8842 Addendum 3.pdf

Rev. 07/28/2016-8842 Addendum 3.doc

Finance Department David P. Schmiedicke, Finance Director City-County Building, Room 406 Purchasing Services 210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard Madison, Wisconsin 53703 Phone: (608) 266-4521 Fax: (608) 266-5948 finance@cityofmadison.com www.cityofmadison.com/finance/purchasing

DATE: Monday, August 12, 2019

RE: ADDENDUM 3

8842-0-2019-JA

Learning Management System

Notice to All Bidders:

Please see the attached vendor questions and City responses.

Bidders must acknowledge receipt of this addendum accordingly on RFP Form B, Receipt Forms and Submittal Checklist.

Please direct questions to the Purchasing contact person below.

Thank you, John Alliet City of Madison Purchasing Services

PH: (608) 266-4523

jalliet@cityofmadison.com

1) Regarding Business/Functional Requirements, Section 7.1, Capacity to offer and support a variety of payment applications:

a) Please define this requirement. Is the City looking for functionality for internal billing, billing and payment transactions for contractors, or billing and payment transactions for City of Madison residents?

Billing and payment transactions from residents or non-City partners (i.e., a local agency paying for its team members to attend a training session)

b) Please further define the following: variety of payment applications. Is the City looking for credit card transactions in the LMS? Any other potential types of transactions?

Credit/debit card are minimum requirements, but it would be ideal of PayPal, Apple Pay, Venmo or other electronic transactions were available.

c) Is the City looking at payments to be a revenue stream for the LMS?

This is not a primary goal for the LMS, but there is potential for training activities to contribute to City of Madison’s revenues.

d) Has the City considered whether this billing is preferred on a transaction basis, or a renewable license to be reused for unique users?

More likely to be on a transactional basis.

e) Does the City require this functionality to be working at the time of go-live, or is the City looking for this functionality in the future? If so, when?

Within at least 1 year of implementation.

2) Does the ecommerce portion need to be listed in the base price, or can it be listed as an add-on? For example, will you need ecommerce right away or is it something that will be used a little further down the road and therefore could be added on at that time?

Add-on is acceptable. We do not currently have an LMS nor do we have an ecommerce solution for learning management, so the sooner the better would be great for us. We’d like to have a working ecommerce solution within 1 year of implementation.

3) Regarding Appendix D, Business/Functional Requirements:

a) In section 1.6 can you please provide more detail of the vision here? What type of content will the general public access? Should they be added as users to the main City of Madison account?

We are open to different implementation and permissioning models, but two key sets of users

(1) Non-employees with important roles in our government (e.g., members of City Boards, Commissions, and Committees) who will need access. These folks could be treated as “employees” for all intents and purposes

(2) General public interested in accessing a limited number of self-paced modules or webinars/recordings (e.g., “How City of Madison government works”)

b) In section 1.7, can you please provide specifics on which languages will need to be supported?

Hmong, Chinese Mandarin and Spanish

c) In section 3.1.1 can you please provide more specifics on what type of reporting you’d like for this?

We’d like to compare pre- and post-test, particularly related to learning outcomes. We currently collect the data via Survey Monkey, enter both datasets into excel, analyze, and add conditionals to provide high level overview of learning.

Similarly for individuals, we collect qualitative and quantitative data on paper. We’d like some way to track it electronically, ideally, associated with the learner’s profile, so that we can return to that data to track improvement.

d) In section 3.1.6 will it suffice to upload files or images of these items? Or, will the data from the Scantron need to integrate somewhere?

File upload or image will suffice. It would be used on a limited basis and the goal is to track that a test was completed rather than integrate data into other functions.

e) In section 3.2.6 what formats would be desired?

iCalendar/.ics, able to be pushed via email or other notification to Outlook

f) In section 3.3.3 will a typed signature suffice or will users need to sign their name freehand?

Typed signature will suffice

g) In section 3.3.4 are there examples of current forms being used that can be provided.

Sign-up sheets, pre-course surveys (e.g., to gather information about participants’ expectations).

In general, we are interested in whether we can build a form to collect information related to a course rather than using out-of-systems tools. The distribution, collection, and storage in-system would be fantastic.

h) For section 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 can you please provide detail to distinguish the two? Regarding the virtual workspaces - what does the city prefer? Learning cohorts, discussion forums/communities, etc.

Virtual classrooms would largely be used in conjunction with in-person courses (yes, using a cohort model). Project workspaces may look/feel very much like a virtual classroom, but for cross-functional teams who need space to share information, ideas, and to communicate outside of real time.

i) For section 3.5.6 which social platforms should the communications push to?

LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram

j) Does section 3.5.8 tie to sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2?

Not necessarily, but OK if it leverages the same tools. An example of 3.5.8 might be the ability for me to post a message on someone’s profile or share some type of badge/appreciation. 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 are more about two-sided communications related to the course or project. Note that

3.4.1 is high and required, 3.4.2 and 3.4.8 are medium and not required.

k) For section 3.6.6 can you provide more details?

Ability to schedule a meeting (e.g., coaching conversation or training evaluation), take notes, and track the meeting status (e.g., scheduled, in progress, complete).

l) For section 3.6.9 can you expand on what type of ILT you’d like to track? Will it be blended learning or hands on training? Both?

We need the ability to manage rosters, course assets, tools and resources, and assessments/evaluations for both types.

m) For section 3.6.16 should the system include its own webinar function or will integration suffice?

Can you please confirm which webinar tool are you using today? Is it Mediasite or Skype for Business?

Integration will suffice. We do not currently have a webinar tool for general use within the City.

Interim solutions include MediaSite + WebEx by a very limited number of users. There is a plan for Skype for Business rollout (potentially mid-2020) so that would be ideal.

n) For section 3.7.1 what content is desired?

We are assessing our content needs at this time, so we do not have a specific list of content needs. We are more interested in understanding the vendors’ offerings (i.e., do they have in-house catalog?) and ability to integrate off-the-shelf content (vs. a need to build all modules from scratch)

o) For section 3.8.3 are you looking for a skills matrix per person essentially?

It may show up as a skills matrix, skill or competency “tags” on a profile, or another way for the system to recognize the query “Show me all the people who are tagged with X skills/competency”.

p) For section 4.5 can you provide an example of what metadata you’d like to include?

Definitions of terms, links to resources

q) For section 6.2 are you looking for integration with other systems besides Skype and Mediasite?

Skype and MediaSite are the two we would be most likely to need integration with.

r) For section 6.3 can you expand on what type of integration is required?

We are more interested in interoperability (rather than formal integration) here. For example, when I download a report, can it be downloaded to excel? Can I add a word attachment? Can I push a calendar appointment to Outlook?

s) For section 7.1 can you expand on which applications are a priority? Is it ADP?

We do not have a payment system in place. We currently invoice customers, they send payments through to finance cashier’s office.

t) For section 9 on data outputs:

i) We do not allow direct SQL queries from customers. Would the city accept working with our team to pull data whenever they need it?

We’d like some tool that we can use at the city, even if it’s not direct SQL (i.e., a front end interface). It is unlikely that we would be able to work with your team every time we need data.

ii) If so, how frequently would you want to pull such data that is not available in our standard reporting features?

It will depend on the standard reporting catalog, but I would anticipate at least weekly, if not daily requests for ad hoc data pulls

iii) Can some examples of the data you want to pull with direct SQL queries be provided?

Participation in courses by demographic group over specific periods of time, Learning outcomes and satisfaction by instructor, Attendance by department, Average time to completion for X course

4) In Appendix D, Section 3.6.16, with regards to Webinars, are you looking to stream live webinars within the LMS to a large audience, or simply link to / upload recorded webinars?

Both are anticipated needs.

5) Regarding Business/Functional requirement 1.7, please describe the access required for to Limited

English proficient (LEP) individuals.

See attached Language Access Plan

6) Regarding Business/Functional requirement 3.1.1, a basic method (asynchronous) is to do this online is (1) pre-test in a pre-requisite lesson, (2) provide a test setup lesson (e.g., a problem statement, scenario, video, etc.), followed by (3) a post-test lesson to gather learner inputs created in our forms engine.

a) What “observations” do you mean?

Are you requiring live interactive (synchronous) pre-test/post-test operations? If so please provide a scenario to clarify how you need this to work?

Our City agencies include many with demonstrated physical skills assessed by a human evaluator/instructor. For example, a Metro bus driver will be observed by the evaluator using a standard form, continue training runs and simulations, then be reevaluated during a probationary period. Evaluators provide post-evaluation feedback forms that show progress as well as diagnose areas for improvement. We’d like to be able to track that within the system.

7) Regarding Business/Functional requirement 3.3.3, in what scenario(s) do you need to use electronic signatures?

Note that this is a low priority and not required. Would be great to have electronic signatures for learning contracts, sign-off on evaluations and project plans.

8) Regarding Business/Functional requirement 3.7.2, the LMS has capability to support sequenced learning opportunities such as:

a) course/module/lesson/assessment/feedback creation – by admins, course developers, etc.

learning programs (e.g., managing certification programs, certificate programs, CEU programs, mandatory programs with compliance management, etc.

Please list any learning programs you require as part of the project implementation.

Licensure and Certification programs and expiration dates, CEU programs, mandatory programs with compliance management (for citywide programs)

9) Regarding Business/Functional requirement 3.8.3, please state which roles would use this functionality, and clarify with a scenario.

Ideally, end user would be able to upload his/her/their attendance and any electronic assets (e.g., e-certificate) onto his/her/their profile. Ex. – I have completed a Change Management course at the University of Wisconsin – Madison School of Business. UW School of Business furnishes an electronic certificate of completion. I would like to upload a PDF of that certificate and note on my profile that I completed the course on May 16, 2019. My supervisor or anyone in the approved permissions groups would be able to see that completed program and dates.

10) Regarding Business/Functional requirement 3.8.4, please clarify roles requiring this function and a scenario with a screening date and expiration date.

End users or their supervisors should be able to enter their licensure expiration dates (e.g., CPR training for Parks employees). It would be ideal for the supervisor to run a report of upcoming expiration dates and for end users to get updates on upcoming expiration dates.

11) Regarding Business/Functional requirement 6.3:

a) What system does City use to manage employee data to provision the LMS? Munis?

We are exploring two options: Munis or Neogov.

Does the integration you envision require one-way or two-way integration?

Munis would likely be unidirectional sync of constituent data to LMS profiles. Neogov has potential for bidirectional sync of constituent data TO LMS, with onboarding/job role related information FROM LMS to Neogov.

In item 26, page 11, you note systems that might require integration. What specific ones do you require in the project to Go Live?

• InsightVision (Strategy Management Software)

• MediaSite (Video Streaming)

• Munis (Financial System)

• Skype for Business

• Neogov (HR/Talent Management System)

None of the above are required as full integrations for Go-Live, provided we can import constituent data from either Munis or Neogov to create initial LMS constituent records

12) Regarding Business/Functional requirement 7.1, please describe:

i) What products or services are to be sold through LMS eCommerce?

eLearning courses

ii) Who will be the buyers?

Non-employees who will be charged for courses

iii) What payment gateway you are using/will you use to collect payments.

We do not have a payment gateway currently, so we are open to recommendations.

iv) What specific payment scenario is required in the initial implementation?

Not required for implementation, but within one year of implementation.

13) Regarding Business/Functional requirement 8.1, please list the major workflow relationships the vendor should implement in the initial Go Live project.

Scenario A: Employee would like to attend a class, but needs supervisor approval. Employee requests approval from supervisor through LMS, flows to supervisor for approve or reject. Employee is notified.

Scenario B: Prospective participant would like to attend a class. Class is full, but a waitlist is available. Employee receives waitlist update. When final roster is developed, participant receives status notification.

14) What type of integration were you hoping to have with InsightVision and the LMS? Does

InsightVision have any developer apis that we can utilize?

There is no formal plan for sync between the two systems, but it might be advantageous for us to track performance management activities requiring training/support (conducted in InsightVision) in the LMS. In that case, would be a unidirectional sync from InsightVision to LMS.

The ability to use the application for reporting and performance management. The integrations with other systems are not fully defined and could change over time. The objective of the question is to find out what are your capabilities and processes to integrate with external systems. It may be that data needs to be pushed to other places or it may be that it needs to be pulled from other places.

15) What type of integration were you hoping to have with Munis and the LMS? Does Munis have any developer apis that we can utilize?

Unidirectional sync of basic constituent data from Munis to LMS. No need for Munis to receive data.

The ability to incorporate role based permissions/changes, reporting, opportunities based on step changes to an employee’s position with the city and connect to the library. According to the Munis website there is an API Toolkit. The objective of the question is to find out what are your capabilities and processes to integrate with external systems. It may be that data needs to be pushed to other places or it may be that it needs to be pulled from other places.

16) What type of integration with Neogov were you hoping to have with the LMS? For example, did you want information such as an employee's position, department, manager brought over (sync) to the LMS? Did you want training records to be sent back to Neogov? Does Neogov have any developer apis that we can utilize?

If we do sync any data, it would be most useful if it was a bidirectional sync. Examples of data to be sent TO Neogov FROM LMS = completion of onboarding activities, tracking of completed performance evaluations that may live in LMS. FROM Neogov TO LMS = basic constituent data

Based on our requirements gathering process, the need for role based permissions is requested. We currently use MUNIS for the employee position information. The objective of the question is to find out what are your capabilities and processes to integrate with external systems. It may be that data needs to be pushed to other places or it may be that it needs to be pulled from other places.

17) When you talk about migrating training materials from the existing system do you mean 1.) That your existing materials will work in the LMS and can be uploaded to the LMS by you 2.) You want us to migrate all of your materials for you from where they currently reside into courses in the LMS for a fee? 3.) You would like us to set-up an integrated repository where your training materials reside (i.e. Sharepoint) and course designers can pick materials to add to courses from within the LMS?

What types of files do you have? (i.e., PowerPoint, Slideshare, PDFs, SCORM, Word, Excel, etc.). If option #2: what is the approximate number/size of files that need to be migrated?

We do not have a legacy system, so there will be no formal migration of content from system to system. RE: scenario 3, we will need ability to upload PowerPoint, Slideshare, PDF, SCORM, Word, Excel from Sharepoint or like repository.

18) In 3.2 of the main RFP, point #26 (Page 11), are you looking for SSO, APIs, custom integration, etc.?

It would be helpful to receive more details on the specific type of integration desired for each of the systems listed:

a) InsightVision (Strategy Management Software) - reporting

b) MediaSite (Video Streaming) – Webinars, Video streaming

c) Munis (Financial System) – role based permissions/changes, reporting, opportunities based on step changes to an employee’s position with the city and connect to the library

d) Skype for Business – video and audio conferencing, email

e) Neogov (HR/Talent Management System) – role based permissions

The integrations with other systems are not fully defined and could change over time. The objective of the question is to find out what are your capabilities and processes to integrate with external systems. It may be that data needs to be pushed to other places or it may be that it needs to be pulled from other places.

19) Is City of Madison Purchasing Services able to purchase off an existing cooperative agreement or are you required to purchase from your vendor of choice directly?

The City can purchase based on existing cooperative agreements. The purchase can be made from the vendor directly or through a reseller.

20) Regarding the decision timeline:

a) When will the final vendor be selected?

Ideally, in early November, but by December 31, 2019 at the very latest.

b) When will the award be made?

As soon as possible following selection, ideally in late 2019 or early 2020.

21) Regarding the Rollout Timeline:

a) On which date would the City of Madison like to begin Implementation?

We would like to begin design cycles as soon as contract is executed.

b) On which date would the City of Madison like to go live with the LMS?

We are flexible on Go-Live date based on the suggested timeline by the vendor, but we would prefer to go live with at least some portion of the LMS by July 2020.

22) Which divisions or departments of the city will utilize the LMS (police department, fire department, IT, public works, etc.)?

All departments except fire and police (who have their own LMS systems tied to state and federal compliance). https://www.cityofmadison.com/agencies

23) Should the system include a feature to track training for ISO for the fire department?

N/A – fire will not be using this LMS

24) Should the system track inventory for quartermaster for the police department?

N/A – police will not be using this LMS

25) Would a set of state-specific policies be valuable to the city for law enforcement and firefighters?

N/A – police and fire will not be using this LMS

26) How many total users with use the LMS at full capacity?

Roughly 3500 users

27) Who will be the learners using the LMS? (e.g., employees, customers, citizens)? Please estimate numbers of each?

Roughly 2400 full time employees, 600 part time/temporary employees, 500 non-employee/citizens

28) Please estimate the total annual number of course enrollments for all learners, at full expected capacity (or average number of course enrollments for all learners.)

https://www.cityofmadison.com/agencies

Roughly 10-12 enrollments per year per learner (at capacity)

29) Please estimate percentages of those course enrollments will be: (a) live courses (including live webinars) and (b) eLearning courses?

40% ILT, 60% eLearning courses

30) Please estimate what % of eLearning enrollments will be in courses requiring SCORM delivery.

60% will require SCORM delivery

31) Do you have an LMS now? What technology are you using now to manage learning?

No, we do not have an LMS. We are managing via ILT (using event management software to track registrations), backend tracking via Excel spreadsheet, and content sharing via email.

32) How will you define the success of the LMS?

All new employees are compliant with required course material within 30 days of hire; all supervisors/managers achieve training milestones within 90 days of promotion/hire; increased access to employees outside of standard 8-5 schedule; improved learning outcomes associated with Performance Excellence and core leadership competencies

33) What are your training challenges?

No central repository of training materials; courses are largely delivered ILT and therefore miss large numbers of potential learners due to scheduling; lack of blended learning means that most course time is spent sharing information rather than meeting higher order skills in Bloom’s taxonomy; we do not adequately address learner access and needs re: language, cognitive or physical difference, or learning styles

34) What are your internal challenges (budget, politics, legal mandate, etc.)?

Budget, lack of existing training policies, current state is a very decentralized training program

35) What are your organizational learning and training goals? How do you see the LMS impacting these goals?

Organizational Development’s charge is to build capacity for individuals, teams, and the overall organization to positively impact employee success in the work place. Having an LMS will provide access to more capacity-building resources and create space for teams to work together to improve organizational learning.

36) What impacts do you expect the LMS to have on your business (training compliance, revenue growth, citizen engagement, etc.)?

Training compliance, employee development/promotion/support during the life of their employment with the City which leads to greater employee engagement and retention, modest revenue growth, some improvement in community engagement.

37) What outcomes are most critical for your Executives and civic leaders?

Demonstrated ROI; improved equity through access by employees, and community

38) What is driving you to market? Why now?

The City of Madison enjoys fantastic employee engagement numbers, but our recent Employee Voice Survey showed a tremendous need for employee development and stronger communication throughout the City. This LMS is not the only answer, but one lever that can provide greater access to more learners, support ongoing development for our employees, and communicate more effectively internally and with our community and partners.

City of Madison, Wisconsin

LANGUAGE ACCESS PLAN

Prepared by the Department of Civil Rights Norman D. Davis, Director

City of Madison, Wisconsin

LANGUAGE ACCESS PLAN

Table of Contents

Introduction Policy Statement Authority Need for Language Services Scope Development of the Language Access Plan

Definitions

Standards for Service Delivery Who may provide interpretation and translation?

Interpreter competency Translator competency Officially approved providers Appropriate use of staff Non-city-staff volunteers

What must be interpreted or translated?

Official Notices Way-finding Signage

Interpretation Procedures ESL Interpretation

At the front desk On the phone At a meeting or event

ASL Interpretation In person At a meeting or event Video Remote Interpretation (VRI)

Translation Procedures Document translation into a language other than English Computer-Aided Realtime Translation (CART) Internet Access

Equipment Access Assistive Listening Devices Remote Interpreting

Phases of Language Service Implementation Phase 1: Communicating Existing Services

Phase 2: Meeting Essential Language Access Needs Phase 3: Language Access Organization Phase 4: Complete Service Delivery and Accountability

Responsibilities Staff Training Monitoring and Updating Language Access Plan Departmental Responsibilities

Reporting Compliance Language Identification Chart

Accountability

Billing Financial Recommendations

Appendices Appendix A - Top 15 Non-English Languages by State Appendix B - City Employee Survey Results Appendix C - Language Access Plan Timeline Appendix D - Language Chart Appendix E - Instructions to Connect with City’s Interpretation Vendor Appendix F - “Tips on Serving the Multi-Lingual External Client.”

Appendix G - “Communicating with Deaf People at the Front Desk” Appendix H - Instructions to Connect with City’s VRI Vendor Appendix I - Instructions for Sound Amplification Devices

Introduction

Policy Statement

The City of Madison ensures meaningful access to City services shall not be denied or restricted to any individual because of limited proficiency in English or any disability which may limit the ability to communicate in English. The City is committed to provide equal opportunities in all programs, services, and activities to Limited-English proficient (LEP) individuals. This commitment stems from overall City goal of being a welcoming and inclusive city for all members of the community.

To provide this access, the City shall provide written translation and oral interpretation, free of cost, to LEP individuals to ensure meaningful, accurate, and equal access to programs, benefits, and activities. We monitor demographic changes and population trends on an annual basis to ensure awareness of the changing demographics and language needs in our service area. We discourage the use of family members or friends as an interpreter because this may violate the persons’ privacy and disclose sensitive and confidential information. It is our policy to inform all customers with Limited-English proficiency of their right to free language assistance and interpreter services at no cost.

This Language Access Plan shall serve to inform the City of Madison’s staff, leaders, elected officials and sub-contracted vendors regarding policies, procedures and practices to provide meaningful access to City services for LEP individuals.

Authority

As a recipient of federal funds, the City of Madison is subject to Title II and Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits discrimination based on national origin), and Executive Order 13166, which mandates meaningful access to City programs, services, and information for persons with Limited- English Proficiency. Meaningful access means that LEP individuals are given adequate information, can understand the services and benefits available, can receive the services for which they are eligible, and can communicate the relevant circumstances of their situation to the service provider.

In addition, the City’s Affirmative Action Ordinance, Madison General Ordinance 39.02 holds that the official policy of the City of Madison is to provide equal employment and promotional opportunities and equal access to public services for all persons from all segments of the Madison community without regard to their disability, national origin, or other protective categories, and prohibits the practice of unfair discrimination in access to public services, employment and contracting for these reasons. The City is thus required to take “affirmative and direct action … to make equal employment, access to public service, and promotional opportunities a reality and correct the effects of past patterns of inequality.”

Further, in September of 2016, the City’s Common Council adopted a resolution which prohibited the use of machine translation for official City of Madison communications, including the City website. The resolution also directed the Department of Civil Rights to develop a comprehensive language access plan to be submitted to the Common Council by June 2017.

A second resolution was introduced to the Common Council on June 20, 2017 to extend the deadline by which this plan should be submitted. The extension directed the Department of Civil Rights to present an update on the Language Access Plan to Common Council in September 2017, with the final report due in December 2017.

Need for Language Services

Madison’s primary non-English language groups (Spanish, Hmong, and Chinese Mandarin) were identified using data from the past four years of language assistance provided by the City of Madison. This information was gathered from review of the following: documents translated, interpreters requested, and languages utilized via telephone interpreter services. The breakdown of the City’s population is detailed in the chart below. See also Top 15 Non- English Languages by State (Appendix A).

Subject Madison city, Wisconsin Total Percent Percent of specified language speakers Speak English only or speak English "very well"

Percent speak English only or speak English "very well"

Speak English less than "very well"

Percent speak English less than

"very well"

Estimate Margin of

Error

Estimate Margin of

Error

Estimate Margin of

Error

Estimate Margin of

Error

Estimate Margin of

Error

Estimate Margin of

Error Population 5 years and over

229,416 +/-596 (X) (X) 215,626 +/- 1,271

94.0% +/-0.5 13,790 +/- 1,104

6.0% +/-0.5

Speak only English

193,231 +/- 1,585

84.2% +/-0.6 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Speak a language other than English

36,185 +/- 1,413

15.8% +/-0.6 22,395 +/- 1,185

61.9% +/-2.5 13,790 +/- 1,104

38.1% +/-2.5

Speak a language other than English

Spanish 13,634 +/- 1,093

5.9% +/-0.5 7,961 +/-688 58.4% +/-4.0 5,673 +/-821 41.6% +/-4.0

5 to 17 years old

3,758 +/-517 1.6% +/-0.2 2,777 +/-453 73.9% +/-6.7 981 +/-286 26.1% +/-6.7

18 to 64 years old

9,581 +/-787 4.2% +/-0.3 5,068 +/-497 52.9% +/-4.9 4,513 +/-702 47.1% +/-4.9

65 years old and over

295 +/-97 0.1% +/-0.1 116 +/-70 39.3% +/-15.3 179 +/-57 60.7% +/-15.3

Other Indo- European languages

7,505 +/-793 3.3% +/-0.3 5,798 +/-708 77.3% +/-4.5 1,707 +/-378 22.7% +/-4.5

5 to 17 years old

756 +/-193 0.3% +/-0.1 592 +/-184 78.3% +/-9.5 164 +/-75 21.7% +/-9.5

18 to 64 years old

6,127 +/-685 2.7% +/-0.3 4,781 +/-641 78.0% +/-5.0 1,346 +/-324 22.0% +/-5.0

65 years old and over

622 +/-184 0.3% +/-0.1 425 +/-131 68.3% +/-12.0 197 +/-106 31.7% +/-12.0

Asian and Pacific Island languages

13,704 +/-787 6.0% +/-0.3 7,770 +/-752 56.7% +/-4.3 5,934 +/-667 43.3% +/-4.3

5 to 17 years old

2,178 +/-298 0.9% +/-0.1 1,340 +/-244 61.5% +/-10.5 838 +/-283 38.5% +/-10.5

18 to 64 years old

10,986 +/-681 4.8% +/-0.3 6,226 +/-702 56.7% +/-4.7 4,760 +/-542 43.3% +/-4.7

65 years old and over

540 +/-122 0.2% +/-0.1 204 +/-88 37.8% +/-14.6 336 +/-113 62.2% +/-14.6

Other languages

1,342 +/-350 0.6% +/-0.2 866 +/-263 64.5% +/-10.5 476 +/-190 35.5% +/-10.5

5 to 17 years old

145 +/-113 0.1% +/-0.1 86 +/-86 59.3% +/-24.0 59 +/-49 40.7% +/-24.0

18 to 64 years old

1,017 +/-281 0.4% +/-0.1 669 +/-246 65.8% +/-12.1 348 +/-135 34.2% +/-12.1

65 years old and over

180 +/-94 0.1% +/-0.1 111 +/-62 61.7% +/-30.4 69 +/-74 38.3% +/-30.4

Citizens 18 and over

All citizens 18 years old and over

184,557 +/- 1,195

(X) (X) 180,550 +/- 1,303

97.8% +/-0.3 4,007 +/-583 2.2% +/-0.3

Speak only English

169,334 +/- 1,398

91.8% +/-0.6 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Speak a language other than English

15,223 +/- 1,037

8.2% +/-0.6 11,216 +/-884 73.7% +/-3.3 4,007 +/-583 26.3% +/-3.3

Spanish 5,516 +/-680 3.0% +/-0.4 4,060 +/-522 73.6% +/-5.9 1,456 +/-407 26.4% +/-5.9 Other languages

9,707 +/-782 5.3% +/-0.4 7,156 +/-684 73.7% +/-3.9 2,551 +/-430 26.3% +/-3.9

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Primary non-English language groups may change as new data is collected. The City’s Language Access Plan will be updated no less frequently than the citywide Title VI compliance plan by the Department of Civil Rights. For additional details on updating and monitoring the City’s Language Access Plan, refer to the section “Responsibilities.”

In addition, the City took the following steps to determine language needs and develop this Language Access Plan. These steps are outlined below in the section “Development of the Language Access Plan.” Further data sets will be identified and collected in order to ensure equitable access to language services for those who need them.

The need for comprehensive language access is evident from real-world examples. These instances represent a sampling of language access need and successful delivery:

An interpreter was scheduled to attend the Alcohol License Review Committee when an LEP individual applied for an alcohol license and had to go before the Alcohol License Review Committee.

A Deaf defendant in municipal court needed American Sign Language to communicate.

The Court supplied the defendant with an ASL interpreter through Video Relay to facilitate meaningful communication.

The Child Care Unit of the Community Development Division translated their Child Care Accreditation applications allowing Latino Child Care Providers to more easily apply for and maintain Accreditation with the State creating opportunities for culturally competent childcare services.

A Homeless family, who speaks Fulani, working with a local housing agency was able to obtain permanent housing after being connected with the City’s over-the-phone interpreter (OPI) service provider through the Library. Providing the community with resources has been a long held fundamental part of Library Services, and the over-the-phone interpreter service provider was able to assist them in providing quality services.

Scope

The provisions of this Language Access Plan shall apply to every department in the City of Madison except where indicated. Public Health Madison and Dane County is not subject to this Language Access Plan.

The services provided in this Language Access Plan shall be available to any City employee, vendor, visitor, client, or Madison resident where services are necessary to obtain meaningful access to City services.

Some examples of appropriate uses of language services described in this document include:

An LEP individual comes to a Madison Public Library location seeking information about how to find jobs in Dane County. An information clerk or librarian may use over-the-phone interpretation to help direct the patron to job seeker resources available through Madison Public Library.

A resident with a hearing disability would like to attend a Plan Commission meeting. An ASL interpreter shall be scheduled and be present at the meeting.

An LEP individual receives a parking ticket. The ticket shall contain information in primary languages indicating that language assistance is available at no cost. The parking ticket office will need to be ready to use the City’s over-the-phone interpreter service when an LEP individual calls.

City agencies will make vital information on their websites available in primary languages via written translations or video.

Development of the Language Access Plan

Resolution No. 34666 was passed by the City of Madison’s Common Council in 2016. This resolution tasked the Department of Civil Rights with the development of a comprehensive language access plan. The Department of Civil Rights, along with a group of community partners, worked towards the realization of this plan. In the course of this process, it became apparent that more information was needed regarding the structure of language services, community usage, staff needs, financial data, and more.

To that end, the City took the following steps to determine language needs and develop this Language Access Plan:

The Department of Civil Rights combined with community partners to form a Steering

Committee for better oversight of the Language Access Plan development. This Steering Committee was comprised of the following individuals: Department of Civil Rights Director, Division of Affirmative Action Manager, Disability Rights and Services Specialist, Affirmative Action Specialist, two additional Department of Civil Rights staff (one of which is bilingual), one bilingual staff person from Building Inspection Division, one bilingual staff person from Community Development Division, one staff person from Information Technology, an Alderperson who is also a language access expert, and one community language access planning expert.

Several focus groups were held to solicit feedback from community stakeholders regarding their knowledge of City services and language access needs.

o On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 a public meeting was held. Several members of the

Spanish-speaking community, and a few members of the Deaf community participated.

o On Tuesday, July 11, 2017, a Chinese Mandarin language focus group occurred.

o On Thursday, July 20, 2017, feedback was provided by Civil Rights Coordinators.

o On September 5, 2017, City Department and Division Heads were briefed regarding the Language Access Plan. The same were given an opportunity to give feedback on September 11, 2017.

o On October 18, 2017, a focus group occurred for members of the Deaf community.

o On October 24, 2017, a Hmong-language focus group occurred.

o On November 6, 2017, a focus group solicited feedback from professional interpreters and translators.

o On November 16, 2017, a focus group solicited feedback from UW-Madison staff regarding language access procedural aspects.

All employees of the City were given the opportunity to respond to a survey. The purpose of this survey was to collect feedback from City employees with regard to providing services when language barriers may arise. There were questions for all employees, with some specialized questions to be answered by bilingual employees, and some for emergency responders. Full survey results attached as Appendix B.

Additional process steps are outlined in the Language Access Plan timeline, attached as Appendix C.

For more detailed information regarding ongoing implementation measures, see the section “Phases of Language Service Implementation.”

Definitions

American Sign Language (ASL) – A language used predominantly by individuals who are Deaf or hard of hearing, which uses syntax that is distinct from spoken English.

Those who communicate in ASL as their primary language may or may not be able to speak, write, or lip-read in English.

Computer-Aided Realtime Translation (CART) – A method to provide access to spoken communication for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Is also referred to as “real-time captioning” or “Communication Access Realtime Translation”. It is defined as the instant translation of spoken English to English text using a computer or realtime software. The text can be displayed on many mediums, including: an individual’s computer, projected onto a screen, combined with a video, or other display systems.

English as a Second Language (ESL) – A term used to describe the use, study, and teaching of the English language by non-native English speakers in an English-speaking environment.

Interpretation - Interpretation is the conversion of a spoken message from one language to another while preserving the intent and meaning of the original message.

Limited English Proficient (LEP) Individual - A person who does not speak English as their primary language and who has a limited ability to speak, read, write or understand English. These individuals may be entitled to language assistance with respect to a particular type of service, benefit or encounter.

Meaningful Access – Access such that an LEP individual is given adequate information, can understand the services and benefits available, can receive the services for which the individual is eligible, and can communicate the relevant circumstances of the individual’s situation to the service provider.

Over-the-Phone Interpreter (OPI) Services (also known as telephonic interpreter services) – A means of interpretation that allows 24/7, on demand access to interpreter over-the-phone through a vendor with whom the City has contracted.

Primary Languages – The set of languages which includes English, American Sign Language (ASL), and the top three primary non-English language groups most commonly used in Madison.

Qualified Bilingual Staff – An employee who provides services in two languages and has had their language skills properly assessed and vetted. As part of the hiring process, this employee has been tested for their fluency in both languages and has a position description that identifies providing services in multiple languages as part of their work duties and responsibilities.

Translation - Translation is the conversion of a written message from one language to another while preserving the intent and meaning of the original message.

Video Remote Interpretation (VRI) – A means of interpretation which incorporates a computer or two-way video screen. It can be used to provide an individual with simultaneous signing or spoken interpretation of a conversation or meeting.

Vital Documents – Information or documents that are critical for accessing federally funded services or benefits, or are documents that are required by law. See the section “What must be interpreted or translated?” for more information.

Standards for Service Delivery

Who may provide interpretation and translation?

All interpretation and translation services must be made through approved vendors who meet the City’s obligations under federal and local authorities. In addition, standards for interpretation may be different than standards for translation. To ensure compliance, all requests for interpretation or translation services must be made through the Department of Civil Rights.

The City shall establish staff who shall be responsible for coordinating interpretation and translation services and monitoring competency standards. As of December 5, 2017, the City has no staff whose position description includes managing or coordinating language services.

Without a designated staff contact, the City may not be providing necessary language access services due to staffing shortage and lack of procedural guidance. The onboarding of these staff are described in the section “Phases of Language Service Implementation.”

Interpreter competency

The City will use competent and culturally sensitive interpreters, appropriate to the level of interpretation required by law. Interpretation is more than the ability to speak two or more languages. Interpretation is the conversion of a spoken message from one language to another, while preserving the intent and meaning of the original message. Interpreters must be skilled and competent. Competent interpreters should be able to demonstrate the following:

high level of fluency in both languages;

evidence of training that includes skills and ethics of interpreting;

ability to convey information in both languages, accurately and completely, as demonstrated by a simulated interpreting encounter or by the fact that the individual is a certified court interpreter, certified healthcare interpreter, or RID certified, and;

fundamental knowledge in both languages of any specialized terms or concepts related to a City department’s service, program or activity.

Interpretation services for the City will be carried out by competent interpreters, whether they are City employees, independent contractors or telephone interpreters. City employees who work as interpreters must demonstrate competence as defined above. Interpreter agencies and vendors providing over-the-phone or VRI interpreter services must demonstrate how competency is assessed.

Pursuant to WI State Statute 440.032, all ASL interpreters performing interpretation under this plan, whether located in Wisconsin or not, must be licensed by the WI Department of Safety and Professional Services. For more information, http://dsps.wi.gov/LicensesPermitsRegistrations/Credentialing-Division-Home-Page/Health- Professions http://dsps.wi.gov/LicensesPermitsRegistrations/Credentialing-Division-Home-Page/Health-Professions http://dsps.wi.gov/LicensesPermitsRegistrations/Credentialing-Division-Home-Page/Health-Professions

Translator competency

Translation is more than the ability to read and write in two or more languages. Translation is the conversion of a written message from one language to another, while preserving the intent and meaning of the original message. Translators must be skilled and competent. An individual who is a competent interpreter may or may not be competent to translate. A translator should understand the expected reading level of the audience and where appropriate, have fundamental knowledge about the target group’s vocabulary and phraseology. A competent translator should demonstrate the following:

high level of fluency in both languages;

evidence of training that includes skills and ethics of translation Proficiency in English and the other language, as documented in an objective language proficiency test;

ability to convey information in both languages, accurately and completely, as demonstrated by a simulated translation request;

fundamental knowledge in both languages of any specialized terms or concepts, and;

with approved contract translators, contracting agencies should demonstrate how competency is assessed.

The City may contract with third-party translation services or employ staff to provide translation proofreading services to ensure accuracy and cultural sensitivity.

Officially approved providers

Individuals or vendors who provide interpretation and translation services must meet certain standards which meet the City’s obligations under federal and local authorities. In addition, certain types of interpretation (e.g. legal interpretation, medical interpretation, ASL interpretation) are regulated by federal and local laws and have their own certification processes. In order to ensure the City’s interpreters and translators comply with these obligations, and because the City is unable to provide internal oversight of compliance standards, all interpretation and translation services must be made through approved vendors or in-house service providers. Requests for such services must be made through the Department of Civil Rights. City approval standards will be developed and published as specified in implementation phases.

Because some City departments are subject to information privacy laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), any individuals or vendors who provide interpretation and translation services must be able to demonstrate and maintain HIPAA compliance. HIPAA requires vendors to have a business associate agreement on file.

Approved vendors must have a service agreement with the City that includes a business associate agreement.

Appropriate use of staff

City staff should not provide translation or interpretation services except employees hired by the City to provide such services in-house. The practice of City staff providing full or partial document translation is not appropriate because it compromises the City’s obligations to ensure compliance with federal and local authorities, costs the City more in staff time, and unduly burdens staff who are actually or perceived to be bilingual.

City employees hired as bilingual employees should be treated with the expectation that their bilingual requirement is specific to their work area, not for general interpretation or translating documents on the City’s behalf. However, bilingual staff may review translated materials within their area of work expertise for accuracy and other feedback. Bilingual staff may also provide interpretation services in limited circumstances: where the conversation pertains to general inquiries and information on services, employees may interpret conversations within their department or area of expertise. Where the topic of interpretation is more in-depth or may pertain to legal issues or an individual’s rights or meaningful access to services, staff should not interpret. Bilingual staff shall never be used to help in negotiations, hearings, translate legal or technical forms and documents unless they are certified to do so.

The City shall explore and implement differential compensation rates for employees whose position title includes the term “bilingual,” or whose job duties include performance of work in a bilingual fashion. This is considered to be a best practice and has been locally implemented by both Dane County and UW Health. City staff shall work on creating a database of qualified bilingual staff to be posted on the City of Madison Employeenet.

Non-city-staff volunteers

City staff are prohibited from relying upon volunteers, friends, or family members whose competence has not been assessed for translation or interpretation.