Region_State_Grantee_TR17_ERMWorksheet_Proc · Web viewprior to implementation, any and all service changes that exceed the major service change threshold. If the grantee recently

ERM #6: Title VISpecialty Review Follow-Up

1. Has the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) conducted a Title VI review in the past two Federal fiscal years? If yes, what is the status of any corrective actions from the final report of that review? Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

DETERMINATIONIf there were deficiencies in the Title VI reviews that relate to baseline review questions of the Comprehensive Review, the deficiencies will be made under the appropriate deficiency code of the Comprehensive Review. If there are outstanding or ongoing Title VI review deficiencies that are beyond the scope of the baseline Comprehensive review, confer with the FTA regional office and the FTA headquarters SME to make the following deficiency. (DEFICIENCY CODE 375: Outstanding Title VI specialty review deficiencies)

Deficient Not Deficient

Promoting Inclusive Public Participation

2. What processes are used to determine how, when, where, and how often specific public participation activities should take place and what specific measures are most appropriate?

Procedures Evaluation/Comments

Promoting Inclusive Public Participation

1. Discuss with the grantee the process in implementing its public participation plan:

a. Examine the procedures used to determine the targeted populations.

b. Examine the procedures to determine the mediums in which to encourage participation from the targeted population.

c. Examine the implementation of the proactive strategies used to reach the targeted populations.

Grantee: Title VI ERM FY2017 Grantee Information Request 1


d. Examine the effectiveness of the grantee’s practices to engage the targeted populations.

e. Examine the procedures to identify locations, time, and frequency of public outreach.

f. Examine the integration of language services during meetings.

Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

DETERMINATIONAnalysis of the information and deficiencies from the baseline review and ERM may indicate that the grantee does not have adequate processes in place to ensure inclusive public participation and early public input into proposed transportation decisions. Insufficient processes and implementation to ensure the participation of minority and LEP populations could lead to a finding of deficiency. (DEFICIENCY CODE 45: Title VI public outreach deficiencies)


Requirements to Provide Meaningful Access to Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Persons

3. What resources and methodology are used to identify the number and proportion of Limited English Proficient (LEP) persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by the program or agency?


Requirements to Provide Meaningful Access to LEP Persons

1. Obtain a copy of the procedures used to collect the data to perform the four factor analysis. Evaluate the data to determine how the grantee:

a. Identifies, how LEP persons interact with the agency.



b. Determines LEP communities.

c. Assesses the number or proportion of LEP persons from each language group to determine the appropriate language services for each language group.

d. Identifies the literacy skills of each LEP population in their native languages, in order to determine whether translation of documents would be an effective practice.

e. Identifies whether LEP persons are underserved by the recipient due to language barriers.

f. Determines how often the LEP population uses the bus and rail service.

g. Determines how often the LEP population purchases passes and tickets through vending machines, outlets, websites, and over the phone.

h. Determines how often the LEP population participates in public meetings.

i. Determines how often the LEP population interacts with the customer service personnel.

j. Determines how often the LEP population participates in ridership surveys.

k. Determines how often the LEP population participates in operator surveys.

l. Determines the nature and importance of its programs, activities and services to the LEP population.

m. Determines the resources, and costs, available to provide outreach to the LEP community.

n. Determines third parties that can assist with outreach efforts or provide an effective means to disseminate information to LEP groups.


Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

4. What resources and methodology are used to determine the frequency with which LEP persons come in contact with the grantee’s program? Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

5. What policies or procedures are in place for the allocation of activities or services to LEP persons? Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

6. What outside groups, if any, are utilized to communicate with LEP groups and/or leveraged to gain insight on reaching LEP groups? Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

7. How does the agency determine what documents are required to be translated into the language of each frequently encountered LEP group? Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

8. Is the Four Factor Analysis completed by the grantee in accordance with the Title VI requirements? Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:


9. Is the language assistance plan (LAP) adequately based on the Four Factor Analysis conducted and other factors?


Requirements to Provide Meaningful Access to LEP Persons

1. Obtain a copy of the procedures used to develop the language assistance plan. Evaluate the procedures to determine how and that the grantee:

a. Adequately identified the needs of the LEP.

b. Adequately addressed the needs of the LEP.

c. Adequately monitors, evaluates and updates the language access plan.

d. Adequately trains employees to provide timely and reasonable language assistance to LEP populations.

e. Adequately identifies how the language assistance plan will be integrated with the greater public outreach efforts (plan).

2. Verify that the grantee translated vital documents into the language of each frequently encountered LEP group eligible to be served and/or likely to be affected by the grantee’s programs and services.

Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

10. Does the overall public participation plan incorporate the LAP?


Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

DETERMINATIONInsufficient processes for data gathering, plan implementation, and/or monitoring to ensure the grantee is not engaging in discrimination based upon national origin could lead to a finding of deficiency. The grantee is deficient if it has not conducted an adequate Four Factor Analysis. (DEFICIENCY CODE 11: Lacking assessment or provisions for LEP persons) The grantee is deficient if it has not prepared or implemented an LAP based upon the Four Factor Analysis and not received an exemption from FTA. (DEFICIENCY CODE 289: Lacking a LAP)


Subrecipient Oversight

11. How does the grantee assist subrecipients to develop their own programs or adopt the primary grantee’s program?



1. Obtain the grantee’s procedures and sample documents used for providing assistance to its subrecipients. Determine how the grantee:

a. Determines if the subrecipient is also a direct recipient of FTA funds and therefore reports directly to FTA.

b. Determines the level of assistance to provide.

c. Determines the type of assistance, i.e, documents, training, instructions to provide.

d. Determines the people that provide the assistance to the subrecipient(s).



e. Assesses the effectiveness of its assistance program.

Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

12. How does the grantee communicate Title VI responsibilities to its subrecipients?Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

13. What tools are provided to subrecipients to ensure compliance with US Department of Transportation (US DOT)’s Title VI regulations? Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

14. How does the grantee obtain updates from its subrecipients regarding the implementation of the Title VI program? How often does it receive these updates? Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

15. What methodology is applied to determine the subrecipients’ schedule for submitting Title VI programs? What method does or will the grantee deploy for collecting, reviewing, and maintaining subrecipient plans? Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

16. What, if any, Title VI-specific technical assistance is available upon request or routinely scheduled for subrecipients?


Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

DETERMINATIONThe grantee is deficient if it does not provide adequate assistance to ensure that subrecipients comply with applicable Title VI requirements. (DEFICIENCY CODE 62: Insufficient oversight of Title VI)


17. Describe the subrecipient monitoring procedures/process to track compliance with the Title VI program. Provide evidence of oversight (i.e., notification, complaints, board make-up, public participation, etc.)



1. Obtain the grantee’s procedures (and sample documents) for providing oversight of its subrecipients. Determine how the grantee:

a. Ensures compliance with the general reporting requirements and other requirements that apply to the subrecipient based on the type of service provided.

b. Collects, reviews for compliance and maintains the Title VI Programs of subrecipients.

c. Verifies that their level and quality of service is provided on an equitable basis.

d. Provides corrective action and follows up on the implementation of corrective actions to assist the subrecipient in remaining compliant.

e. Assesses the effectiveness of its oversight program.


Grantee Response

Reviewer Comments:

DETERMINATIONThe grantee is deficient if it does not ensure that subrecipients comply with applicable Title VI requirements. (DEFICIENCY CODE 62: Insufficient oversight of Title VI)


Determination of Site or Location of Facilities

18. For any applicable sited or located facility, was a Title VI equity analysis, with related public outreach, performed? If so, by whom and when?


Determination of Site or Location of Facilities

1. Obtain the grantee’s procedures for determining whether an equity analysis is needed. Determine if the procedures:

a. Are implemented at the planning stages of the potential project.

b. Require outreach to persons potentially impacted by the siting of facilities.

c. Allow for analyzing the impact of the facility by census tract or block group.

d. Describe how the grantee will determine what represents a disparate impact on the basis of race, color or national origin.

e. Describe obtaining and documenting justification where there are no alternative locations that would have a less disparate impact on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

f. Allow for assessing its effectiveness.


Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

19. How were evaluations of locations conducted? Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

20. Was there a disparate impact of the location based on race, color, or national origin? If yes, did the grantee have a substantial, legitimate justification for locating the project there? Were there no other alternatives with a less disparate impact? Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

DETERMINATIONThe grantee is deficient if an equity analysis was not performed or was performed but all the determination requirements have not been met. The grantee is deficient if a disparate impact was determined as a result of the analysis and an inadequate justification was provided for the site location. (DEFICIENCY CODE 293: Failure to comply with Title VI determination of site or location of facilities requirements)


Requirements to Set Systemwide Service Standards and Policies

21. Are the systemwide service standards provided for the Title VI plan the same as the overall standards set by the grantee’s overall operations department?Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

22. How were the standards developed?


Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

23. What public participation occurred in the development of the standards and policies?Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

24. Were the systemwide service standards and policies approved by the board or governing body?


Complaints

1. Obtain the grantee’s procedures for determining its system-wide service standards and policies

a. Do the procedures describe the methodology used by the grantee for determining its standards and policies?

b. Do the procedures prescribe reviewing and updating the policies?

Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

DETERMINATIONThe grantee is deficient if it cannot document that system-wide service standards and policies in its Title VI program submission are board approved. The development of the grantee’s policies and standards should include public participation. The grantee is deficient if its Title VI systemwide standards and policies differ from its operational standards and policies. (DEFICIENCY CODE 246: Title VI service standards and\or policies lacking)



Requirements to Collect and Report Demographic Data

25. Describe the process used to collect, analyze, and prepare demographic maps and charts. Is the process documented? Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

26. What data sources are used to prepare the maps and demographic data?Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

27. Do the maps clearly indicate areas where the percentage of the total minority population exceeds the average minority population for the services as a whole?


Complaints

1. Review the grantee’s process for collecting and reporting demographic data. For the most recently submitted program, or if the grantee is currently engaged in this process, assess that the grantee is implementing its procedures in regards to:

a. Preparing its service profile maps and charts:

i. Base map

ii. Demographic map

b. Collecting information on demographic ridership and travel patterns to develop a demographic profile comparing minority and non-minority riders and trips taken.

Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:


28. Describe the timeframe and process used to prepare and conduct the survey or make the necessary survey updates. Is there a formal written plan? Is the grantee conducting surveys at regular intervals?Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

DETERMINATIONThe grantee is deficient if it cannot provide maps and overlays, the results of customer surveys, or results of a locally developed method in accordance with the requirements of the applicable circular. The grantee is deficient if it has made major service changes, but has not updated its maps or charts. (DEFICIENCY CODE 217: Demographic data lacking)


Requirement to Monitor Transit Service

The following address program specific requirements for grantees that meet the threshold of 50 or more fixed-route vehicles in peak service and located in a UZA of 200,000 or more in population.

29. Describe the process for implementing the monitoring of the Title VI elements of the transit program. Is the process documented?


Requirement to Monitor Transit Service

1. Review the grantee’s procedures for implementing its monitoring of the performance of the transit system relative to the system-wide service standards and policies. For the most recently submitted program, or if the grantee is currently engaged in this process, assess that the grantee is implementing its procedures in regards to:

a. Selecting the minority transit routes.

b. Assessing performance of each minority route and non-minority route.

c. Comparing transit service observed to the established service policies and standards.

d. Analyzing discrepancies and taking steps to reduce such.



e. Evaluating transit amenities.

f. Determining whether disparate impacts exist based on the results and any follow-up steps taken to address them.

g. Briefing and obtaining approval from the governing body regarding the results of the monitoring.

Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

30. What staff positions and department(s) participate in these functions? Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

DETERMINATIONThe grantee is deficient if it has no acceptable procedures for monitoring service, cannot document that it has monitored service within the past three years, or, if applicable, has not met the updated requirements of FTA C 4702.1B. (DEFICIENCY CODE 111: No procedure for monitoring level or quality of service)


Requirement to Evaluate Service and Fare ChangesThe following address program specific requirements for grantees that meet the threshold of 50 or more fixed-route vehicles in peak service and located in a UZA of 200,000 or more in population.

31. Does the agency have internal, board-approved fare and service change procedures? Are Title VI considerations included in these procedures?


Requirement to Evaluate Service and Fare Changes

1. Obtain the board-approved procedures included in the Title VI Program to evaluate, prior to implementation, any and all service changes that exceed the major service change



threshold.

2. If the grantee recently analyzed a major service change, complete applicable sections of Exhibit 1.

3. Obtain the board-approved procedures included in the Title VI Program to evaluate, prior to implementation, any and all fare changes:

a. Do the procedures address the mediums in which to engage the public in developing its policies?

b. If the grantee recently analyzed a fare change, complete applicable sections of Exhibit 1.

Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

32. Please describe the process implemented for initiating and completing fare and/or service change equity analysis. (Reviewers are to refer to Exhibit 1 – Fare and Service Worksheet for this section.) Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

33. Is there evidence that the changes were approved by the board or other governing entity? Grantee Response:

Reviewer Comments:

DETERMINATION


The grantee is deficient if it has not developed written procedures for conducting fare and service equity analyses. The grantee is also deficient if the developed definitions and procedures are not board approved. (DEFICIENCY CODE 304: Inadequate written procedures)

The grantee is deficient if the process for implementing a fare and/or service change is not adequate to evaluate if there will be any disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income riders. The grantee is deficient if it has not established a methodology and/or conducted an analysis of any service changes, under the pretense that none of the changes constituted “major service changes” for the purpose of Title VI. (DEFICIENCY CODE 230: Impact of fare and/or service changes not adequately examined)



TRIGGERSRecord the triggers identified as a result of the analysis conducted.

Triggers Y/N Trigger Y/N

The Title VI program in the FTA Electronic Award and Management System shows the grantee does not appear to understand Title VI requirements

The number of complaints in the Office of Civil Rights or at the grantee level is out of proportion to the size of the grantee’s operation

OTrak shows repeat Title VI deficiencies in the last Comprehensive Review or show Title VI deficiencies in the last two Comprehensive Reviews

The grantee does not demonstrate that it has adequate Title VI expertise

There are comparable or repeat Title VI deficiencies in between Comprehensive Reviews and Title VI reviews

The grantee has not submitted a program and not been in communication with the FTA Regional Civil Rights Officer (RCRO)

Previous Title VI deficiencies are still open

The grantee is planning or constructing a new fixed guideway system or New Starts project

Title VI issues have been identified in FTA’s Oversight Assessment Tool (OAT)

The grantee recently reached a threshold triggering additional requirements in Chapter IV of FTA C. 4702.1B (50 or more fixed-route vehicles in peak service/located in a UZA of 200,000 or more in population)

The FTA’s Office of Civil Rights has identified compliance issues through complaints or other sources


Exhibit 1

Title VI Service and Fare Equity Worksheet

A. Major Service Change Policy (ONLY FOR SERVICE CHANGES) 1. Does the grantee have a policy defining what constitutes a major service change?

Yes No

If Yes, what is the agency’s policy as to what constitutes a major service

change?

2. Describe the major service change(s) whose impacts are being analyzed:

B. Fare Change (ONLY FOR FARE CHANGES) 1. Describe the fare change(s) whose impacts are being analyzed:

2. Does the analyst include the number of percent of users of all fare media broken-

down into minority versus non-minority and low-income and non-low-income riders?

Yes No

C. Fixed Guideways (ONLY FOR NEW SERVICE) 1. Is the project a New Start, Small Start, or other new fixed guideway capital project

with financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Section 5309?

Yes No

2. What is the date of revenue operations for the new service?

Date:

3. Was the analysis conducted six months prior to the beginning of revenue

operations?

Yes No

4. Will there be any fare changes associated with the new service?

Yes No

If yes, were they analyzed for equity?

Yes No

D. Public Involvement 1. Describe how the public was engaged in the development of the major service

change policy; the disparate impact policy; the disproportionate burden policy and

adverse impacts definition.


E. Route Identification (ONLY FOR SERVICE CHANGES) 1. Are minority routes identified?

Yes No

2. Are low-income routes identified?

Yes No

3. Are maps included illustrating service changes overlaid on minority and low-income

populations?

Yes No

F. Identify Impact Thresholds A. Is a threshold set for identifying disparate impact to minorities?

Yes No

B. Is the threshold used the same as that documented in the transit provider’s Title VI

Program?

Yes No

C. Is a threshold set for identifying disproportionate burden to low-income groups?

Yes No

D. Do the thresholds differ by mode?

Yes No

G. Alternatives and Mitigations Considered 1. ONLY FOR FARE CHANGE - Did the analysis describe what, if any, alternative

transit modes, fare payment types, or fare media are available for people affected by

the fare change?

Yes No

2. Did the analysis find that minority riders will bear a disparate impact based on the

proposed changes?

Yes No

If Yes, did the analysis consider modifying the proposed changes in order to avoid,

minimize or mitigate the disparate impacts of the changes?

Yes No

3. Did the analysis find that low-income riders will bear a disproportionate burden based

on the proposed changes?

Yes No


If Yes, did the analysis consider modifying the proposed changes in order to avoid,

minimize or mitigate the disproportionate burden of the changes?

Yes No

And, did the analysis describe alternatives available to low-income passengers

affected by the service change?

Yes No

H. Data Analysis 1. What dataset(s) was used in the analysis?

2. When was the date collected?

Date:

3. What techniques and/or technologies were used to collect the data?

4. At what geographic level (Census tract, block group, TAZ, etc.) are minority and low-

income concentrations measured?

5. At what geographic level(s) is disparate impact to minority populations assessed?

(i.e. conclusions provided for agency’s entire service area, for individual lines that are

proposed to be changed and/or at another level?)

6. At what geographic level(s) is disproportionate burden to low-income populations

assessed?

I. Route Identification Threshold 1. Does the analysis use the 1/3 of total revenue miles threshold for identifying minority

routes?

Yes No

If No, does the analysis adequately explain how minority routes were defined?

Yes No

2. Does the analysis use the 1/3 total revenue miles threshold for identifying low-

income routes?

Yes No

If No, does the analysis adequately explain how low-income routes were defined?

Yes No

J. Measuring Impacts 1. Are impacts compared between minorities and non-minorities?

Yes No


2. Are impacts compared between low-income groups and non-low-income groups?

Yes No

3. Impacts measured on a cumulative or individual level?

Yes No

4. ONLY FOR SERVICE CHANGE - Are both changes and percent changes identified?

Yes No

5. ONLY FOR FARE CHANGE - Are fares before and after the change compared?

Yes No

6. If multiple modes of service are operated and the proposed changes would affect

only one mode, was the analysis performed at the modal level based on the

proportions of low-income and minority ridership for each mode?

Yes No

7. How does the proposed change impact low-income and minority populations?

Yes No

8. Are these conclusions supported by the analysis?

Yes No

9. If there are disparate impacts to minorities, were the alternatives serving the same

legitimate objectives analyzed for their impact to minority routes?

Yes No

If Yes, does the analysis adequately analyze the proposed/implemented alternative?

Yes No

K. Approval and Documentation 1. When did the grantee brief its board of directors, top executive, or appropriate

governing entity or official(s) responsible for policy decision regarding the service

and/or fare change(s) and the equity impacts of the service and/or fare change(s)?

Date:

2. Did the grantee provide documentation such as a board resolution, copy of meeting

minutes, or similar documentation with the Title VI program as evidence of the board

or governing entity or official’s consideration, awareness, and approval of the

analysis?

Yes No


3. Is the analysis properly documented?

Yes No

If No, describe the areas that need more information:

4. If the analysis is properly documented, does the analysis conclude there is a

disparate impact?

Yes No

If Yes,

a. How do the changes meet a substantial legitimate justification?

b. How would alternative strategies have more severe adverse effects than the

preferred alternative?


Documents

Region_State_Grantee_TR17_ERMWorksheet_Proc · Web viewprior to implementation, any and all service changes that exceed the major service change threshold. If the grantee recently