Collaboration of Nonprofit Organizations with Local Government for Immigrant Language Acquisition

Abstract

This article maintains that local government and nonprofit organizations are key collaborative agents in the delivery of language access services in the City of Philadelphia. Based on research conducted from February 2009 through September 2010, this article utilizes personal interviews, document analyses, and other data to situate the shared responsibility forged between the public and nonprofit sectors in the realm of language access. Local government relies on a range of nonprofit networks for both public support and community outreach in immigrant neighborhoods. Nonprofits, on the other hand, rely on the welcoming political climate that protocols and municipal directives provide for immigrants at the local level. As Philadelphia touts itself as a reemerging destination for immigrants, this article highlights the prominent role that nonprofit organizations play in the work of immigrant accompaniment by ensuring equal access to city services, regardless of linguistic ability.

Keywords

language access immigrant integration nonprofit networks government-nonprofit partnerships

Introduction

In 2001, Mayor John Street of Philadelphia issued Executive Order 4-01, mandating all city agencies to assess their federally funded programs to make these programs accessible to persons with limited English proficiency (LEP). LEP persons are those who speak a language other than English and have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English (Mulé, 2010). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, roughly 20% of U.S. residents and 10% of Philadelphians speak a language other than English at home (Mulé, 2010; Rhoades, 2010). Street’s directive was a direct response to President William J. Clinton’s executive order delivered on August 11, 2000, which underlined that Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act required recipients of federal funding to ensure that LEP persons had access to public services, including language access (Clinton, 2000).

Traditionally speaking, there are two types of language access, interpretation and translation. While interpretation deals with oral communication—whether telephonic or in-person—translation typically refers to document translation (Mulé, 2010). These two types of language access demand different kinds of professional skills, demonstrating how language access is a “situated practice” (Lo Bianco, 2010, p. 57). Immigrant residents are the primary beneficiaries of language access policies, given how these policies enhance the “self-sufficiency, health, and safety” of the immigrant community. Language access, however, also benefits the general population, due to its concern for the overall improvement in public health, employment, and public safety conditions. Therefore, these policies are typically viewed as a public good (Wang, 2009, p. 1).

Under Mayor Street, Philadelphia—along with San Francisco and Oakland, California—were among the first cities in the United States to call for equal access to services, regardless of linguistic ability. As of February 2013, only nine U.S. cities (including Philadelphia) had language access policies for LEP persons. The other eight cities - New York City; Minneapolis; Seattle; Monterey Park, California; Washington, D.C.; Oakland, California; Albany, New York; and San Francisco - have issued policies by executive order, resolution, or local law (Migration Policy Institute, 2013). Indeed, Philadelphia is at the vanguard of language access policies in the United States. Eager to advance practices of cultural competence and immigrant integration, public administrators—under the leadership of Mayors John Street and Michael A. Nutter—spearheaded the design and implementation of these policies. This design and implementation, however, was not possible without multiple collaborations with community and grassroots leaders who understood two things well: (a) that linguistic diversity accompanied Philadelphia’s growing immigrant presence (Singer, Vitiello, Katz, & Park, 2008b); and (b) that linguistic diversity was one of the greatest barriers to immigrant integration (Baker & Harris, 2009; De Cola, 2011; Rubaii-Barrett, 2008).

Language barriers are one of the most commonly cited challenges of immigrant integration by public administrators in the United States (Rubaii-Barrett, 2009). Given the urgency for language access services in the fields of public safety, health care, and the courts, scholars have studied the impact of these services to immigrant residents. However, apart from these fields, there is little attention paid to language access practices in public administration as a whole. Practitioners find that key components of these practices should include

Assessing language needs at the local level;

Hiring bi/multilingual personnel;

Developing language assistance policies;

Training staff members on policy implementation;

Continual monitoring of language access policies;

Engaging in community outreach to increase awareness of services (Wang, 2009, p. 4).

Alongside their public counterparts, nonprofit organizations play an important role in providing holistic attention to the needs of LEP residents since they are trusted sites of immigrant cultural preservation. And yet, there is a scarcity of research on how nonprofit organizations have contributed to the drafting of language access policies at the local level, even as practitioners maintain that community outreach is a central component of these policies.

According to Singer, Hardwick, and Brettell (2008a), the municipality is the “locus of immigration and subsequent integration” since it is where social, economic, and political incorporation of immigrants takes place (p. 315). Most scholarly and practitioner research only examines the role of local governments—from the perspective of public protocols and municipal directives—in the work of immigrant integration. While this research clearly demonstrates how public agencies engage in cultural adaptation as a response to demographic change (Rice, 2008), it overlooks the shared responsibility of the public and nonprofit sectors in such work. Local government relies on a range of nonprofit networks for both public support and community outreach in immigrant neighborhoods. Nonprofits, on the other hand, rely on the welcoming political climate that public protocols and directives provide for immigrants at the local level.

This article maintains that local government and nonprofit organizations are key collaborative agents in the delivery of language access services in the City of Philadelphia. Based on qualitative research conducted from February 2009 through September 2010, this article utilizes personal interviews, document analyses, and other data to situate the shared responsibility forged between the public and nonprofit sectors in the realm of language access. The article expands on public administration literature on immigrant integration and cultural competence (Benavides & Hernández, 2007; Rice, 2007, 2008; Rubaii-Barrett, 2008, 2009) as well as a variety of literature relating to nonprofit networks, community and grassroots organizations, and government-nonprofit partnerships (Chetkovich & Kunreuther, 2006; De Filippis, Fisher, & Shragge, 2010; Elbers & Schulpen, 2011; Galaskiewicz, Bielefeld, & Dowell, 2006; Gazley, 2008, 2010; Gazley & Brudney, 2007). Ultimately, the article showcases several ways in which city agencies work in collaboration with a host of nonprofit organizations to provide language access to LEP persons in Philadelphia.

Literature Review

Language Barriers and Immigrant Integration

Immigrant integration calls for a multifaceted approach, one that recognizes the importance of input from community stakeholders in the tailoring of public services (Benavides & Hernández, 2007). Indeed, responsibility for immigrant integration is best understood as “dispersed across governmental and nongovernmental sectors” (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2011, p. 9). According to a 2008 study conducted by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), while 55% of local government materials were provided in languages other than English, only 30% of local governments encouraged employees to develop cultural competencies. Moreover, merely 3% of local governments had established a local office for immigrant services, reinforcing the fact that public agencies rely on nonprofit organizations to help immigrants fully integrate into American public life (Rubaii-Barrett, 2009).

Nonprofit organizations are themselves “site[s] for diverse actors and actions . . . to bring together alliances cutting across divisions at the local level” (De Filippis et al., 2010, p. 33). These organizations regularly collaborate with each other (Chetkovich & Kunreuther, 2006) and with local government on immigrant integration matters, including

Inclusive communitywide planning;

Programs that promote health, well-being, and economic mobility;

Policies advancing equal treatment and opportunity;

Cultural celebrations and community dialogues;

Language access policies and English as a Second Language (ESL) classes;¹

Naturalization and immigrant civic participation (Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees, 2011, p. 11).

A full-fledged approach to immigrant integration therefore requires the “supporting network of community outreach, resource access, and education” (Gambetta & Burgess, 2011, p. 1).

Language barriers impede immigrant integration, disadvantaging racial and ethnic minorities in particular (American Institutes for Research, 2005; Cole, 2004). This is particularly the case in the field of health care. In the absence of language access policies and protocols in the health care setting, patients not only may be exposed to adverse health outcomes but also are left without recourse to their legally mandated rights (De Cola, 2011). Overcoming language barriers in the courts is likewise a noteworthy task. In addition to the need for bilingual court interpreters and interpreter competency (Suleiman, 2003, p. 191), some scholars opine that all courts—regardless of geographic location—should be sites where the right to an interpreter is practiced (Molina, 2008). Language access also plays a central role in reducing instances of juvenile delinquency. Studies have found that without language access in the school system, immigrant parents lack the motivation to develop meaningful relationships with schoolteachers and staff, which would allow parents the ability to monitor their children’s activities (Rhoades, 2010).

Additionally, the field of law enforcement demands attention to language access policies, given that public safety hinges on the threefold action of victims, witnesses, and “first responders” to crime (Shah, Rahman, & Khashu, 2007, p. 4). In law enforcement, language access means the right for LEP individuals to interpretation and translation, a proper complaint process, and the recognition that language access services are “meant to be an interim measure that works alongside [the] commitment to English language acquisition” (Boyd, 2003, p. 135). Proponents of language access do not see the issue as a zero-sum game, that is, language access is not simply a choice between the desire for immigrants to attain English proficiency or the maintenance of linguistic diversity. According to President Clinton, the goal of providing accessibility to these services for LEP persons “reinforce[d] [the] equally important commitment to promoting programs and activities designed to help individuals learn English” (2000). Thus language access drives home the need for English proficiency and a deep-seated belief in the values of civic participation. Language access highlights an appreciation for immigrant cultural preservation as well as for immigrant integration into American public life.

Language Access and Cultural Competence

Nonprofit leaders speak at length about the need to develop and sustain culturally competent practices in their organizations; however, nonprofit scholars have not examined the range of such practices within the sector in any in-depth sense. Therefore, the work of public agencies and public administrators regarding this topic must be examined. According to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), cultural competence is defined as “behaviors, attitudes, and policies . . . that will ensure that a system, agency, program, or individual can function effectively and appropriately in diverse cultural interactions and settings” (Rice, 2007, p. 42). Given that a firm belief in cultural diversity lies at the heart of cultural competence, public administrators recognize the need for timely and relevant language access services for LEP residents.

Language access is not simply about interpretation and translation but about meaningful access. Because language taps into questions of power as well as cultural and historical memory (Codó, 2008; Lo Bianco, 2010; P. Pedemonti, personal communication, July 1, 2009), those who hold that language access involves both effective communication and equal access often couple the need for cultural competence with the demand for civil rights (Suleiman, 2009). Public agencies are well aware that cultural competence is not solely a concern for public administration—it is a concern shared by the variety of community and grassroots organizations that serve immigrant populations on a daily basis. Indeed, nonprofit organizations long have hired bi/multilingual and bi/multicultural staff to carry out their operations (Alfisi, 2009). These nonprofit organizations tend to be located centrally within ethnic neighborhoods, thereby assuring immigrants immediate access to services. Moreover, immigrants often turn to these organizations first, due to feelings of government distrust that they developed in their homelands (Gupta & Torres, 2010). Public agencies rely on the range of these nonprofits, whether it is through coalition-building or the kind of community outreach that such organizations bring to the political table (Cole, 2004; Yang, Persellin, & Davis, 2003).

Public administration scholars long have understood culture as both a commitment and management tool. And yet, culture itself is an elusive concept, including—but not limited to—shared norms, values, and behavior (Khademian, 2002; Rice, 2007, 2008). Public agencies exist within an organizational culture that equally needs to be recognized, monitored, and regularly assessed (Khademian, 2002; Spencer, 2011). This assessment involves identifying agency-level commitments, resources, and personnel (Khademian, 2002) in regard to the provision of culturally competent services. Furthermore, such an assessment equally acknowledges that cultural competence relies heavily on the local expertise and community outreach of the nonprofit sector (Rice, 2007, 2008).

The literature on government-nonprofit partnerships therefore can shed some light on the practice of cultural competence. Research on these partnerships typically has focused on the narrow range of formal contracting between the sectors. However, nonprofits and government—especially local government—collaborate in a myriad of ways, in a both formal and informal sense, as the new governance model of service delivery suggests (Pierre, 2000; Salamon, 1995). And yet, according to Beth Gazley, intersectoral cooperation between government and the nonprofit sector carries its own set of limitations, namely, the lack of a clear sense of shared decision making between the sectors (2008, p. 142). Furthermore, while intersectoral cooperation generally enhances nonprofit status in the community (Galaskiewicz et al., 2006), this cooperation can subject nonprofits to power asymmetries due to their resource dependence (Elbers & Schulpen, 2011). Absent this cooperation, nonprofits engage informally in local efforts to increase awareness of the immigrant community as well as to monitor government compliance. Nonprofit organizations also regularly form coalitions to advocate for immigrant access to public resources (Alfisi, 2009; Yang et al., 2003).

Background

Language Access: A Federal Mandate

In 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13166, mandating all agencies receiving federal funding to tailor their services for LEP persons. The order also required all federal agencies to develop a plan to improve language access and to submit these plans to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which would serve as the central repository. This order reaffirmed Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which states that the U.S. government must not discriminate on the basis of national origin, which, by extension, includes language of origin. While the goal of the order was to improve language access for LEP persons, the order also emphasized the “equally important commitment to promoting programs and activities designed to help individuals learn English.” Finally, the order stressed the need for stakeholder consultation in “ensuring meaningful [language] access” for LEP persons (Clinton, 2000).

On June 18, 2002, the DOJ issued a set of guidelines regarding language access for DOJ recipients of federal aid. These guidelines included

Determination of eligible LEP persons;

Frequency of contact with LEP persons;

Nature of language access programs for LEP persons;

Available resources and program costs (Boyd, 2003, pp. 134-135).

Due to the immediacy of proper interpretation and translation in the health care setting, all 50 states have enacted measures either mandating or improving language access in the health care field (Lo, 2011). In the court system, however, the fate of LEP persons is left to each state’s judicial understanding of “the need for interpreters, the role of interpreters, and the subtleties of language interpretation” (Molina, 2008, p. 2). Language access policies experience a similar fate in most municipalities throughout the United States.

Philadelphia and Municipal Directives

In 2003, the Managing Director’s Office (MDO) of Philadelphia launched the Global Philadelphia initiative in an effort to build “sustainable infrastructure within and across departments to ensure meaningful access to city services” regardless of linguistic ability (Global Philadelphia, 2011; see Figure 1). Then in 2005, with the support of the William Penn Foundation, a coalition of community and grassroots leaders (named the Grassroots Business Development Task Force) provided suggestions to city government regarding how to expand opportunities for immigrant entrepreneurship and business development in culturally diverse neighborhoods, with language access as a central feature. This Task Force released its findings in its “Opening the Doors to City Services” report (2006), which offered (a) excellent customer service; (b) capacity building for business development outreach; (c) recruitment of bi/multilingual employees; and, (d) citywide language access compliance as its main suggestions.

Figure 1.

Language access timeline in Philadelphia.

In December 2005, the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) issued Directive 71, which mandated language access for LEP persons through the hiring of bi/multilingual law enforcement personnel and interpretation services. Reflecting stakeholder input from the nonprofit community, the directive notified Philadelphia residents about PPD’s language services by posting multilingual signage at each police building and called for the translation of public forms into languages most commonly spoken in the region. Already at the time of the directive, the PPD had 22 forms translated into Arabic, Cambodian, Chinese, Korean, Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese (Philadelphia Police Department, 2005). Successful implementation of the directive continues to depend in large part on the training of volunteers as Philadelphia Police Department Authorized Interpreters (PPDAIs; Cassel 2006).

After the MDO’s issuance of Directive 62 in December 2007—which instructed all city departments to engage in a needs assessment regarding the language makeup of their service population—Mayor Nutter required city departments to develop a language access policy under Executive Order 9-08. In specific terms, the order gave the MDO the responsibility of providing strategic oversight to these departments and created the position of the Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA), in an effort to strengthen the ties between the city and its diverse cultural communities. In general terms, the order officially recommitted the city of Philadelphia to delivering public services in multiple languages, with the hope that the city be “a place of welcoming to all residents including newcomers looking to live and work in the city” (Nutter, 2008). One year later, Nutter issued Executive Order 8-09, which provided all residents of Philadelphia access to police and fire services, medical services, mental health services, children’s protective services, and libraries and recreation centers, “regardless of . . . citizenship or legal immigration status” (Nutter, 2009).

Research Method

This article is based on research conducted from February 2009 through September 2010 during which time the author followed the immigration reform and control movements in Philadelphia. While language access did not feature specifically in either movement, the author interviewed nonprofit leaders who collaborated with Philadelphia municipal government in the area of language access and/or were invested in promoting linguistic diversity and cultural competence within their organizations. For instance, the author interviewed the Coordinator for the Language Access Project for Community Legal Services (CLS) of Philadelphia. In addition, the author interviewed representatives of three nonprofits sitting on the Grassroots Business Development Task Force—the Arab American Community Development Corporation, Hebrew Immigration Aid Society (HIAS), and the Samuel S. Fels Fund.

For this article, the author interviewed 40 nonprofit and government leaders in the City of Philadelphia. After selecting the largest and most reputable nonprofit organizations serving immigrant populations in the region, the author engaged in the exercise of “snowball sampling,” whereby the author gained additional public and nonprofit sector contacts during interviews. Then the author applied Chi-Kan Richard Hung’s typology of immigrant nonprofit organizations (service, cultural, religious, and public interest) to categorize nonprofits. Whereas service organizations describe nonprofits that provide a range of social services to immigrants, cultural organizations involve those organizations whose primary objective is cultural preservation. The author expanded Hung’s definition of religious organizations to those non profits inspired by a faith-based identity. Finally, public interest organizations include advocacy, professional, or civic organizations (Hung, 2007, p. 709). The majority of nonprofit leaders interviewed fit into one of these four categories. However, the author also interviewed six nonprofit leaders directly involved in legal services. As noted in Table 1, there is considerable overlap regarding the nature and scope of services provided to immigrant populations by nonprofit organizations in Philadelphia

Table 1.

Philadelphia-Based Nonprofit and Public Organizations Interviewed.

Service:

Arab American Community Development Corporation

Catholic Social Services

Covenant House

Congreso de Latinos

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society

Irish Immigration Center

Lutheran Settlement House

Nationalities Service Center

New Sanctuary Movement

Salvation Army

Southeast Asian Mutual Assistant Associations Coalition, Inc.

Welcoming Center for New Pennsylvanians

Cultural:

Arab American Community Development Corporation

Council on American-Islamic Relations

Congreso de Latinos

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society

Irish Immigration Center

National Association of Asian American Professionals

Southeast Asian Mutual Assistant Associations Coalition, Inc.

Local Government:

Lower Providence Township Police Department

Philadelphia Department of Commerce

Philadelphia Office of Multicultural Affairs

Religious:

Catholic Social Services

Covenant House

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society

Lutheran Settlement House

New Sanctuary Movement

St. Martin of Tours Parish

Salvation Army

Public Interest:

Catholic Social Services

Council on American-Islamic Relations

National Association of Asian American Professionals

New Sanctuary Movement

Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition

Samuel S. Fels Fund

Welcoming Center for New Pennsylvanians

Legal Services:

Community Legal Services

Catholic Social Services

Friends of Farmworkers, Inc.

Philadelphia Legal Assistance Victim/Witness Service of South Philadelphia

Federal Government:

Social Security Administration

U.S. Census Bureau

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

The author also interviewed eight local and federal government leaders who play a central role in advancing language access in the Greater Philadelphia region (see Table 1). Five leaders from the Nationalities Service Center (NSC), the largest refugee resettlement agency in Philadelphia, and three leaders from the Salvation Army, one of the largest faith-based providers of social services in Philadelphia, were interviewed and one nonprofit leader—the Executive Director of NSC, Dennis Mulligan—was interviewed two times. Two government officials from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Philadelphia Department of Commerce were also interviewed. Other organizations where more than one leader was interviewed included: the Lutheran Settlement House (3), Catholic Social Services (2), the Arab American Community Development Corporation (2), and Community Legal Services (2). And of the two leaders interviewed at Catholic Social Services, one leader worked in the service side of the organization, while the other leader worked in legal services. The average length of interview was 1 hr and 45 min. All interviews (with the exception of one telephone interview) were conducted face-to-face and were unrecorded due to the sensitive nature of research—language access for LEP persons.

Questions asked during the interview, which were directly relevant to government collaboration included: (a) Does your organization collaborate with other public, private, or nonprofit organizations in the area? and (b) Has your organization experienced any conflicts with government, business, or community leaders regarding the services provided to immigrant populations in the region? The author also asked a series of questions relating to the issue of cultural competence: (a) Which different ethnic, racial, and cultural groups does your organization aid? (b) How does your organization help clients maintain their cultural identity? (c) What are the challenges your clients face due to their racial, ethnic, or cultural background? (d) Does your organization utilize interpreters to work with LEP persons? (e) Are there people of color on staff at the organization? and (f) Does your organization provide training to new and existing staff to work with people of color?²

The author conducted extensive note-taking during the course of interviewing and personally transcribed all interviews. Transcriptions followed the structure of the interview format—a series of open-ended questions. Data were collected from the author’s interviews, field notes, and participant observation of workshops and events relating to the topics of immigrant integration and language access. Further data were collected from printed and virtual sources, such as demographic information, official documents, agency websites, reports, and scholarly articles. Transcribed interviews, field notes, and participant observation were analyzed through the process of iterative coding (Chetkovich & Kunreuther, 2006), whereby transcriptions were initially reviewed and coded for the themes of language access, immigrant integration, and cultural competence. At later stages, additional themes were included for coding purposes, such as whether and how government and nonprofit approaches varied in language access. Data analysis was driven partly by a grounded-theory approach (Chetkovich & Kunreuther, 2006) in which some themes were identified for coding in advance of the data analysis, while other themes arose after the rereading of transcriptions. Printed and virtual sources—including scholarly sources—were similarly coded, recoded, and analyzed. Coding, therefore, was informed by “concept-driven”—arising from scholarly literature—and “data-driven” approaches (Gibbs, 2007).

After coding transcriptions as well as printed and virtual sources, the author engaged in data source triangulation. In an effort to ensure reliability, findings from author transcriptions were checked against the range of printed and virtual sources listed above. This allowed the author to compare and contrast information sources with consistency and accuracy (Gibbs, 2007). In other words, it permitted the author to include data that had been confirmed by interviewees, agency reports, demographic data, and scholarly literature and eliminate data that did not meet similar criteria. In a final effort to ensure reliability, the author relied on the use of direct quotations from interviewees and from nonprofit and government leaders presiding at workshops and events. Inclusion of these quotations helped validate how government-nonprofit approaches to language access both intersect and diverge.

Findings

Government-Nonprofit Collaboration in Language Access

Alongside their public counterparts, nonprofit organizations play a significant role in advancing language access for LEP persons in Philadelphia in two main ways. First, nonprofit leaders—like public administrators—view language barriers as an obstacle to immigrant integration. Because of this, these leaders encourage the implementation of culturally competent protocols, both as a nonprofit best practice and a means for such integration. Second, nonprofit and government leaders alike view language access policies not simply as a service for some but as a service for all. Leaders from both sectors acknowledge the critical need to frame properly the kinds of services mandated by municipal directives so that Philadelphia residents may come to see language access services as a public good for the region.

Like public agencies, Philadelphia-based nonprofit organizations view culturally competent protocols—such as language access—as a nonprofit best practice. Understandably, the type of nonprofit in question will determine the kinds of language services provided. For instance, a cultural organization like the Arab American Community Development Corporation which largely serves immigrants of Middle-Eastern descent provides Arabic translation and interpretation services (Z. El-Halabi, personal communication, July 10, 2009). However, a service organization such as NSC, serving all immigrants and refugees in the Philadelphia area, has access to interpreters and translators representing over 50 different languages who work in an “at-need” consulting basis for the organization (D. Mulligan, personal communication, March 3, 2009; D. Mulligan, personal communication, October 21, 2009; Nationalities Service Center, 2012). Philadelphia Legal Assistance, with clients representing all continents, struggles with providing language access services, especially for the African community, due to a lack of competent interpreters. As a back-up plan, the organization utilizes the services of the private provider, Language Line, however realizing that many “organizations can’t rely on [this service] because it costs a lot of money” (B. Holguin, personal communication, August 6, 2009). Finally, there is an even greater need for translation and interpretation services for the growing Brazilian community in the region, especially since “Americans [sometimes] make the big mistake that Brazilians speak Spanish” (Rev. G. Dadalt, personal communication, December 18, 2009), rather than Portuguese.

Nonprofit leaders understand language access not only as a form of cultural preservation but also as a pathway to immigrant integration. These leaders understand the need “for future generations to know about their history and tradition.” At the same time, “we want them to learn English because if they live here they have to learn English” (Z. El-Halabi, personal communication, July 10, 2009). Other leaders, such as Judith Bernstein-Baker, Executive Director of HIAS, emphasize the need for legal immigrants to pursue citizenship. This is based on her belief that if the immigrant is “not integrated,” they cannot vote or “be a player” in society (J. Bernstein-Baker, personal communication, June 29, 2009). According to Regan Cooper, former Executive Director of PICC, forging “cross-cultural exchanges” is a way to “understand and share knowledge in communities.” Engaging in these exchanges fosters both ethnic community-building within immigrant groups and leadership development across ethnic and racial lines (R. Cooper, personal communication, August 12, 2009). Moreover, these exchanges prepare immigrants for full integration into American public life.

Nonprofit and government leaders equally share the view that language access services should be framed as a service for all, rather than a service for some. According to Israel Colon, OMA Director, language access “speaks to the issue of immigrant integration.” Colon relates that Mayor Nutter made a decision that, as the city of Philadelphia, “we serve all people.” Since assuming office in 2008, Nutter institutionalized a concern for immigrants at every level of government, from the Department of Public Health, to the Offices of Licenses and Inspections, to the PPD (I. Colon, personal communication, July 9, 2009). And so, “each [city] department is charged with a language access policy” (K. Dow, personal communication, January 19, 2010).

Major headway regarding language access also has been made in federal agencies in the Philadelphia region. Richard Gaudiosi, Public Affairs Specialist at the Social Security Administration (SSA), states how the agency provides free interpretation and translation services for LEP persons—both telephonic and in-person. He comments that “we’re trying to do more because it’s a right for people to get this information.” Furthermore, Gaudiosi discusses how SSA employees can move into management positions at the agency due to language and demographic needs (R. Gaudiosi, personal communication, July 22, 2009). Other federal agencies like the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regularly partner with nonprofit organizations so as to promote a “fully formed community engagement approach” to its services, which includes cosponsoring community workshops, engaging in community mediation, and providing ongoing community assessments (C. Hallstrom, personal communication, July 15, 2009).

Government-nonprofit collaborations help both sectors “look…realistically at [their] respective roles and responsibilities” in terms of linguistic, cultural, and administrative skills (C. Hallstrom, personal communication, July 15, 2009) in the immigrant community. An example of one such collaboration was the cosponsorship of a naturalization ceremony for immigrants of Indian descent by USCIS and the Council of Indian Organizations (CIO) on October 3, 2009. After the ceremony, a CIO leader announced that the previous day (October 2) had been Mohandas Gandhi’s birthday. This announcement was followed by a message from Mayor Nutter, read by Anuj Gupta, Chief of Staff and Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Licenses and Inspections for the city. Commemorating the work of Gandhi and the presence of Indians in the region, in his message, Nutter officially declared October 2 “Peace Day” in the City of Philadelphia (Naturalization Ceremony, 2009).

Nonprofit and government leaders alike agree that the greatest challenge in serving the immigrant community is “how [to] frame things”—that language access is a “service for everyone” (A. Sprague, personal communication, July 9, 2009). Kevin Dow, Deputy Commerce Director, remarks that it is a regular occurrence that “when we do minority participatory initiatives [such as language access, it is] always perceived by the majority that we’re taking something away from them.” But the reverse is actually true. “If economic opportunities increase to this segment, then everyone’s situation gets better” (K. Dow, personal communication, January 19, 2010). According to Colon at the OMA, “getting the message out and beginning the public dialogue” with Philadelphia area residents regarding the public benefit of language access is an important task. But, he remarks, “we have to do more to bring that public dialogue”(I. Colon, personal communication, July 9, 2009).

Public agencies in Philadelphia rely on a range of government-nonprofit partnerships in showcasing language access as a public good (see Table 2). During deliberations on the implementation of language access protocols, public officials recognized the important work of nonprofits in the field of language access by providing these organizations with a “piggyback provision” in its contract with Language Line—a for-profit language access provider. This provision allowed nonprofits to receive the same service rate for language access services that the city had negotiated (B. Shapiro, personal communication, August 11, 2009). The negotiated rate was due in large part to the efforts of nonprofit leader Judith Bernstein-Baker of HIAS. As Beth Shapiro (2010), Coordinator for the Language Access Project at CLS asserts, “when you get a bunch of advocates together, they start asking [public officials] questions.”

Table 2.

Examples of Government-Nonprofit Partnerships in Language Access.

Philadelphia City Government: Obtained piggyback provision for nonprofit organizations with Language Line Services, so that nonprofits would pay the same service rate that the city negotiated for telephonic language interpretation (B. Shapiro, personal communication, August 11, 2009).

Philadelphia Department of Commerce: Through the Community Development Block Grant program, partners with nonprofits to provide business technical assistance to immigrant populations with linguistic challenges. With its nonprofit partners, the department regularly hosts English for Entrepreneurs classes and a peer lending group for Spanish and Portuguese speakers (Cho, 2011).

Global Philadelphia: Assembled International Philadelphia Work Group, with city, academic, nonprofit, and business representation. The work group was divided into four subcommittees (public safety, education, jobs and economic development, and healthy and sustainable communities) and issued a 2008 report on how effectively the City of Philadelphia can integrate immigrants into the region’s cultural, economic, and social fabric (City of Philadelphia, 2008; Global Philadelphia, 2012b).

Welcoming Center for New Pennsylvanians: From 2005-2011, partnered with South Philadelphia High School through the Bridging Cultures project, which offered services to immigrant and native-born students related to intercultural collaboration (Global Philadelphia, 2012a; Welcoming Center for New Pennsylvanians, 2012).

Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition: Hosted a Language Access in Healthcare conference in May 2011. The keynote speaker was Nan Feyler, chief of staff, for the city’s Department of Public Health. Other presenters included professionals from the academic, nonprofit, health care, and legal fields. Richard Negrin, deputy mayor of Philadelphia, and David Torres, language access coordinator for the City of Philadelphia were also presenters (Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition, 2012).

Nonprofit Organizations and Immigrant Accompaniment

Unlike their public counterparts, nonprofit leaders engage in language access services in a distinct way. To these leaders, language access not only involves meaningful interpretation and translation services but also immigrant accompaniment. Immigrant accompaniment is a term commonly used by nonprofit leaders and usually refers to a range of informal services provided to immigrants—client representation, protection, and companionship. In a word, to Peter Pedemonti of New Sanctuary Movement, immigrant accompaniment means “being a friend” (P. Pedemonti, personal communication, July 1, 2009). Nonprofit leaders consider these services as part of the “one-stop shopping” that their clients expect (W. Maldonado, personal communication, January 7, 2010; T. Swartzendruber-Landis, personal communication, August 13, 2009). This is important to consider as it is a prime way in which community and grassroots organizations differentiate themselves from public agencies.

Many nonprofits, even ones that self-identify as service organizations, have an “advocacy-mindset integrated into their work” (R. Cooper, personal communication, August 12, 2009). Nonprofit staff often serves as client advocates, accompanying immigrant clients to medical and court appointments and “speak[ing] on the clients’ behalf” (W. Maldonado, personal communication, January 7, 2010) and in their own native tongue. Some nonprofits are committed to other forms of immigrant accompaniment, whether that means offering linguistic translation with financial issues, walking with immigrant families through the deportation process, or making visits to detention centers (P. Pedemonti, personal communication, July 1, 2009). Many nonprofit leaders view such accompaniment as a simple extension of the services they provide. Still others realize that “many clients need accompaniment and [we] can’t provide it” (A. L. Yoder, personal communication, April 1, 2009). These leaders realize that without the aid of a large volunteer force accompaniment is more than often an impossible task.

Immigrant accompaniment is a common feature of nonprofit work in the field of human trafficking, especially given the serious linguistic obstacles female trafficking victims face. At a March 2009 Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force meeting, hosted by Catholic Social Services (CSS) of Philadelphia, Trooper Glenn D. Hopey of the Pennsylvania Organized Crime Unit argued that in law enforcement—and particularly human trafficking-services for “language[s] cannot be emphasized enough.” Religious organizations like CSS and Covenant House provide legal accompaniment and protection services for female victims of trafficking (Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force, 2009). Meanwhile the Southeast Asian Mutual Assistant Associations Coalition, Inc. (SEAMAAC) offers real-time linguistic accompaniment in 12 primary languages, including Vietnamese, Indonesian, Cambodian, and Thai, as well as five dialects of Chinese, for immigrants challenged by the education, transportation, and health care systems (T. Nguyen, personal communication, January 20, 2010).

Nonprofits, however, do not engage in immigrant accompaniment for accompaniment’s sake. Because nonprofit leaders view integration as a “two-way street”—in other words, “Pennsylvania needs immigrants [and] immigrants need to be integrated”—organizations like the Welcoming Center for New Pennsylvanians (the Welcoming Center) deploy “coethnic teams” to immigrant corridors in the city to build strong relationships with the community. But this is not the only reason. Recognizing that immigrants bring a “wide range of backgrounds and skills” to the region, a primary objective of the Welcoming Center is to accompany immigrant clients through workforce and new business development. The organization prides itself on having not only staff and board members from diverse backgrounds but also with “actual expertise in cross-cultural experience,” to better understand client needs and challenges (A. Bergson-Shilcock, personal communication, June 18, 2009). In addition to hiring bi/multilingual staff and providing interpretation and translation support, nonprofits encourage their clients to become “good self-advocates” (J. Ramic, personal communication, July 16, 2009).

Regardless of whether language access is championed by public or nonprofit organizations, Shapiro identifies six keys to success in language access implementation (see Table 3). This list reflects the way in which the concern for language access should be central to an organization’s governance structure, policies, personnel practices, marketing and communications strategies, and service delivery (Rice, 2007). According to Shapiro (2010), success involves having (a) buy-in from top management at the organization; (b) a written institutional policy; (c) resources in place; (d) the effective use of technological tools; (e) ongoing staff training and a culture of service; and (f) an established means of tracking and monitoring language access protocols.

Table 3.

Characteristics of Successful Language Access Policies.

Buy-in from top management

Written policy on language access

Institutional resources in place

Effective use of technology

Staff training and culture of service

Ongoing tracking and monitoring

Source: Beth Shapiro, Language Access Project Coordinator, Community Legal Services of Philadelphia (2010).

Discussion and Conclusion

This article examined the relationship between municipal directives and nonprofit collaboration in the work of language access in Philadelphia. In so doing, the article demonstrated how government and nonprofit organizations share responsibility for the delivery of language access services in the City of Brotherly Love. Acknowledging that immigrant populations are “critical to the economic, cultural, and social fabric” of the Greater Philadelphia region (Nutter, 2009), public administrators admit that city efforts alone are unable to tailor language access to the needs of the immigrant community. These administrators recognize that nonprofit organizations are frontline service providers to immigrant communities in the region, providing critical interpretation and translation services in a range of needed fields (Gupta & Torres, 2010). While local government and nonprofit organizations are key collaborative agents in the delivery of language access services in Philadelphia, nonprofit organizations engage in these services in a distinct way: through the informal practice of immigrant accompaniment.

As one of only nine municipalities in the nation charged with a language access policy, Philadelphia’s experience is an example to other municipalities and suburban regions throughout the United States currently witnessing a growing immigrant presence. Indeed, Philadelphia’s municipal directives reinforce its commitment to language accessibility. And yet, to provide more meaningful language access in the region, local government and nonprofit organizations must address three areas in a more comprehensive way: (a) continued need for stakeholder consultation; (b) ongoing self-assessment and training; and, (c) responding to the new suburban challenges of immigration.

First, a central feature of President Clinton’s executive order included the continued need for stakeholder consultation in properly assessing the kinds of services needed for LEP persons. Public administrators—at the federal, state, and local levels—constantly ask what are the best strategies for outreach in underserved, immigrant communities? (E Pluribus Unum, 2011). These administrators are well-aware that community and grassroots organizations “act as a middleman to get out the message” to the community about the kinds of services public agencies provide (R. Gaudiosi, personal communication, July 22, 2009). Beyond consultation with nonprofit (and philanthropic) stakeholders, public and nonprofit organizations alike seriously should consider consultations with volunteers, community residents, and other important stakeholders on the issue of language access. After all, according to Waleska Maldonado of Congreso de Latinos, “the challenge is [oftentimes] with the immigrant person—they are so scared to access services” (W. Maldonado, personal communication, January 7, 2010).

Second, like their public counterparts, nonprofits should participate in ongoing self-assessment and training in cultural competence. Because the kinds of languages demanded by residents will change as the demographic situation changes, nonprofit organizations need to be “creative about tailoring the resources [they] have” (S. Cho, personal communication, January 19, 2010). This means having nonprofits stay connected to the latest demographic trends as well as making sure that their organizational structures reflect these trends. This may include increasing board and leadership diversity at the organization (Bell, Moyers, & Wolfred, 2006) as well as utilizing ethnic media and continually listening to the cultural expertise of community leaders (Rice, 2007). Furthermore, nonprofits should commit themselves to training “competent [bi/multilingual] staff” to provide “competent interpretation.” While this kind of staff training in cultural competence is necessary, it is not sufficient. According to Shapiro, cultural competence also means having staff reflect “basic community sense, respect, and civility” (B. Shapiro, personal communication, August 11, 2009).

Third and last, nonprofits must be prepared to respond to new challenges as immigrants bypass urban areas for suburban enclaves. These “new immigrant gateways” (Singer et al., 2008a) require a more “targeted outreach” (A. Sprague, personal communication, July 9, 2009) concerning language access on the part of nonprofit organizations and a more sophisticated array of public/private partnerships, due to the lack of organizational infrastructure to serve immigrant populations in the suburbs. Thus it will become even more important to shine a light on the collaborative practices of nonprofit organizations and local government in the work of language access throughout the United States (S. Cho, personal communication, January 19, 2010).

Glossary of Acronyms

CIO = Council of Indian Organizations

CLS = Community Legal Services

CSS = Catholic Social Services

DHHS = Department of Health and Human Services

DOJ = Department of Justice

ESL = English as a Second Language

HIAS = Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society

ICMA = International City/County Management Association

LEP = Limited English Proficiency

MDO = Managing Director’s Office

MPI = Migration Policy Institute

NSC = Nationalities Service Center

OMA = Office of Multicultural Affairs

PICC = Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition

PPD = Philadelphia Police Department

PPDAI = Philadelphia Police Department Authorized Interpreters

SEAMAAC = Southeast Asian Mutual Assistant Associations Coalition

SSA = Social Security Administration

USCIS = United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I am deeply grateful to Hannah Klein, a graduate student in Villanova’s master of public administration program, for helping me research the background for this article. Special thanks also are reserved for the reviewers and the editors of Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quarterly for their helpful comments.

Author’s Note

This is a revised version of a paper delivered at the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Associations (ARNOVA) conference in Toronto, Canada in November 2011.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Catherine E. Wilson is associate professor in the Department of Public Administration and the Augustine and Culture Seminar Program at Villanova University. She is also the nonprofit coordinator in the University’s master of public administration program.

References

Alfisi

(2009, April). Language barriers to justice. Washington Lawyer, 23(8), 18-25.

American Institutes for Research. (2005, September). Executive summary: A patient-centered guide to implementing language access services in healthcare organizations (pp. 1-33). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Minority Health.

Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force. (2009, March 12). Catholic Social Services. Philadelphia, PA.

Baker

W. E.

Harris

P. A.

(2009, Spring). Navigating immigration policy at the local level. Public Manager, 1-4.

Bell

Moyers

Wolfred

(2006). Daring to lead: A national study of nonprofit executive leadership (pp. 1-40). San Francisco, CA: Compass Point Nonprofit Services & The Meyer Foundation.

Benavides

A. D.

Hernández

J. C. T.

(2007, July). Serving diverse communities—Cultural competency. Public Management, 14-18.

Boyd

R. F.

Jr. (2003, April). Improving access to services for persons with Limited English Proficiency. Police Chief, 70(4), 134-135.

Cassel

(2006, July). Language access in the Philadelphia Police Department. Paper presented at the National Community Policing Conference: Leading the way to a safer nation, Washington, DC.

Chetkovich

Kunreuther

(2006). From the ground up: Grassroots organizations making social change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

10.

Cho

(2011, October 25). Beyond the bodega: Supporting immigrant entrepreneurs to foster wider economic growth. Paper presented at the National Immigrant Integration Conference, Seattle, WA.

11.

City of Philadelphia: Office of the Managing Director. (2007, December 3). Memo: MDO directive 67: Language access policy and plan for operating departments. Philadelphia, PA: Author.

12.

City of Philadelphia: Office of the Managing Director (2008, November). An international destination point: Executive summary report by the International Philadelphia Work Group, 1-15. Retrieved from: http://www.phila.gov/globalphiladelphia/PDFs/WorkGroupExecutiveSummary.pdf

13.

Clinton

W. J.

President (2000, August 11). Executive order 13166: Improving access to services for persons with limited English proficiency.

14.

Codó

(2008). Immigration and bureaucratic control: Language practices in public administration. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

15.

Cole

(2004, December). Cultural competence now mainstream medicine: Responding to increased diversity and changing demographics. Postgraduate Medicine, 116(6), 51-53.

16.

De Cola

(2011). Making language access to health care meaningful: The need for a federal health care interpreters’ statute. Journal of Law and Health, 58, 151-182.

17.

De Filippis

Fisher

Shragge

(2010). Contesting community: The limits and potential of local organizing. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

18.

Elbers

Schulpen

(2011). Decision-making in partnerships for development: Explaining the influence of local partners. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 795-812.

19.

E Pluribus Unum Award Ceremony. (2011, May 18). Migration Policy Institute. Washington, DC.

20.

Galaskiewicz

Bielefeld

Dowell

(2006). Networks and organizational growth: A study of community-based nonprofits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 337-380.

21.

Gambetta

Burgess

(2011). Immigrant integration: Resource access and cultural exchange. National League of Cities: City Practice Brief, 1-8.

22.

Gazley

(2008). Beyond the contract: The scope and nature of informal government-nonprofit partnerships. Public Administration Review, 68, 141-154.

23.

Gazley

(2010). Linking collaborative capacity to performance measurement in government-nonprofit partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 653-673.

24.

Gazley

Brudney

J. L.

(2007). The purpose (and perils) of government-nonprofit partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 389-415.

25.

Gibbs

G. R.

(2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London, UK: Sage.

26.

Global Philadelphia. (2011). What is Global Philadelphia? Retrieved from http://www.phila.gov/globalphiladelphia/about.html

27.

Global Philadelphia (2012a). Community resources: Welcoming Center for New Pennsylvanians. Retrieved from: http://www.phila.gov/globalphiladelphia/resources/welcomingCenter.html

28.

Global Philadelphia (2012b). International Philadelphia Work Group. Retrieved from: http://www.phila.gov/globalphiladelphia/workGroup.html

29.

Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees. (2011). Immigrant Integration Toolkit: Section 02: Executive Summary, 9-16. Retrieved from: http://www.gcir.org/system/files/09-16_exec_summ.pdf

30.

Gupta

Torres

(2010, May). Providing language access services in a global economy. ICMA Press, 92(4). Retrieved from http://webapps.icma.org/pm/9204/public/pmplus2.cfm?author=Anuj%20Gupta%20and%20David%20Torres…title=Providing%20Language%20Access%20Services%20in%20a%20Global%20Economy…subtitle=

31.

Hung

(2007). Immigrant nonprofit organizations in U.S. metropolitan areas. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 707-729.

32.

Khademian

A. M.

(2002). Working with culture: The way the job gets done in public programs. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

33.

Lo Bianco

(2010). The importance of language policies and multiculturalism for cultural diversity. International Social Science Journal, 61(199), 37-67.

34.

(2011, Spring). The right to understand your doctor: Protecting language access rights in healthcare. Boston College Third World Law Journal, 31, 377-403.

35.

Migration Policy Institute. (2013). Language access policies at the state and local level. Retrieved from http://www.migrationinformation.org/integration/language_portal/doc4.cfm

36.

Molina

L. M.

(2008). Language access to Louisiana courts: A failure to provide fundamental access to justice. Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law, 10(1), 1-26.

37.

Mulé

(2010, May-June). Language access 101: The rights of Limited-English Proficient individuals. Clearinghouse Review Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, 44(1-2), 24-31.

38.

Nationalities Service Center. (2012). Services for Businesses. Retrieved from http://www.nscphila.org/translation-interpretation/services-for-businesses/.

39.

Naturalization Ceremony. (2009, October 3). Chateau Granieri. Jeffersonville, PA.

40.

Nutter

M. M. A.

(2008). Executive Order No. 9-08: Access to city programs and activities for individuals with limited English proficiency. Philadelphia, PA: Author.

41.

Nutter

M. M. A.

(2009). Executive Order No. 8-09: Policy concerning access of immigrants to city services. Philadelphia, PA: Author.

42.

Opening the doors to city services. (2006, May). The grassroots business development task force report, 1-25. Philadelphia, PA.

43.

Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition (2012). Language access in healthcare: Progress made and challenges ahead - May 9. Retrieved from: http://www.paimmigrant.org/events/language-access-healthcare-progress-made-and-challenges-ahead

44.

Philadelphia Police Department. (2005, December 9). Directive 71: Limited English language proficiency. Philadelphia, PA: Author.

45.

Pierre

(Ed.). (2000). Debating governance: Authority, steering, and governance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

46.

Rhoades

(2010, February). English-language access for Philadelphia’s Spanish speakers: A simple innovation to reduce juvenile delinquency. Philadelphia Social Innovations Journal, 1-12.

47.

Rice

(2007). Promoting cultural competency in public administration and public service delivery: Utilizing self-assessment tools and performance measures. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(1), 41-57.

48.

Rice

(2008). A primer for developing a public agency service ethos of cultural competency in public services programming and public services delivery. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(1), 21-38.

49.

Rubaii-Barrett

(2008, October). Immigration reform: An intergovernmental imperative (ICMA policy issue white paper, pp. 1-44). Washington, DC: ICMA.

50.

Rubaii-Barrett

(2009, May). The case for immigrant integration. Public Management, 22-26.

51.

Salamon

L. M.

(1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

52.

Shah

Rahman

Khashu

(2007, March). Overcoming language barriers: Solutions for law enforcement (pp. 1-20). New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

53.

Shapiro

(2010, October 6). Nonprofit management and service delivery, Villanova University, Villanova, PA.

54.

Singer

Hardwick

S. W.

Brettell

(2008a). Twenty-first century gateways: Immigrant incorporation in suburban America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

55.

Singer

Vitiello

Katz

Park

(2008b). Recent immigration to Philadelphia: Regional change in a re-emerging gateway (pp. 1-40). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

56.

Spencer

S. B.

(2011). Culture as structure in emerging civic organizations in Russia. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 1073-1091.

57.

Suleiman

L. P.

(2003). Beyond cultural competence: Language access and Latino civil rights. Child Welfare, 82, 185-200.

58.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011, December). Immigrant integration: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services could better assess its grant program, 1-46.

59.

Wang

(2009, Summer). Eliminating language barriers for LEP individuals: Promising practices from the public sector. Sebastopol, CA: Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees.

60.

Welcoming Center for New Pennsylvanians (2012). Local communities: How immigration affects native-born Americans. Retrieved from: http://www.welcomingcenter.org/impact/receiving-communities

61.

Yang

Persellin

Davis

(2003, September-October). Advocacy for language access at Minneapolis Social Security offices. Clearinghouse Review Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, 37, 362-368.