZABETHELIZABETHELIZABETHELIZABETH
JERSEY CITYJERSEY CITYJERSEY CITYJERSEY CITYJERSEY CITYJERSEY CITYJERSEY CITYJERSEY CITYJERSEY CITYNEWARKNEWARKNEWARKNEWARKNEWARKNEWARKNEWARKNEWARKNEWARK
WEST NEW YORKWEST NEW YORKWEST NEW YORKWEST NEW YORKWEST NEW YORKWEST NEW YORKWEST NEW YORKWEST NEW YORKWEST NEW YORK
UNION CITYUNION CITYUNION CITYUNION CITYUNION CITYUNION CITYUNION CITYUNION CITYUNION CITY
ALL SPANISH SPEAKERSBy Muncipality, 2000
25,000 or More5,000 to 25,000
1 to 5,000None
23,38623,38623,38623,38623,38623,38623,38623,38623,386
6,3556,3556,3556,3556,3556,3556,3556,3556,355
10,43110,43110,43110,43110,43110,43110,43110,43110,431
5,4265,4265,4265,4265,4265,4265,4265,4265,426
17,07817,07817,07817,07817,07817,07817,07817,07817,078
10,05210,05210,05210,05210,05210,05210,05210,05210,052
15,43415,43415,43415,43415,43415,43415,43415,43415,434
33,80833,80833,80833,80833,80833,80833,80833,80833,80822,47522,47522,47522,47522,47522,47522,47522,47522,475
21,91621,91621,91621,91621,91621,91621,91621,91621,916
8,1478,1478,1478,1478,1478,1478,1478,1478,147
23,64423,64423,64423,64423,64423,64423,64423,64423,644
PASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAICPASSAIC
CLIFTONCLIFTONCLIFTONCLIFTONCLIFTONCLIFTONCLIFTONCLIFTONCLIFTON
PATERSONPATERSONPATERSONPATERSONPATERSONPATERSONPATERSONPATERSONPATERSON
PERTH AMBOYPERTH AMBOYPERTH AMBOYPERTH AMBOYPERTH AMBOYPERTH AMBOYPERTH AMBOYPERTH AMBOYPERTH AMBOY
PLAINFIELDPLAINFIELDPLAINFIELDPLAINFIELDPLAINFIELDPLAINFIELDPLAINFIELDPLAINFIELDPLAINFIELD
NORTH BERGENNORTH BERGENNORTH BERGENNORTH BERGENNORTH BERGENNORTH BERGENNORTH BERGENNORTH BERGENNORTH BERGEN
WEST NEW YORKWEST NEW YORKWEST NEW YORKWEST NEW YORKWEST NEW YORKWEST NEW YORKWEST NEW YORKWEST NEW YORKWEST NEW YORK
JERSEY CITYJERSEY CITYJERSEY CITYJERSEY CITYJERSEY CITYJERSEY CITYJERSEY CITYJERSEY CITYJERSEY CITYNEWARKNEWARKNEWARKNEWARKNEWARKNEWARKNEWARKNEWARKNEWARK
ELIZABETHELIZABETHELIZABETHELIZABETHELIZABETHELIZABETHELIZABETHELIZABETHELIZABETH
UNION CITYUNION CITYUNION CITYUNION CITYUNION CITYUNION CITYUNION CITYUNION CITYUNION CITY
NEW BRUNSWICKNEW BRUNSWICKNEW BRUNSWICKNEW BRUNSWICKNEW BRUNSWICKNEW BRUNSWICKNEW BRUNSWICKNEW BRUNSWICKNEW BRUNSWICK
TOTAL LEP POPULATIONBy Muncipality, 2000
5,000 or More1,000 to 5,000Less Than 1,000
LEP Population Around Transit FacilitiesLEP Population Around Transit Facilities
TOTAL LEP POPULATIONBy Block Group, 2000
400 to 2,537200 to 400
75 to 20025 to 75
0 to 25
TOTAL LEP POPULATIONBy Block Group, 2000
400 to 2,537200 to 40075 to 20025 to 75
0 to 25
Top NonTop Non--English Language English Language Spoken at home in NJSpoken at home in NJ
Languages 5 years and over Percentage Rank
Spanish or Spanish Creole 967,741 12.32% 1
Italian 116,365 1.48% 2
Chinese 84,345 1.07% 3
Polish 74,663 0.95% 4
Portuguese or Portuguese Creole 72,870 0.93% 5
Tagalog 66,851 0.85% 6
Korean 55,340 0.70% 7
Gujarathi 47,324 0.60% 8
French (incl. Patois, Cajun) 47,225 0.60% 9
Arabic 47,052 0.60% 10
German 41,025 0.52% 11
Russian 38,566 0.49% 12
Survey of LEP CommunitiesSurvey of LEP Communities
• Evaluation Criterion• Design Survey Questionnaire• Identify Survey Candidates
– Language Groups– Geographic Locations– ESL Establishment– Civil Organizations
• Establish Focus Groups
Harrison High SchoolHarrison High SchoolHarrison High SchoolHarrison High SchoolHarrison High SchoolHarrison High SchoolHarrison High SchoolHarrison High SchoolHarrison High School
Essex County CollegeEssex County CollegeEssex County CollegeEssex County CollegeEssex County CollegeEssex County CollegeEssex County CollegeEssex County CollegeEssex County College
NJITNJITNJITNJITNJITNJITNJITNJITNJIT
Clifton High SchoolClifton High SchoolClifton High SchoolClifton High SchoolClifton High SchoolClifton High SchoolClifton High SchoolClifton High SchoolClifton High School
East Brunswick Public LibraryEast Brunswick Public LibraryEast Brunswick Public LibraryEast Brunswick Public LibraryEast Brunswick Public LibraryEast Brunswick Public LibraryEast Brunswick Public LibraryEast Brunswick Public LibraryEast Brunswick Public Library
Middlesex County CollegeMiddlesex County CollegeMiddlesex County CollegeMiddlesex County CollegeMiddlesex County CollegeMiddlesex County CollegeMiddlesex County CollegeMiddlesex County CollegeMiddlesex County College
Huaxia Chinese SchoolHuaxia Chinese SchoolHuaxia Chinese SchoolHuaxia Chinese SchoolHuaxia Chinese SchoolHuaxia Chinese SchoolHuaxia Chinese SchoolHuaxia Chinese SchoolHuaxia Chinese School
Union County CollegeUnion County CollegeUnion County CollegeUnion County CollegeUnion County CollegeUnion County CollegeUnion County CollegeUnion County CollegeUnion County College
Garfield High SchoolGarfield High SchoolGarfield High SchoolGarfield High SchoolGarfield High SchoolGarfield High SchoolGarfield High SchoolGarfield High SchoolGarfield High School
Goodwill, HarrisonGoodwill, HarrisonGoodwill, HarrisonGoodwill, HarrisonGoodwill, HarrisonGoodwill, HarrisonGoodwill, HarrisonGoodwill, HarrisonGoodwill, Harrison
Survey Sites and Survey Sites and Focus GroupsFocus Groups
The Hispanic Focus GroupsThe Arabic Focus GroupsThe Chinese Focus GroupThe Polish Focus GroupThe Russian Focus GroupThe Mixed Language Focus Groups
Demographic CharacteristicsDemographic Characteristics
Age Distribution
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
Under 20 20~30 31~64 65 or above
Per
cent
Household Size1
9%
224
317%
428%
5 or more22%
SocioSocio--economic Statuseconomic Status
Income Distribution
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Under $25,000 $25,000~$50,000 $50,000~$75,000 $75,000 or more
Per
cent
Auto O wne rship
313%
236% 1
35%
016%
Language BackgroundLanguage Background
Native languages
Spanish31%
Italian1%
Polish9%
Russian23%
Other21%Korean
3%
Chinese6%
Portuguese3%
Arabic3%
Reading English
Very well17%
well50%
t well2%
not at all1%
Speaking English
Very w ell9%
w ell47%
not w ell40%
not at all4%
Travel ChoicesTravel ChoicesMode Share
not use transit45%use transit
55%
Mode Shares of Transti Users
Bus57%Subway
21%
Light Rail2%
Commuter rail20%
Trip Purposes
working17%
school20%
eating2%recreation
12%
shopping18%
business meeting
4%
siting friends17%
visiting doctor7%
others3%
Desired ImprovementsDesired Improvements
picture signs26%
translator14%
others4%
native language
signs, brochure, & announceme
nt27%
multiligual website
12%
multilingual hone lines
17%
Understanding and Usefulness of Understanding and Usefulness of Mobility Information ProvidedMobility Information Provided
Acceptance of SolutionsAcceptance of Solutions
picturesigns26%
translator14%
others4%
multilingualphone lines
17%
multiligualwebsite
12%
native languagesigns, brochure,& announcement
27%
Mobility Needs Of LEP Mobility Needs Of LEP Travelers in New JerseyTravelers in New Jersey
• The Importance of Transit Services• Mobility Information Needs• Transit Service Needs• Desires of LEP Community
Transit Service Needs Transit Service Needs
• A broader perspective on LEP people’s concerns– Comprehension– Attitude– Inefficient route placement – infrequent service, safety, reliability
Best Practice SurveysBest Practice Surveys
• Survey of Transit Agencies in North America
• Survey of International Transportation Agencies
• Survey of International Related Activity Centers
• Synthesizing w/Market Research Questionnaire Design
QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGNQUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN1. Type of Transit Services, 2. Written agency plan for serving Limited English Proficiency
(LEP) travelers, 3. Top three languages other than English spoken by your
riders, 4. Various multi-language service techniques, 5. Non-verbal Techniques, such as pictograms, 6. Estimated costs, 7. Greatest success in providing services for LEP users, 8. Relevance of the survey to the services you provide?
IDENTIFYING SURVEY IDENTIFYING SURVEY CANDIDATESCANDIDATES
• High concentration around certain metropolitan areas.
• Along both coasts and southern borders.• Highest number of LEP population according
to the 2000 census • Intermodal and multimodal Transportation
Services
SURVEY CANDIDATESSURVEY CANDIDATES
OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTSOVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS• Response rate: 64%.• Various Types of transit services.• No written plan devoted to the
strategies for serving LEP travelers. • Top 10 Languages other than English.• Type of strategies to serve LEP
communities.• Costs of each plan by different
agencies.
Type of Transit ServicesType of Transit Services
Commuter Rail 10%
Light Rail14%
Bus46%
Other19%
Heavy Rail11%
Top 10 Languages Top 10 Languages Other Than EnglishOther Than English
31
64 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Spanis
hChin
ese
Vietna
mese
Portug
uese
Russia
nHmon
gBos
nian
Germna
nFre
nch
Korean
Num
ber o
f Sys
tem
s
Multilanguage TechniquesMultilanguage Techniques
11
21
5
16
16
5
10
0 5 10 15 20 25
Multi-languageAnnoucement
Multilingual Timetable orRoute Map
Multilingual TicketMachines
Multilingual Phone Lines
Multilingual InformationBooths
Multi-language Website
Multi-languagePictograms
Type
of T
rans
it In
form
atio
Number of Transit Systems
ESTIMATED COSTS OF LEP SERVICESESTIMATED COSTS OF LEP SERVICES
27%
45%
27%
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
0--5000 10,000-30,000 100,000--250,000
cost($)
port
ion
of tr
ansi
t sys
tem
s su
rvey
EXAMPLES OF TRANSIT AGENCIES EXAMPLES OF TRANSIT AGENCIES SERVING LEP TRAVELERSSERVING LEP TRAVELERS
• Washington DC Metro (WMATA)• Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation
District of Oregon• Central Puget Sound Regional Transit
Authority• New York City Metropolitan Transit
Authority
Washington D.C. METRO (WMATA)Washington D.C. METRO (WMATA)• Serves the Nation’s Capital area. • 800 railroad cars, 100 miles of track, and 1400
buses. • A live translation service capable of handling 140
languages; receives approximately 80 calls a month with 96% in Spanish.
• Eight languages are available in Pocket Guide and website.
• Spanish bus schedules and 12 bi-lingual service employees
• Multilingual video.• Over 30 representatives of social service agencies
that work with LEP communities.
TriTri--County Metropolitan Transportation County Metropolitan Transportation District of OregonDistrict of Oregon
• Serves the Portland-Salem MSA with light rail and bus systems. • Multilingual timetables and booklet.• Multilingual website for complaints or suggestions • Seven pictographic symbols. • $7,000 to print 100,000
copies of the “How to Ride” booklet and$7,000 in staff costs.
• The multilingual phone line costs approximately $2,600 per month.
Central Puget Sound Central Puget Sound Regional Transit AuthorityRegional Transit Authority
• Serves the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton metropolitan area.
• Light rail, commuter train, and bus services.
• Multilingual telephone line with community mailings in nine languages besides English.
• Budgets $15,000 per year to communicate with LEP communities; Budgets $150,000 per year to communicate with all people in the area-at-large about new projects.
New York City TransitNew York City Transit
• Provides heavy rail and bus services to the densely populated, multi-lingual New York metropolitan area.
• Three languages other than English are displayed at any given ticket machine.
• Two-sided brochures in English and the appropriate foreign languages and distributes the material at different stations.
• Approximately $250,000 per year including map production and translation services.
SURVEY INDICATIONSSURVEY INDICATIONS
• Multilingual phone lines and the bi- or multi-lingual personnel are widely practiced.
• Ticket-machine instructions in languages other than English and multi-language websites are less used strategies.
• Two thirds of the respondents have systems for receiving and processing complaints from LEP travelers.
• Only a few agencies have mechanisms for evaluating the success of their tactics.
• The lack of evaluation procedures increases the difficulty of analyzing the success or cost effectiveness of many strategies.
BEST PRACTICESBEST PRACTICES
• Multilingual Verbal Materials—Publications and Signs
• Multilingual Announcements • Multilingual Phone Lines • Pictograms and Other Visual Aids • Multilingual Websites • Multilingual Personnel – Human Contact • Cooperating with Other Organizations • Publicizing What Is Available
Incorporating LEP in the Incorporating LEP in the Emergency Evacuation PlanEmergency Evacuation Plan
• Estimate Evacuation Demand• Assess Transportation Systems• Maintain Communication
Unique Aspects of LEP Need for Unique Aspects of LEP Need for Emergency PlanningEmergency Planning
• Timely information accessible to LEP people in EMGERENCES
• Primary information sources may not serve the needs of LEP communities
• To maximize effective emergency communication, learn about their needs
Spotlighting Critical Issues Spotlighting Critical Issues
• Definition of LEP• Accurate Reflection of LEP Needs• Service Coverage• Particular Needs of LEP Population in
Emergency Evacuation Situations• Dissemination of Best Practices