2. Title VI “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal Financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C § 2000d, et seq 1 2 3 4 2

3. Race, Color, & National Origin are three ‘protected classes’ Race –U.S. Census categories define race –Persons of any race are protected classes Color – Discrimination based on skin color or complexion is prohibited National Origin –Foreign born ancestry 2 3

4. Program or Activity Applies institution-wide Title VI applies institution-wide, not solely limited to primary recipients operations Examples? 3 4

5. Title VI applies to both Recipeints & Sub-recipeints Recipient: State DOT Transit Agency Or any public or private agency, institution, department or other organizational unit receiving funding from FTA Sub-recipient: any entity that receives FTA financial assistance as a pass-through from another entity 4 5

6. FTA Direct Grant Recipients meet their Title VI obligations through the Circular Addresses requirements of FTA Title VI Circular 4702.1A, –AKA “The Circular” Submission Recurrence –Recipients every 3 years –MPOs every 4 yrs 6 http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Title_VI_Circular_4702.1A.pdf

8. Guidelines for All Recipients and Subrecipients Title VI guidelines cover: –Procedures for investigating complaints –How to record complaints, investigations, and lawsuits –Notifying the public of Title VI rights –EJ analysis in NEPA – Minority, low-income and LEP’s are included in decision making processes –Steps to ensure meaningful access for LEP persons

9. Procedures for Investigating Complaints Why must I develop complaint procedures? Procedures are –for investigating and tracking complaints –available upon request

10. Complaint Procedures What constitutes a complaint? –Legal Bases Must Haves –Timeline for accepting complaint –Investigation and resolution timeline –Who investigates the complaint –Who resolves the complaint

11. Complaint Procedures Reasons for dismissal Report or letter of finding Tracking complaint Accessibility of complaints (written) Language assistance measures When to send to FTA

12. Notifying the Public of Rights The City of USA operates its programs without regard to race, color, and national origin in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Any person who believes they have been aggrieved by any unlawful discriminatory practice under Title VI may file a complaint with the City of USA. For more information on the City of USA’s civil rights program, the obligations, and procedures to file a complaint, contact 800-656-1234, (TTY 800-656-4567), email title.VIcomplaint@abc.org; visit our administrative office at 1234 Center Street, Anywhere, CA, 17970 www.city.usa.ca.ustitle.VIcomplaint@abc.org www.city.usa.ca.us If information is needed in another language contact, 800-656-1234 (MAKE SURE THIS IS IN THE OTHER LANGUAGE)

13. Public Involvement Early and continuous opportunities to be involved in proposed transportation decisions Meeting times, locations Childcare Use of social media Citizens advisory Non-traditional methods

15. Lau v Nichols, 1974 Non-English-speaking students of Chinese origin sued San Francisco School District. The Supreme Court ruled that a recipient’s failure to ensure meaningful opportunity to national origin minority, LEPs to participate in federally funded programs violates Title VI and Title VI regulations. The school was to take reasonable affirmative steps to provide meaningful opportunity to participate in the federaly funded education program. Applies beyond education to include all programs and activities of all recipients of federal financial assistance

16. LEP Executive Order 13166 Signed by Clinton August, 2000 Assess language needs Determine steps to ensure meaningful access for LEPs Develop a language access plan or alternative framework Failing to ensure LEPs effectively participate in or benefit from federally assisted programs may constitute national origin discrimination

17. Four Factor Analysis for LEP 1)Number of LEPs eligible or likely to be encountered by program 2)Frequency that LEPs come into contact with program 3)Nature & importance of program to LEPs 4)Resources available and costs to program

19. Factor 1: Number or Proportion of LEPs From a particular language group; Eligible to be served or encountered; The greater the number or proportion, the more services needed.

20. Factor 2: Frequency of Contact Rule of thumb: –More contact= More enhanced services –What data would you analyze?

21. Factor 3: Nature & Importance of Program Rule of thumb –More important=more contact –More contact=more likely to need langue services –What are the most important services?

22. Community Focus Groups

23. Factor 4: Cost How much will it cost to deliver services?

24. Safe Harbor & LEP Thresholds Safe Harbor- –Requires written translations of vital documents for each LEP group meeting threshold LEP threshold- –5% or 1,000 individuals, whichever is less. Vital documents –Documents critical for accessing recipients services or benefits –Letters requiring response from customer –Informing customers of free language assistance –Complaint forms –Notification of rights

25. How are LEP plans typically implemented? Popular Strategies –Publishing timetables and route maps in languages other than English –Multilingual phone lines and use of multilingual staff in information booths –Pictograms and multi-language announcements –Language Identification with “I Speak” cards –Advertising in ethnic media

26. I Speak Cards

30. A Model Plan A Model Plan guides you in determining the level of language access services you should provide Includes comprehensive four factor analysis 1)Proportion of eligible LEPs 2)Frequency of Contact 3)Nature and Importance 4)Cost Provides policies for evaluating language assistance providers

31. Sample Elements Model Plan Provide notice of right to language assistance Identified vital documents for translation –i.e. any document that could deny an LEP access to a service Important public notifications –Special meeting requests –Acquisition of property letters Behavior signage

32. Training Staff on the Model Plan Staff members should understand LEP policies, procedures, and how to carry them out Train staff on: –Documenting LEP needs –Responding to LEP correspondence Both callers and in-person contact –Responding to LEP civil rights complaints

33. Model Plan Monitoring Areas to Continuously Monitor Current language needs of customers –Assess whether existing language assistance services are meeting the needs of LEP customers –Number of LEP persons in service area Need for language assistance resources and arrangements Feedback from LEP communities, including customers, and community organizations about the effectiveness language access plan.

34. Guidelines for Transit Agencies Serving Large Urban Areas Collect demographic information on beneficiaries –Maps and overlays –Customer surveys –Local options Service standards and policies –Set policies –Service and fare change analysis –Monitor –Report every three years to FTA

36. 36

37. Customer survey

38. Headway

39. Weekday Span

40. Saturday Span

41. Service Coverage

42. Vehicle Load

44. Monitoring Program

47. Guidelines for State DOTs and Administering Agencies Conduct statewide transportation planning in a non-discriminatory manner. Subrecipients –Pass through FTA funds to subrecipients in a non- discriminatory manner. –Monitor subrecipients for compliance with Title VI. Report every three years to FTA

48. Guidelines for Metropolitan Planning Organizations Demographic profile of metropolitan area; ID locations (Minority, low-income) Planning process ID’s needs of low-income and minority populations Analytical process ID’s benefits & burdens of investments for different groups, ID imbalances and responding to the analysis Subrecipients –Pass through FTA funds to subrecipients in a non- discriminatory manner. –Monitor subrecipients for compliance with Title VI. Report every 4 years

49. Discrimination Prohibitions Disparate Treatment ( Intentional Discrimination): Actions that result in circumstances where similarly situated persons are treated different because of their race, color, or national origin. Disparate Impact ( Unintentional Discrimination ): The recipient’s procedure or practice while neutral on its face has the effect of disproportionately excluding or adversely affecting members of the projected class without substantial legitimate justification.

50. Examples of Intentional? Examples of Unintentional?

51. Alexander v. Sandoval In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs can sue under the intentional discrimination provisions in Section 601 of Title VI. However, plaintiffs cannot bring suits under the disparate impact regulations promulgated by Federal agencies under Section 602 of Title VI. Persons may still file administrative complaints with Federal agencies under the Title VI regulations.

52. Discrimination: Disparate Impact A recipient can take actions that have disparate impacts when the policy is supported by a “substantial legitimate justification” and There are no comparably effective alternative practices that would result in less disparate impacts and The justification for the action is not a pretext for discrimination

53. 53

54. Service & Fare Equity Analysis Goals Assess the effects of the proposed fare or service changes. Assess the alternatives available for people affected by change. Determine if proposals would have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low ‐ income riders. Describe the actions proposes to minimize, mitigate, or offset any adverse effects 54

55. Should I conduct a Service Equity Analysis? Major Service Change? YES Service Equity Analysis Disproportionate Impact? YESAVOIDMINIMIZEMITIGATENO ACTION

56. Service & Fare Change When: Conducted at programming stages Who: Urbanized area over 200,000 who proposes major service change or fare change ( Note: No threshold for fare changes) Why: Required by FTA Circular 4702.1A 56

57. 57

58. Establishing a Major Service Change Policy Recipient should have established guidelines or threshold for what it considers “major” change to be Often defined as a numerical standard – e.g. change effects greater than 25% of service hours on any route 58

59. 59

60. Option A: Prescriptive Method Create Maps Span of Service, Modes Assess Alternatives Travel Time, Cost Determine if disproportionate impact Mitigate Option B: Create your own method Evaluate changes during planning Explain your own methodology Determine if disproportionate impact Identify Alternatives & Mitigate 60 Most agencies use Option B

61. SERVICE & FARE EQUITY ANAYLSIS Measurable Attributes Headway Span-of- Service Route Elimination Vehicle Type Load Factor Cost Location 61

62. Golden Rule for Preparing Service Equity Analysis APPLES TO APPLES ORANGES TO ORANGES 62

63. General idea of the analysis Detail major service changes and how they qualify as major relative to policy How would the proposed service changes impact L-I & minority populations at the geographic level(s) you identified? 63

64. Analytical Approach What dataset(s) will you use? At what geographic levels will you assess disparate impacts? (By route, for the entire service area, …) At what geographic level will you measure minority and low-income concentrations? (Census tract, block group, TAZ, … or by ridership) Within which population will you identify disparate impacts? (Riders, service area population, …) Regardless of option: analytical method for determining disparate impact 64

65. Presentation of analysis GIS Maps Impacts associated with each type of service change 65 Headway Span-of- Service Route Elimination Vehicle Type Load Factor Cost Location

66. 66 Summary of service changes Minority proportion of population Low-income proportion of population Along lineThresholdAlong lineThreshold Segment discontinuation, headway reduction 38.9%34.3%16.7%12.2% Example: Impacts of route-level changes on surrounding populations

67. Example: impacts of span of service changes on ridership 67 Type of service change Minority proportion of ridershipLow-income proportion of ridership Affected tripsThresholdAffected tripsThreshold Service span39.9%43.7%48.6%41.4% - An agency proposes to eliminate late-evening service on ALL routes.

68. Example: impacts of span of service changes by route classification 68 Average span of service (hours) ExistingProposedChange Low- Income Higher- Income Low- Income Higher- Income Low- Income Higher- Income Weekday16.616.216.1 -0.5-0.1 Saturday16.114.715.814.5-0.3-0.2 Sunday14.813.213.912.9-0.9-0.3 - An agency has classified certain routes as “low-income” based on the Census tracts they serve. The agency proposes span of service changes to many of its routes.

69. Example: impacts of a service improvement on existing riders 69 - An agency proposes to replace an express bus route with a faster fixed guideway service. The agency analyzes travel time differences for existing riders based on their origin locations. Average travel time by ridership group (minutes) Existing bus service New fixed- guideway Change AbsolutePercentage Minority57.148.8-8.3-14.5% Low-income58.650.3-8.3-14.2% Overall62.153.8-8.3-13.4%

70. 70 Average headway (minutes) ExistingProposedChange MinorityNon-MinorityMinorityNon-MinorityMinorityNon-Minority Weekday Peak23.522.723.822.90.30.2 Weekday Midday25.927.527.228.31.30.8 Weekday Evening28.431.031.533.43.12.4 Saturday35.436.936.338.00.91.1 Sunday42.245.244.746.42.51.2 Example: impacts of headway changes by route classification - An agency has classified certain routes as “minority” based on the Census tracts they serve. The agency proposes headway changes to many of its routes.

71. 71 Mode Change If an agency operates multiple modes of service but proposed service changes only affect one mode: an equity analysis must be performed at the modal level based on proportions of L-I & minority ridership for each mode.

72. Alternative services available What alternative services are available for people impacted by the service change? How would the use of alternatives affect riders’ travel times and costs? Example: Other lines or services, potentially involving transfers and/or other modes, that connect affected riders with destinations they typically access. Can test alternatives using a trip planner 72

73. MITIGATE, MINIMIZE & OFFSET DISPARATE IMPACTS! Alignment or frequency changes to nearby lines or services to offer more convenience to affected areas Expansion of demand-response service in affected areas Guaranteed ride home program Other budgetary actions to taken to limit impacts to riders, i.e. internal cost-containment strategies 73

74. 74 Conclusions What are your conclusions as to the impact of proposed service changes on L-I and minority populations? If disparate impact: –Meets a substantial need that is in the public interest –Alternative strategies have more severe adverse effects than preferred alternative –1 & 2 not a pretext for discrimination –& considered alternatives & mitigation

75. 75

76. 76

77. 77

78. Example Fare Data Is there a disparate impact? Fare TypeNonMinMinorityCost/Ride Cash 1-ride149,131302,021$1.00 Day Pass158,451290,456$1.25 Monthly Pass511,225355,544$0.75 TOTAL686,9301,122,250 78

79. Recommendation: Identify Fare Type by Ethnicity 79

80. Compare & Mitigate Proposed Fare Changes Analysis should compare the fares paid under the change with fares that would be paid through available alternatives Describe actions to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of proposed fare changes on minority and low-income populations 80

81. Service & Fare Equity Analysis Summary Points  Evaluate changes during planning  Determine if discriminatory impact  Compare “apples-to-apples”  Explain methodology  Use graphics  Describe actions to mitigate 81

82. Yes or No? It is always the case that if a transit agency raises fares where the percent increase is the same for all fares, are the increased fares equitable? Yes No

83. This is correct. Even where the percent increase is the same for all fares does NOT determine whether the fare policy is equitable. Recipients can only determine that fare increases are equitable once they have done a comparative analysis between which fares are used by minority and low-income riders versus non-minority and low- income riders.