Challenges Facing Consumers With Limited English Skills

In The Rapidly Changing

Telecommunications Marketplace

Prepared by:

Consumer Services and Information Division

Telecommunications Division

Consumer Protection and Safety Division

California Public Utilities Commission

October 5, 2006

Table of Contents

Executive Summary	i
I. Introduction and Report Organization	1
II. Background	5
A. Ethnic and Linguistic Landscape of California	5
B. Government Requirements and Best Practices	17
C. Best Practices of California State Government Agencies	19
D. Existing In-Language Mandates	25
III. In-Language Activities of the Commission Related to Telecommunications Service	34
A. Past and Current Commission Programs Involving Language Access Efforts	35
B. Commission Efforts to Increase Language Access to Agency Services	46
C. Commission Enforcement Efforts Related to Language	59
IV. Carriers Multilingual Practices	63
A. CUDC Survey of Company Language Practices	64
B. Telecommunications Carriers' In-language Activities	65
C. Carrier Comments on the August 2006 Draft Staff Report	70
V. Challenges and Needs of LEP Telecommunications Consumers	72
A. Information Needs	72
B. Customer Service Needs	75
C. Enforcement Needs	76
D. Comments of CBOs and Consumer Advocacy Organizations on the August 2006 Draft Staff Report	77
VI. Options for Consideration by the Commission	79
A. Options for Improving Education	80
B. Options for Improving Customer Service	82
C. Strategies for Improving Enforcement	85

Table of Contents

VII. Recommendations	86
Recommendations for Immediate Action	87
Short-Term Action Plan	89
Long-Term Action Plan	90
VIII. Conclusion	91
Appendices
Appendix A: Study Plan	A-I
Appendix B: June 26, 2006 Workshop Summary	B-I
Appendix C: Appendix C. Written Comments on the Study Plan	C-I
Appendix D: Summary of Key Input from Public Meetings	D-I
Appendix E: Draft Staff Report released August 21, 2006	E-I
Appendix F. Written Comments on the Draft Staff Report	F-I
Appendix G: CTR Data Report	G-I

Executive Summary

California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) Decision (D.) 06-03-013 ("Consumer Protection Initiative" or "CPI") orders Commission staff to perform a study of the special needs of and challenges faced by California telecommunications consumers with limited English proficiency (LEP). The decision contemplates that the report resulting from this study will serve as "both as a short-term action document with respect to potential new rules and education and enforcement programs, as well as a longer-term reference document"¹.

In response to this mandate, Commission staff and a language access consultant assembled information on the language demographics of California, services currently available to LEP Californians through the Commission and telecommunications carriers, and the challenges faced by LEP telecommunications consumers. Sources used in the production of this report include census and other demographic data, records of past and current Commission activities, the Internet and other research into the language accessibility practices of state and federal government agencies, information received from telecommunications carriers, as well as comments and information provided by carriers, community based organizations (CBOs) and consumers groups both in writing and at a series of workshops and public meetings held for this purpose. Pursuant to requests for an extension of the original 180 day study deadline (September 8, 2006), Commission Executive Director Steve Larson granted additional time for parties to submit comments on the draft report, and extended the deadline for this staff report until October 5, 2006.

This document, which represents a report describing research and conclusions to date, includes some recommendations for immediate action and specifies further information for staff to gather in order to make a comprehensive proposal for commission and industry action to address the challenges and problems identified in the course of this study.

Staff recommends that the Commission's next steps on this issue include the development of a set of options for targeted Commission actions that take into account the costs, benefits, and feasibility of solutions to the documented challenges and problems facing LEP consumers. Staff contemplates that this effort will continue beyond the original 180 day deadline specified in the D. 06-03-013. As detailed in this report, this proposal will also discuss appropriate venues and procedures for further Commission action to implement desirable solutions. Staff anticipates that a formal proceeding will be necessary to determine the need for rules and, if rules are appropriate, the specifics of those rules, but is open to efforts carriers and other stakeholders may make to develop voluntary industry standards that address the problems identified in this report. Staff recommends that to the extent possible, solutions that do not require formal Commission action, such as staff initiatives that may be undertaken at the direction of the Commission's executive director, and voluntary industry actions should not be delayed awaiting the results of any forthcoming proceeding.

Overview of Recommendations

The information on available multilingual services as well as the needs and concerns expressed by representatives of LEP communities revealed several issues and concerns. Based on this information, it appears that the Commission should take immediate actions to facilitate improved communications between carriers and CBOs to ensure that systematic problems facing the LEP communities are heard and resolved, and should consider making staff more available to consumers throughout the state to assist in filing informal and (when necessary) formal complaints with the Commission. In addition, the Commission should increase attention and resources available to its own bilingual services office to augment its ability to serve California consumers. The Commission should also broaden the efforts of the Public Advisor's Office already taken in the CPI initiative to add telecommunications education in languages such as Russian and Armenian, which have increasing populations in the state. Moreover, the Commission should develop and propose a set of targeted rules for telecommunications carriers for consideration in a formal Commission proceeding. This should not be a "one-size-fits all" proposal, but instead should take into account the varied circumstances (such as size, geographic and demographic characteristics of the population served, and services offered) of different telecommunications carriers and target rules to provide appropriate protection while allowing flexibility appropriate to these differences. Specific recommendations include:

For Immediate Action

The Commission should:

1. Direct staff to prepare a set of possible rules that address the key challenges and problems identified in this report. The staff proposal will be the basis for a future Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR), in which they will serve as a focus for addressing persistent problems facing LEP telecommunications customers that are unlikely to be solved through education alone.

2. Reconcile the disparate language requirements in various Commission decisions and programs (for example, ULTS, CPI, etc.) to ensure that what is learned in this proceeding is applied consistently throughout our current telecommunications programs. This activity should recognize that different programs have different audiences and some differences in requirements may be appropriate. CPI LEP-related recommendations later may be extended to other industries regulated by the Commission, for example energy and water.

3. In coordination with the above recommendation, direct the staff to review all of the Commission's telecommunications-related public outreach and consumer education materials to ensure that they meet the appropriate comprehension levels of target audiences.

4. Based on current demographic data, add to its list of languages appropriate for consumer education and public outreach in California languages with particularly high rates of linguistically isolated households or with growing or concentrated populations.

5. Improve CAB's tracking ability in the new CAB database scheduled to be on line in 2007 to capture the language in which complaints are filed, and whether the outcomes of complaints differ due to language barriers.

6. Send appropriate language-trained staff from the Commission's Consumer Affairs Branch (CAB) and the Public Advisors Office, in concert with CBOs and carriers, to hold "bill clinics" and other events throughout the state on a regular basis, in order to assist consumers in person in their own communities. Such opportunities for public contact should be planned and organized to encourage public participation through accessible locations and adequate advance public notice, and should take place during hours in which LEP consumers, CBO representatives, and carrier staff are likely to be available to attend, e.g. weekday evenings. In addition to bill clinics, other activities could include dispute resolution and consumer education.

7. Set up procedures to rapidly refer cases of suspected fraud, marketing abuse, and other possible violations involving in-language marketing and customer service to the Commission's Utility Enforcement Branch and to its new Telecommunications Fraud Unit for investigation. We contemplate involving the CBOs in this effort to ensure those organizations understand how to report these incidents to the Commission quickly for action. These procedures should be documented in writing and shared with CBOs, carriers, and the public, to ensure an accessible, fair, and transparent referral and investigation process.

Short-Term Action Plan

The Commission should:

1. Initiate a formal proceeding (such as an OIR) to address specific, on-going challenges for LEP and non-English speaking consumers that may require Commission action or promulgation of new rules and regulations. The proceeding should have a defined scope and include a set of possible rules (developed as Immediate Action 1, above) that address the key challenges and problems identified in this report and that will be used to focus comments and stakeholder proposals.

2. In the context of this rulemaking, consider any settlements or voluntary agreements proposed by CBOs and carriers to obviate the need for formal rules. Staff should monitor any collaborative process and corresponding results that carriers and/or CBOs initiate to develop a voluntary carrier code of conduct pertaining to in-language issues and challenges. The current CPI education process may serve as model for this effort.

3. Expand consumer education programs to address identified problems and concerns of LEP communities. Based on CBO input, this should include more in-language materials and materials developed specifically for the comprehension of different languages, cultural and educational groups.

4. Direct staff resources to facilitate forums - including the Regulatory Complaint Resolution Forum (for carriers) and the CBO Action Plan (for community based organizations) - as a means of early identification of in-language problems and challenges on a regular basis (e.g. annually).

5. Without the ability to directly fund CBO activities now, the Commission should explore other avenues for assisting CBOs that work with the Commission on in-language issues, outreach, education, and complaint resolution.

Long-Term Action Plan

The Commission should:

1. Initiate a regular, periodic process to allow for the re-examination of in-language issues as the nature and demographics of California evolve with respect to language and to ensure the Commission's efforts remain current.

2. Explore how in-language programs developed and implemented under D.06-03-013 may inform challenges in the other utility industries in California.

Research Findings

Multilingual Services at the Commission: Many programs mandated by or staffed through the Commission have multilingual components. Recent examples that may serve as models for ongoing Commission education and outreach, discussed below, include the education programs established by the CPI in Decision 06-03-013, and the Universal Lifeline Telephone Service (ULTS) programs. Other current activities that include multilingual requirements or educational components include the Commission's involvement with the California Utilities Diversity Council (CUDC), an organization made up of representatives of the utility industry, the community, and the Commission's Utility Supplier Diversity Program. CUDC recently proposed a set of language access principles for California utilities; if adopted by the Commission, these principles may assist the Commission and utilities in developing policies and constructive rules for improving service to LEP and linguistically isolated consumers. Past Commission activities that have addressed language-based issues include the Telecommunications Trust Fund (TET), the electricity restructuring education program, and the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Fund, which support education and outreach on various aspects of the telecommunications industry.

Education, Outreach, and Customer Service: The Commission operates in compliance with the Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act, is monitored by the State Personnel Board, and commits necessary resources to meet the needs of the public in accordance with legal mandates. An ever-increasing number of written consumer materials are available to customers in Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese languages, i.e., consumer handbooks, consumer advisory information, and customer complaint forms. Moreover, there are Spanish and Chinese versions of parts of the Commission website, which also includes fact sheets in additional languages. In addition to providing public contact and telephone services to the public in the most commonly spoken languages, the Commission provides, upon request and with at least three days notice, language interpretation services in any language at Public Participations Hearings, Prehearing Conferences, complaint hearings, and any other Commission public forums. In addition, the Commission offers differential pay in accordance with the State Personnel Board Rules and Bilingual Services Act, and has incorporated continuous language training courses into its training goals. The Commission's CAB staff can speak Spanish, Tagalog, Cantonese, and French. The staff also has access to the language line, which serves 150 languages and has been in use for over 10 years.

Enforcement: The Utility Enforcement Branch of the Consumer Protection and Safety Division (CPSD) has investigated possible violations of the state's Public Utilities Code (PU Code) and Commission rules in the telecommunications area and other industries. Some investigations of alleged slamming and cramming by specific telecommunications companies have involved many LEP complainants. Several of the language-related cases identified by enforcement staff have similar characteristics: multiple slamming complaints against a particular carrier, with many reported by LEP consumers, and many of the required Third Party Verification recordings in languages other than English. CPSD relied on its bilingual staff to investigate these cases, and solicited sworn statements in the customers' primary language for use in related formal proceedings. CPSD states that pursuing cases that involve LEP consumers requires resources and activities that may not be required for cases in which most complainants are English proficient. CPSD is increasing its capacity to pursue enforcement actions through creation of the Telecommunications Consumer Fraud Unit, and hiring and training of Utility Enforcement Branch investigators. The Commission will monitor the success of these changes as they are implemented.

Carriers' Multilingual Efforts.: In order to gather information on carrier practices, Commission staff sent survey questions to all certificated telecommunications carriers in California (wireless and wireline) asking for information on their services for and interactions with LEP consumers. Approximately 100 telecommunications carriers out of approximately 1,300 responded to this request for information. Several Commission decisions (including D. 96-10-076 and the recent CPI decision D. 06-03-013) and PU Code Section 2890(b) require some carriers to provide limited information in languages other than English to LEP customers under certain circumstances, such as when they make sales in non-English languages. Other multilingual telecommunications services are initiated by the carriers themselves to better serve their customers or to attract new customers. In general, larger carriers and those serving more diverse areas offer more services in more languages than smaller carriers. Services that may be provided in languages other than English include marketing and outreach information (such as brochures on understanding your phone bill) and customer service; but carriers generally focus on providing information in the most common non-English languages, believing that this is more cost effective than attempting to provide information in less-common languages. Few carriers provide service contracts or key terms and conditions of service in-language.

Community Based Organizations' Concerns: Based on input received from consumer advocates in written comments and at the four public meetings held around the state to gather information for this report, there is a need for more in-language information and service. Issues discussed at these meetings also suggest a need for increased Commission enforcement of code and rule violations by carriers that target LEP populations, and increased oversight of dealers, agents and resellers that sell telecommunications products and services to LEP consumers under contract with telecommunications carriers. Concerns described by consumer advocates include, but are not limited to:

· A lack of availability of in-language contracts or written statements of key terms and conditions of service for customers initiating service with telecommunications carriers. Lack of these materials makes it more difficult for consumers to be sure that the service they have purchased is what was represented to them during an in-language sale, leaving a potential for fraud or marketing abuse.

· A lack of in-language billing, which similarly makes it difficult for consumers who purchase service based on an in-language interaction to understand their bills and be sure that the service meets their expectations.

· A relative lack (especially historically) of translated consumer education and public outreach (as opposed to marketing) materials from the Commission and carriers.

· A relative lack (especially historically) of high-quality in-language customer service by the Commission and carriers.

· A lack of education and outreach materials developed specifically to address the special situations and concerns of LEP consumers, including materials that are appropriate to the target community reading levels (which may include "low literacy" written materials or spoken-word outreach through radio or television for some language communities), are sensitive to cultural differences, and include information that addresses non-mainstream needs in obtaining in-language service and support.

· Unfair or fraudulent marketing tactics by wireless phone and prepaid phone card dealers or agents ("resellers") that target vulnerable LEP communities.

As discussed in this report's recommendations, some of these issues can be addressed fairly immediately through improvements in the development and translation of Commission consumer educational materials, while others require further study to develop appropriate solutions. A few issues, such as allegations of fraud aimed at LEP consumers, will require ongoing attention and will benefit from recent improvements in the Commission's ability to respond quickly through innovations such as the CPSD Utility Enforcement Branch's Fraud Hotline and the formation of the Telecom Fraud Unit.

Challenges Facing Consumers With Limited English Skills In The Rapidly Changing Telecommunications Marketplace

I) Introduction and Report Organization

Commission Decision 06-03-013 ("Consumer Protection Initiative" or "CPI") orders Commission staff to perform a study of the special needs of and challenges faced by California telecommunications consumers with limited proficiency in English (LEP consumers). Study goals specified in this decision include:

· Verifying the languages needed for consumer education materials and programs.

· Identifying and reviewing challenges facing LEP consumers.

· Developing strategies for communicating relevant information to LEP populations.

· Recommending rules or programs (if appropriate) to improve service to LEP consumers, and estimating the costs (and benefits) of these recommendations.

The decision contemplates this report serving "both as a short-term action document with respect to potential new rules and education and enforcement programs, but also as a longer-term reference document"². The overall intention of the report will be to identify gaps in the consumer education of and services available to LEP consumers from the Commission and telecommunications companies and, to the extent possible, suggest ways of filling service and consumer education gaps. The CPI decision also notes that LEP customers may be targeted for fraudulent and deceptive communications in their own languages by unscrupulous persons or businesses, and asks that the study assess whether these in-language needs are sufficiently met by the Commission's current education and enforcement efforts.

To meet the study's goals, Commission staff and a language access consultant assembled information on the language demographics of California, services currently available to LEP Californians through the California Public Utilities Commission and telecommunications companies, and the challenges faced by LEP telecommunications consumers. Sources used in the production of this report include census and other demographic data, records of past and current Commission activities, Internet and other research into the language accessibility practices of State and Federal government agencies information, information received from telecommunications carriers, and comments and information provided by community based organizations (CBOs) and consumers groups both in writing and at a series of workshops and public meetings held for this purpose. In response to requests dated August 25, 2006, for an extension of the original 180 day study deadline (September 8, 2006) from stakeholders in this process, Commission Executive Director Steve Larson granted additional time for parties to submit comments on the draft report, and extended the deadline for this staff report until October 5, 2006.

This report does not attempt a cost-benefit analysis of the provision of LEP services. This is both because information on the full costs and benefits of the myriad approaches to providing in-language services was not readily available in the timeframe for this report, and because a more targeted analysis will be possible once the Commission and the staff better define a desired approach to improving language access. Efforts to define this approach and specific policy options will be included in a comprehensive proposal which will include a set of targeted rules to address the problems and challenges identified in this report, for consideration by the Commission The purpose of this proposal will be to focus comments and stakeholder proposals in the context of a future Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) to address persistent problems facing LEP customers which are unlikely to be solved through education alone.

Next steps in the Commission's focus on this issue will include the development of a set of options for targeted Commission actions that take into account the costs, benefits, and feasibility of solutions to the documented challenges and problems facing LEP consumers. This proposal will also discuss appropriate venues and procedures for further Commission action to implement desirable solutions; staff anticipates that a formal proceeding will be necessary to determine the need for rules and, if rules are appropriate, the specifics of those rules, but is open to efforts carriers and other stakeholders may make to develop voluntary industry standards that address the problems identified in this report. Staff recommends that to the extent possible, solutions that do not require formal Commission action, such as staff initiatives that may be undertaken at the direction of the Commission's executive director and voluntary industry actions, should not be delayed awaiting the results of any forthcoming proceeding.

Part II of this report contains background information on the linguistic demographics of the state of California, including the most commonly spoken languages in the state, and some trends in the growth of various languages in the state. This background section also includes a discussion of language access requirements and activities of other state agencies and an overview of similar requirements for federal government agencies; these requirements provide a context for examining the in-language activities of the Commission and telecommunications companies, and may provide models for additional future actions.

Part III of this report describes existing multilingual education efforts, as well as language-related enforcement activities, and availability and effectiveness of Commission services to LEP consumers.

Part IV focuses on the in-language education, outreach, marketing, and customer service activities of telecommunications companies; information in this section is based primarily on information provided by telecommunications service providers in workshops, comments, and responses to a staff request for information.

Part V of identifies challenges facing LEP consumers, including whether current Commission and carrier education, enforcement, and service actions meet existing language access needs. Staff identified barriers and concerns facing LEP consumers through written comments provided by community based organizations and at a series of public meetings organized in cooperation with and at the request of CBOs, especially Latino Issues Forum.

Part VI summarizes these challenges facing LEP communities identified throughout the report, and provides options to address these challenges (where possible) or to study them further. Parts VII and VIII present recommendations and conclusions, respectively.

II) Background

A. Ethnic and Linguistic Landscape of California

California has become the most ethnically, racially, and linguistically diverse state in the nation with growing immigrant and limited English proficient populations from all around the globe. This complex and richly diverse state represents a demographic transformation without historical precedent. The growth of the population as a whole has increased dramatically, and as recently as 1950, California was home to only 10 million people, or about one out of every 15 U.S. residents. By 1990, the state's population had tripled to almost 30 million. By the year 2000 Californians numbered over 34 million, and by 2004 the population exceeded 36.5 million, or approximately 1 in 8 U.S. residents. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2025 California will be home to 50 million residents with Hispanics representing the largest single ethnic group. This phenomenon affects businesses, government agencies, educational institutions, and communities throughout the state.

When it comes to language diversity, California ranks at the top worldwide with Californians speaking between 179 and 220 languages, according to different popular sources and reports. The ever-changing face of the people who populate California and the languages they speak, including dialects, regionalisms and other variations create unique challenges for the delivery of every kind of service in languages other than English. Adding to the complexity of these challenges are issues of literacy levels and cultural aspects within and among different populations and their communities. In order to best identify appropriate languages for consumer education and for the development of effective strategies of communication, consideration of multiple aspects and data sources is necessary.

It is the intent of the section to provide a variety of demographic data, including trends and characteristics that are important to consider when determining the language access needs of Californians. This discussion includes but is not limited to the following topics: limited English proficiency; California's ethnic composition; foreign born, immigration and migration trends and numbers; top languages spoken by adult and school age populations; and linguistically isolated households. Some comparisons at the national level are made to serve as a point of reference. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2000 are used unless otherwise noted.

1. Limited English Proficiency

The term "limited English proficient" refers to a person who does not speak and/or read, write, or understand the English language sufficiently to access services to which he or she may be entitled. As of 2000, about 20 percent of California's population -- over 6 million residents experienced difficulty speaking English and it is estimated that those numbers have increased every year to date. Californians' language ability is measured in range from fully bilingual to partially bilingual ("do not speak English well" or "speak English fairly well") to monolingual ("do not speak English at all"). The U.S. Census data measure the levels of "spoken English" and other languages, and not literacy (the ability to read and/or write the English language). Inferences regarding literacy levels in any language made from census data are not necessarily reliable and it is important to note that there is no single definition or measure of literacy that can be applied to the entire adult population.

About 40% of Latinos and Asians overall are limited English proficient (LEP). Central Americans (mainly Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Salvadorans), and Southeast Asians (mainly Vietnamese, Thai, and Hmong) are among those who have the highest rates of limited English proficiency and reach nearly 50% LEP. In the countries from which these populations originate, English is not one of the primary languages whereas in the Philippines and regions of Mexico, English is taught in school and spoken to varying degrees (Source: "California Speaks", APALC).

A look at California's LEP population by racial and ethnic group and subgroup is provided below.

Figure 1: California's Limited English Proficient Population by Racial and Ethnic Group*
Rank	Group	Number of Persons	Percent
1	Latino	4,194,494	43
2	Asian	1,515,654	39
3	Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI)	29,802	15
4	Am. Indian or Alaska Native	70,153	12
5	Non-Hispanic White	534,271	3
6	African American	66,444	3
	Total Population	6,277,779	20

*Not all groups are shown and some may overlap. (Source: Census 2000 SF4 PCT42 Household Language by Linguistic Isolation).

Note that in the table of subgroups below, ethnic groups with relatively high percentages of limited English proficient (LEP) speakers also include those who are Taiwanese, Laotian, Korean, Cambodian, Chinese, Armenian, Iranian, Tongan, Japanese, and Samoan.

Figure 2: California's Limited English Proficient Population by Subgroup*
Rank	Subgroup	Number of Persons	Percent
1	Guatemalan	95,181	63
2	Vietnamese	778,284	62
3	Honduran	19,515	61
4	Hmong	40,179	61
5	Salvadoran	160,169	58
6	Taiwanese	41,776	58
7	Cambodian	43,902	56
8	Laotian	33,569	55
9	Korean	184,434	52
10	Thai	21,468	48
11	Chinese (including Taiwanese)	498,698	48
12	Chinese (excluding Taiwanese)	461,123	47
13	Mexican	3,326,661	44
14	Armenian	76,264	39
15	Iranian	50,878	34
16	Tongan	4,371	32
17	Asian Indian	79,811	25
18	Filipino	231,390	23
19	Japanese	80,484	22
20	Samoan	7,530	17

* Not all subgroups are shown and some may overlap. (Source: Census 2000 SF4 PCT42)

2. Ethnic Profile of California

California's ethnic profile is provided to give a general overview of the state's diversity, but does not indicate languages spoken by these groups. As evidenced by these numbers, California's Hispanic population is more than double the national average, and the numbers of Asians, who are the fastest growing population in the state, are nearly three times greater. The percentage of the state's total population for both Asian and Hispanic populations increased from 11.03 to 11.63 percent and 32.51 percent to 34.81 percent, respectively. Together in 2004, these two groups made up 46.44% of the state's total population, outnumbering Whites by 1.82% (Resource: California Department of Finance). At the writing of this report, new data from the U.S. Census indicate that the numbers of Hispanics are growing more rapidly in the Southern states than ever before, however California remains one of the states with the largest concentration of Hispanics.

Comments by the Communities for Telecommunications Rights (CTR) are included here as they highlight important trends and information about the Asian Pacific Islander population. "The Asian Pacific Islander ethnicities represent the most rapidly growing populations and are more linguistically isolated than Latinos...From 1990 to 2000, the Asian population grew as much as 52%, followed by Latinos, who grew 43%. This is compared to the state's total population growth of 14%. The Asian and Pacific Islander population is projected to more than double from 4 to 9 million people between 2000 and 2025."

Figure 4: Population Comparison By Ethnicity-United States vs. California

Within the Hispanic and Asian countries and communities as well as within Middle Eastern, European and other groups, members represent a variety of countries of origin, cultural characteristics including religion, differences in languages and dialects, and other important and distinguishing characteristics. It is to be noted that the ethnic groups mentioned in this report represent those with the highest numbers in California, but do not represent all possible ethnic groups.

3. Foreign Born, Immigrant, and Migrant Trends

Foreign born and migrant trends in California offer different but relevant information when considering languages spoken by Californians. For this section of the report, the following definitions provided by the U.S. Census are used: Foreign born persons are those who are not U.S. citizens at birth who are counted by the census, and may be referred to as immigrants herein. Migrants are those who move into, out of, or within a given area.

(Source: The Foreign Born of California, Place of Origin, Region of Residence, Race, Time of Entry and Citizenship"; http://ccsre.standord.edu/reports/report_15.pdf)

A report from the Public Policy Institute of California, California Counts, provides relevant information about California's recent immigrants--or foreign born. Twenty six percent of all Californians are foreign born, with 8 percent (2.8 million) being recent immigrants who arrived between 1990 and 2000. Nearly half of California's new immigrants were born in Mexico and the next largest country of origin, the Philippines, represented about 7 percent of this group. The overwhelming majority comprising 88.5 percent were born in Latin America or Asia. In descending order, the top ten countries of origin for immigrants arriving between 1990 and 2000 are ranked as follows: Mexico (46.2 %); Philippines (6.8%); Vietnam (4.7%); China (3.8%); India (3.6%); El Salvador (3.4%); Korea (2.7%); Guatemala (2.4%); Taiwan (1.75); Japan (1.7%) and: Other (22.9%). Due to less time in California, recent immigrants have had less time and fewer opportunities to learn English. The languages most spoken are integrated in a later section on linguistically isolated households.

Figure 6: California Migrant Populations, 2000-2004
Year	Total Net Migrants	White Migrants	Asian Migrants	Hispanic Migrants
2000	387,984	N/A	N/A	N/A
2001	315,239	151,265	80,317	159,742
2002	292,899	40,690	97,545	188,718
2003	215,228	31,733	91,412	185,482
2004	302,838	7,317	82,591	155,504
Average Annual Increase	302,838	57,751	87,966	172,362

(Note: The net migrant figures above indicate the end mathematical difference between entering and parting migrants. This means that the total number of immigrants per any given year may be greater or less than the number indicated.)

Migrant populations in California are unique in their consumer, educational and other needs and characteristics and are a population that is highly challenging to measure and track. However, they represent a significant number of consumers of telecommunication services, and are therefore included in this section of the report.

There has been a steady increase in the number of migrants for the three ethnic groups represented here--Hispanics, Asians, and Whites. Hispanics have consistently outnumbered all other migrant groups, every year and on average, and make up 60 percent of migrants; they come mainly from Mexico, followed by Central Americans from mainly El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The next largest group, 29 percent, migrates from Asian countries including Taiwan, Vietnam, Korea, Thailand, China, Cambodia and the Philippines. The numbers of Indo-European and Middle Eastern migrants are lower but have consistently increased over the last decade.

4. Primary Languages Spoken at Home

California is home to more residents over the age of five that speak a language other than English at home than any other state in the nation. In 2000, nearly 40 percent of California residents spoke a language other than English at home indicating an increase from 31.5 percent in 1990. The number of residents that speak a language other than English at home increased from 8.6 million in 1990 to 12.4 million people in 2000, a 44 percent increase over the ten year period. Current trends in migration and ethnic composition indicate the trend has been consistent into 2006. Though ethnic composition and migration numbers do not correspond directly with language proficiency, they do provide a context for understanding the linguistic and cultural differences.

The population over 5 years of age in these tables and the information on English Learners in California schools in the table below do not reflect the exact demographics of those who utilize or need access to telecommunications service in California. These numbers do provide an indication of the growing number of people whose primary language is not English who may become consumers of these services in years to come.

(Source: California Department of Education)

5. Linguistically Isolated Households in California

"Linguistically isolated household" in the U.S. Census refers to a household in which no member 14 years or older speaks English "very well". This refers to spoken English and not to literacy, and is a strong predictor of the need for language assistance for adult members of the household.

One quarter of Asian and Latino households are linguistically isolated in comparison to 10 percent of all households in the state. While the younger, school-age populations are learning English, often their parents, guardians, and families do not learn English for a variety of reasons. Social, cultural, educational, generational, and economic factors impact the degree to which this mostly immigrant population learns English.

Figure 10: Linguistically Isolated Households by Racial and Ethnic Group in California*
Rank	Group	Households	Percent
1	Asian	314,235	26
2	Latino	657,622	26
3	NHOPI	3,649	7
4	Am. Indian or Alaska Native	11,739	6
5	Non-Hispanic White	130,832	2
6	African American	11,315	1
	Total Linguistically Isolated Households	1,107,222	10

* Not all groups are shown. Groups may overlap. (Source: Census 2000 SF4 PCT42 (Household Language by Linguistic Isolation).

Figure 11: Linguistically Isolated Households by Subgroup in California*
Rank	Group	Households	Percent
1	Vietnamese	52,960	44
2	Guatemalan	19,695	43
3	Taiwanese	10,124	42
4	Honduran	3,608	41
5	Korean	49,290	41
6	Salvadoran	30,549	37
7	Hmong	3,998	36
8	Chinese (including Taiwanese)	120,043	34
9	Thai	4,442	34
10	Chinese (excluding Taiwanese)	111,105	34
11	Cambodian	5,779	32
12	Laotian	4,178	32
13	Mexican	500,117	26
14	Armenian	18,289	26
15	Iranian	11,772	20
16	Japanese	27,396	18
17	Tongan	314	12
18	Asian Indian	12,209	11
19	Filipino	29,734	11
20	Samoan	634	6

* Not all subgroups are shown. Subgroups may overlap. (Source: Census 2000 SF4 PCT42 Household Language by Linguistic Isolation).

Based on discussion at the public meetings held for this project, there may be a correlation in some populations between linguistic isolation and low literacy even in the primary language, though detailed information on literacy levels is not available to document this. If this is the case, it may be appropriate to target linguistically isolated populations using oral outreach such as radio, television, and other means, as described later in this report for reaching low literacy populations.

This data alone is does not clearly show which languages have the most population living in linguistically isolated households.  The information is organized by subgroup, not by language, and shows the number of the total population in each group and the percent of that number that are linguistically isolated.  Subgroups may not perfectly match language groups, since some groups may have more than one common language, or multiple groups on the list may speak variations or dialects of the same language.  This makes it difficult to draw clear conclusions about which languages (other than Spanish and Chinese) have the greatest number of linguistically isolated households, and even more difficult to use this data by itself to determine the languages most in need of language access assistance.  This data may be most useful when looked at along with data on LEP communities and trends of migration, to get an overall view of the languages spoken by households that may be more comfortable conversing in a language other than English.

B. Government Requirements and Best Practices

1. Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act of California

The Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act was enacted in 1973. In passing this Act, the Legislature "found and declared that the effective maintenance and development of a free and democratic society depends on the right and ability of its citizens and residents to communicate with their government and the right and ability of the government to communicate with them." The Act mandates state agencies to eliminate language barriers that preclude Californians, either because they do not speak or write English or because their primary language is other than English, from having equal access to public services to which they may be entitled. This Act mandates that State and local agencies directly involved in the furnishing of information or the rendering of services to the public must employ a sufficient number of qualified bilingual persons in public contact positions to ensure the provision of information and services to the public in the language of the non- or limited English proficient (LEP) people.

The Act further mandates that every State and local agency that serves a substantial number of non-English speaking people, and provides materials in English explaining services, shall also provide the same type of materials in any non-English language spoken by a substantial number of the public served by the agency. In 1977, the Legislature amended the Act to define "substantial" as five percent or more of the people served by any office or unit. When this threshold is met, departments are required to employ a sufficient number of qualified bilingual staff in public contact positions, translate documents providing information about services, rights and benefits, or identify other appropriate means for meeting the language need of LEP persons.

The Act also requires that each State and local agency conduct a biennial language survey to measure the level of public contact at each local office and facility; report the number of contacts received by language; identify staffing available to provide services; and submit their findings to the State Personnel Board (SPB) by March 31 of each even-numbered year. The results of the survey are compiled by the California State Personnel Board and reported to the Legislature. In addition, the SPB requires state agencies to develop corrective action plans to respond to deficiencies identified by the survey and provide other relevant information to the SPB to substantiate their efforts to ensure equal access to services. The results for each agency are posted on the SPB website, however there is a significant time lag before the public has access to this information.

2. Need for Greater Compliance

The findings of the State Personnel Board as reported to the State Legislature and as a result of the 2001-2002 survey which is the most current available to the public, indicated that state agencies understand and comply with aspects of the Act to varying degrees. Lack of compliance may be due to various factors; departments frequently cited the need for technical assistance, funding and resources for recruiting and retaining multilingual staff, resources for staff development, a centralized system for resources and information, qualified interpreters and translation services, and improved survey tools to assist in their compliance efforts. Other challenges to providing meaningful access to government services and complying with the Act include implementing an effective bilingual fluency testing program, including a central monitoring and enforcement system, and improving access to and knowledge of complaint procedures for the limited English proficient population.

In November, 1999, the California State Auditor's Bureau submitted a report to the Legislature titled "Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act: State and Local Governments Could Do More to Address Their Clients' Need for Bilingual Services." The report concluded that state agencies were not fully complying with the Act and that they could not ensure that they were providing equitable services to clients who required bilingual assistance. The State Personnel Board has worked to address deficiencies by updating and streamlining the biennial language survey methods, by providing more technical assistance and greater oversight of agencies, by forming an advisory group made up of state agency bilingual coordinators and by publishing survey results for all agencies on their website. The Commission's Bilingual Services Coordinator, described below, participates in the SPB advisory group. The next section of this report will include best practices in complying with the Bilingual Services Act in state government agencies.

C. Best Practices in California State Government Agencies

This section is intended to highlight some state agencies and a University of California medical center that make strong efforts to communicate with their limited-English speaking clients. This list of state agencies providing multilingual services is not comprehensive and is based on the most current information available to the public on the State Personnel Board website and in their publications. The discussion of UC Davis Medical Center, below, provides an initial review of LEP education and services available from health care organizations. As Latino Issues Forum notes in their comments on the staff's Study Plan from June 2006, "[h]ealth agencies have much experience in outreaching to LEP clients to inform them about vital information affecting their health," and could be part of a broader review of language access practices of government agencies. One good source for further information may be the California Healthcare Interpreting Association ( http://chia.ws/pages/index.php). Staff would also welcome additional reports on agency practices from CBOs and others, as suggested in LIF's comments. Notable language access and information practices of the agencies profiled below include:

· Public distribution of accurate and culturally appropriate documents in commonly encountered languages, through various formats and media.

· Client access to high quality interpretation and translation services.

· Availability and identification of bilingual staff.

· Initial and continuing training of employees in responsibilities to LEP clients.

· Quality control and oversight of bilingual services.

1. Department of Motor Vehicles

The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has a statewide consumer base and offices throughout the state. The DMV provides printed materials such as the Driver's License Handbook in 33 languages. On their website, the Driver's License Handbook is available in six languages in addition to English (Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and Russian).

The DMV contracts out for interpreter services. Certified interpreters are not required at hearings for infractions or medical problems, but DMV is required by Government Code 11435.05-.65 to use certified interpreters when there is an administrative hearing (e.g. appealing a DMV decision); a shortage of qualified interpreters in California can make compliance with this requirement challenging. Interpretation assistance is also provided if an LEP client needs instructions on taking the written portion of the exam.

To increase language access, notices of bilingual staff are posted in local offices and bilingual staff members wear badges indicating the languages in addition to English that they speak. The DMV telephone service centers throughout the state provide interpretation and translation services, and the DMV provides an interactive voice response system primarily in Spanish which refers callers to bilingual staff statewide.

2. Employment Development Department

One of the largest state departments, the state Employment Development Department (EDD) has employees located at hundreds of service locations throughout the state who provide services to millions of Californians each year, including assistance in job placement and referrals, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, employment and training, labor market information, payroll taxes for 17 million California workers.

According to the summary and analysis of the Employment Development Department's bilingual services by SPB, the department does a good job in administering its bilingual services program. The department receives millions of contacts with LEP customers each year, mainly in Spanish, Armenian, Cantonese and Vietnamese. EDD also has employees certified bilingual in 30 different non-English languages including American Sign Language (ASL).

EDD offers multilingual services in hundreds of locations throughout the state via printed forms and publications, telephone inquiries, and their website. Many of EDD's one-stop partnership offices (where clients can receive a variety of state services) provide multilingual services.

Throughout the department's Unemployment Insurance, Disability Insurance and Tax programs, telephone call centers perform initial intake and answer customer inquiries. The call center's toll free telephone number is available in several of the most commonly spoken languages in California. The EDD website contains a number of links to services and programs in Spanish such as Disability Insurance applications and Unemployment Insurance applications.

EDD also tracks individual customer language preferences and further data on the need for multilingual services. This data helps EDD identify additional strategies to increase access to programs and services. EDD is working with community partners to develop a language access complaint process and to train its employees to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities in providing bilingual services. EDD is developing a process to identify which documents should be translated into languages other than English (LOTEs) and is working to assure that certified interpreters provide services at administrative proceedings.

3. Franchise Tax Board

California's Franchise Tax Board (FTB) collects taxes on behalf of the state of California. FTB is committed to providing meaningful services to English and non-English speaking clients. Multilingual agents are available at the call center to handle over 15 different languages. FTB cannot contract with telephone interpretation services like Language Line³ due to confidentiality issues related to financial information and personal identification such as Social Security numbers, so callers speaking a language other than the ones provided are instructed to provide their own interpreters.

FTB Bilingual Services Program employees monitor calls handled by Spanish speaking operators for quality control, and operators receive periodic training in proper vocabulary, language usage, and telephone etiquette. FTB also has a Spanish language service line and web page to provide information and assistance on tax issues. The Spanish service line is equivalent to the English service line in all matters concerning tax assistance.

In addition, FTB utilizes volunteer groups from the Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese and Russian communities to assist LEP taxpayers with their returns.

4. California Department of Education

In addition to providing English language development and supplemental educational services to students learning English, the California Department of Education (CDE) is required by state and federal laws (see below) to provide information to parents of limited English proficient (LEP) students in the language they comprehend. Additional state legislation created and championed by the Asian Legislative Caucus has added timelines and additional requirements for providing information to parents of English learners as required by law.

As a result, in 2005 CDE developed and implemented a web-based resource, the Clearinghouse for Multilingual Documents (CMD) that provides information about public elementary and secondary education documents translated into non-English languages by California educational agencies. The CMD helps districts and county offices to locate useful translations of parental notification documents and reduce redundant translation efforts. In so doing, the CMD helps schools meet state and federal requirements for document translation and parental notification, including the requirements in California Education Code Section 48985, the No Child Left Behind Act, and legislation that originated within the Asian Legislative Caucus in 2004.

The California Education Code requires that "when 15% or more of the pupils enrolled in a public school that provides instruction in kindergarten or any grades one through twelve speak a single primary language other than English as determined from CDE census data, all notices, reports or records must be sent to the parent or guardian of any such pupil by the school or district, shall in addition to being written in English, be written in such primary language, and may be responded to in English or the primary language."⁴ The federal No Child Left Behind law also requires that information (such as academic assessments, reports, school improvement plans, documents related to individual student progress and programs, and state and federal plans and standards) be translated into the language that parents can comprehend.

5. UC Davis Medical Interpreting and Translating Center

Medical institutions that are operated by the state or that receive federal funding are required by law to provide information and services in the languages spoken by their customers. A private facility may choose not to serve this population in which case it does not have to provide services or materials in languages other than English.

The UC Davis Center for Interpreting and Translating offers medical interpreting to hospital clients in 18 languages. Trained medical interpreters know how to convey the meaning in dual languages using specialized terminology, colloquialisms and idioms. They guarantee in-depth understanding, confidentiality, and reliability in the following languages and dialects: Armenian, American Sign Language (ASL), Cambodian, Cantonese, French, Hindi, Hmong, Korean, Lao, Mandarin, Mien, Punjabi, Russian, Spanish, Thai, Ukrainian, Urdu, and Vietnamese.

The mission of the UC Davis Center for Interpreting and Translating is to provide clients with a full-range of language-related services of the highest quality and utility, in the most user-friendly manner and at the lowest cost consistent with good value. The UC Davis Medical Center is dedicated to enhancing access to health-care services for linguistically and culturally diverse patient population through professional medical interpretation, translation and cross-cultural communication. Multilingual kiosks are being installed throughout the campus and medical center. These kiosks will provide automated instructions guiding patients and their families and visitors to facilities and office locations in several commonly spoken languages at the touch of a fingertip.

D. Existing In-Language Mandates

1. Relevant Sections of the California State Public Utilities Code

A few mandates exist with respect to in-language issues. First, the California Public Utilities (PU) Code contains some references. Namely, PU Code §2890 (b) states the following regarding solicitation materials and orders for a product or service:

"When a person or corporation obtains a written order for a product or service, the written order shall be a separate document from any solicitation material. The sole purpose of the document is to explain the nature and extent of the transaction. Written orders and written solicitation materials shall be unambiguous, legible, and in a minimum 10-point type. Written or oral solicitation materials used to obtain an order for a product or service shall be in the same language as the written order. [emphasis added] Written orders may not be used as entry forms for sweepstakes, contests, or any other program that offers prizes or gifts."

PU Code §2889.5 (a) (6) contains additional guidance:

"Where the telephone corporation obtains a written order for service, the document shall thoroughly inform the subscriber of the nature and extent of the action. The subscriber shall be furnished with a copy of the signed document. The subscriber by his or her signature on the document shall indicate a full understanding of the relationship being established with the telephone corporation. When a written subscriber solicitation or other document contains a letter of agency authorizing a change in service provider, in combination with other information including, but not limited to, inducements to subscribers to purchase service, the solicitation shall include a separate document whose sole purpose is to explain the nature and extent of the action. If any part of a mailing to a prospective subscriber is in language other than English, any written authorization contained in the mailing shall be sent to the same prospective subscriber in the same language.[emphasis added]

The Commission may wish to consider further investigation of compliance and enforcement of these code sections. In draft report comments, Staff received limited information from carriers and consumer groups on how carriers are currently complying with these code sections or specific suggestions for rules or enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with them. For example, while AT&T provided information on some materials and bills that it produces in languages other than English where there is a business supported justification⁵, it is unclear how these practices comport with PU Code §2889.5(a)(6) and 2890(b). Similarly, there was not much detailed information from other carriers on their in-language material and billing practices and how they relate to the above statutes. In examining the implementation of the above statutes, the Commission may also want to examine other items, such as the suggestion that carriers be afforded discretion as to which languages they provide materials in and the use of objective criteria for adding and deleting languages⁶.

Likewise, the Commission may seek to solicit more information from consumer groups. For instance, the Asian Law Caucus (ALC) cites preliminary pilot study results indicating that consumers with limited English proficiency (LEP) negotiate the price and terms of telecommunications service solely in other languages, but are given contract and other written documents only in English at the point of sale.⁷ While ALC calls for development of rules on distribution of in-language materials, it is unclear how the aforementioned PU Code sections relate to this recommendation. Also, comments by the Communities for Telecommunications Rights (CTR) include a recommendation that the Commission require that carriers provide a translation of the key rates, terms and conditions (KRTC) in the language that the telecommunications service was negotiated in by the carrier representative. CTR attaches a one-page KRTC template in English, Spanish, Vietnamese and Chinese as part of its proposal⁸. Similarly, the Watsonville Law Center and the Division of Ratepayer Advocates recommend providing in-language translations of contracts and/or in-language KRTC summaries to consumers when services are marketed in languages other than English⁹. The Commission may want to examine how such proposals relate to compliance with PU Code §2889.5(a)(6) and 2890(b). Moreover, in evaluating the use of these code sections and whether to adopt additional rules or enforcement mechanisms, the Commission may need to examine whether these statutes should be uniformly applicable to all types of telecommunications carriers. Furthermore, it may wish to re-examine and seek updates to party positions on such in-language rules explored earlier in this proceeding¹⁰.

2. Relevant Commission Orders

The Commission adopted a few in-language provisions in Commission decisions in the mid-1990s, however these requirements were later modified. Specifically, the Commission established certain in-language requirements when it opened the state's local telecommunications market to competition. In D.95-07-054, the Commission established interim rules for local exchange service competition in California. In that decision, it required that competitive local exchange carriers (CLCs) making sales in a language other than English provide the customer with a confirmation letter written in the language in which the sale was made describing the services ordered and itemizing all charges which will appear on the customer's bill¹¹. Later, in D.95-12-056, the Commission expanded upon the CLC rules in D.95-07-054 and ordered that:

"CLCs shall inform each new customer, in writing and in the language in which the sale was made, of the availability, terms and statewide rates of Universal Lifeline Telephone Service and basic service. CLCs shall also provide bills, notices and access to bilingual customer service representatives in the languages in which prior sales were made."¹²

The Commission initially deferred consideration of such a requirement for ILECs to the Universal Service proceeding, R.95-01-020/I.95-01-021 and eventually declined to adopt it for ILECs.

In response to a petition to modify, the Commission modified the in-language requirements previously adopted for CLCs¹³ as part of the local competition docket. Therefore in D.96-10-076, the Commission modified the above requirement regarding confirmation letters, billing and notices. Instead, it required that ILECs and CLCs meet specified requirements when they sell their services in Spanish, Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, or Tagalog¹⁴. Should the Commission take additional actions regarding in-language issues as part of the Consumer Protection Initiative, it may wish to evaluate how ILECs and CLCs are meeting the modified requirements and whether to extend them to wireless carriers.

Furthermore, any modifications or additions that the Commission makes to existing in-language requirements should consider the impact of its recent order regarding the Uniform Regulatory Framework (URF). In August 2006, the Commission adopted D.06-08-030, which granted ILECs and CLCs broad pricing freedoms concerning most telecommunications services, new telecommunications products, bundles of services, promotions, and contracts.

3. Other Government Requirements

The Dymally Alatorre Bilingual Services Act is the main state law applying language requirements to the California Public Utilities Commission, and P.U Code § 2890 (b) and § 2889.5 (a)(6) apply directly to telecommunications companies. In addition, there are other language requirements that apply to aspects of the telecommunications industry, as well as some that do not apply directly to the Commission or the industries it regulates, but may provide valuable models for serving LEP consumers. Several of these requirements are described in this section.

As noted in the comments provided by the Consumer Federation of California on the Commission's Study Plan issued in June 2006, there are California state laws that do not apply directly to the Commission nor telecommunications companies (nor to other regulated industries), but do address the need for specific language requirements to enable LEP consumers to access services of government agencies and private companies. Such laws include sections of the California Civil Code (1632 and 1689.7), Business and Professional Code (11245, 17538.9, 22442), and Insurance code (762).(CFC comments page 12) These sections mandate specific disclosures and actions related to contracts in various industries, when the contracts are negotiated or a sale takes place primarily in a language other than English. Some provisions also offer consumer protections in the event that the company responsibilities are not met. According to CFC, equal protection clauses in state and federal constitutions are also relevant, generally prohibiting discrimination against any class of individuals by governmental entities.

Public Utilities Code § 453 (b) prohibits public utilities (in this case, wireline carriers) to disadvantage customers on many bases, including national origin. This is similar to Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin. Federal Executive Order (E.O.) 13166 specifies that failing to provide services in a person's native language can constitute discrimination on the basis of national origin, prohibited by Title VI. The federal government has guidance for federal agencies to follow to ensure compliance with E.O. 13166 requiring language access for people with limited proficiency in English. These guidelines, discussed in detail on the Website www.lep.gov, describe this Executive Order, which specifically requires "federal agencies to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access for LEP people to federally conducted programs and activities (essentially, everything the federal government does)," and mandates that "every federal agency that provides financial assistance to non-federal entities must publish guidance on how those recipients can provide meaningful access to LEP persons and thus comply with Title VI and Title VI regulations."¹⁵ The requirements of Title VI also apply to state, local, and private entities that receive federal funding. It is not clear from research on this Web site whether or how the Federal