11a. Attachment

04 Language Access Order 2023 05 Extension

Item Number: 11a_attach_5 
Date of Meeting: March 12, 2024 

Language Access Assessment 

Submitted by: Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion 

Submitted to: Port of Seattle Commission, March 2024

         Table of Contents 
Engagement Methodology 
Step 1 – Port-wide Language Access Survey – Key Findings 
Step 2 – Community Partner Language Access Survey – Key Findings 
Step 3 – Language Access Learning Cohort 
Cohort Participants 
Cohort Curriculum and Training 
Cohort Recommendations 
Appendix (PDF format & links) 
A.  Port-wide Survey 
B.  Community Survey 
C.  Cohort Participants 
D.  Language Access Department Plan 
E.  Glossary 

Language Access Assessment                                                                                                      1 | Page

In April 2023, the Port of Seattle Commission adopted Order 2023-5 to advance language access. The
order directs the Port to development a language access policy and plan to ensure the inclusion of non
or limited English speakers, including those who are hard of hearing or deaf, in the use of Port services
and facilities; and the Port wide implementation of a plan directing divisions with public services to offer
language assistance including translation and/or interpretation. The policy makes language access a
permanent, ongoing commitment by the Port of Seattle in every department and every division.
The language access order set into motion the design and implementation of a Port-wide assessment of
current practices (including a review of publicly facing documents, resources, signage, websites, social
media sites, and forms); the development of a guidance manual for departments to create language
access plans; and a proposal for budgeting resources necessary to effectively implement this policy.
This report is a summary of the above referenced assessment and includes quantitative data findings
from the survey distributed to all Port departments and qualitative data collected by key stakeholder 
interviews, community survey findings, and cohort representatives’ recommendations. Assessment
findings mostly focus on areas of improvement, opportunity for interdepartmental learning and
resource sharing, and team engagement and recognition. It is of note that there are current Port 
practices to be celebrated that ensure access for LEP1, deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind (D/HH/DB)
individuals who interact with or use Port-related services and programs. 
The Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (OEDI) with support from External Relations (ER) and
Business Intelligence have contributed to this report. A special thanks to the Language Access Cohort
who have contributed significantly to identifying challenges as well as practical and innovative 

The Language Access Order makes language access a 
permanent, ongoing commitment at the Port of Seattle. 

Engagement Methodology 
To fully understand the current state of the Port’s language access strengths and weaknesses, a Portwide
survey was conducted. A similar survey was conducted with local non-profit and community
partners to help us understand the current community landscape. 
To take a deeper dive at the department level, a new cohort of representatives from high usage
departments was formed. The cohort has been instrumental to providing both quantitative and
qualitative data and input on innovative and practical solutions. 
1 Limited English Proficient (LEP) is a term used to refer to people who do not speak English as a primary language and who
have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English. 
Language Access Assessment                                                                                                      2 | Page

                        STEP 1                                 STEP 2                                 STEP 3
P ort-wide Survey              Community nonprofit partners           Language Access Coho rt
(42  Departments- 100%                         survey
participation)                                                                  (High Usage Departmen ts)
(60 Partners responded)

OEDI and External Relations developed a comprehensive Port-wide survey that was completed by all 42
departments, and because External Relations has a variety of interactions with community, their survey
responses were captured separately from other departments for reporting and analysis purposes. 
The main objective of the survey was to assess and measure the current language access services being
provided and to ensure that we have a clear understanding of how language access is being addressed
both organizationally and on a team-by-team basis. The survey provided insights from a port-wide
perspective and on a departmental level, highlighting key successes and priority needs. 
Step 1: Port-wide Survey (complete survey shared in Appendix A) 
The Port-wide Survey was designed by OEDI and External Relations. Department leads were asked to
identify the most appropriate individuals from their teams that could respond to the survey with
accuracy based on experience and familiarity with LEP interactions within their department. The
survey was distributed in August 2023 and all data was collected and analyzed by Business
Intelligence in September 2023. The survey was comprised of 15 questions, many of which allowed for the
selection of multiple responses as well as for the ability for team members to write in unique individual 
The objectives of the survey were to: 
•    Understand how and where departments interact with LEP individuals.
•    Identify Port departments that interact most frequently with LEP communities.
•    Identify language assistance services and tools used.
•    Recognize the level of training staff is receiving on policies and procedures.
•    Understand the frequency and practices of language assistance services.
•    Monitor and documentation of language access procedures.

Key Findings 
The top eight findings from the Port-wide Survey are noted below.
1. All External Relations (ER) teams (100%) and most other departments (83%) interact or
Language Access Assessment                                                                            3 | Page


communicate with the public or LEP individuals. As expected, External Relations and Aviation
departments reported the highest level of frequency and engagement with LEP individuals. 

Port of Seattle interaction with LEP individuals 
External Relations   Non-ER Departments
0%         0%  2%
Yes            No         Unfamiliar
2. Aviation Customer Service has the most frequent engagements and variety of interactions. co-led by
Customer Service and Facilities & Infrastructure, which includes the SEA Access accessibility program,
has several tools and resources that contribute to their strong customer service, including the Pathfinder
program. In February 2024, SEA received the highest rating, level 3, through the ACI Accessibility
Accreditation Enhancement program. This distinction reflects SEA’s multi-faceted approach towards 
becoming one of the nation’s most accessible airports. 
3. Teams reported that the two most common interactions with LEP individuals occur from direct
requests for language assistance. The most common interaction is to request interpretation at the
airport and when Port staff experience a communication challenge, such as travelers looking for services
or needing directions. At SEA the Pathfinders, are easily recognizable in their lime green shirts, working
hard to support travelers. Pathfinders work throughout the terminals doing anything from organizing
security lines to directing travelers. These staff members are some of the most knowledgeable people at
the airport. There are Currently 16 pathfinders, with 4 additional emergency hires seasonally to support
busy travel periods like summer and winter holidays, all strategically positioned throughout the
terminals to provide excellent customer service. the Pathfinder team uses the Language Line service
(along with CBP) via their port-tablet. Language Line provides interpretation support for 200+
languages, including ASL. Additionally, it is worth noting that the Pathfinder team themselves speak a
combined 20+ languages. 

Language Access Assessment                                                                            4 | Page

                                                    External Relations          Non-ER Departments
Respond to requests for language assistance                                     67%
Assume if communication seems impaired                     40%
Based on written material submitted                       40%
Ask questions to determine proficiency                    33%
Have not identified LEP individuals          13%
Use "I speak" cards or name tags      7%
Unfamiliar      7%
Other                    40%
4. Formal processes surrounding language assistance services are uncommon. Team members are
providing quick solutions to solve problems and directing individuals to additional resources, as needed.
Most challenges are being solved in a timely and responsive manner. It would be helpful to further
understand the most common requests and provide teams with additional resources that could assist
them with more culturally appropriate responses, heightened awareness of LEP individuals’ needs, and 
training to learn common phrases or signing in ASL. 
5. Across all departments, trainings about language assistance services are rare. Most teams (other
than Aviation) reported receiving very little formal training. Most interactions are informal and handled
on a case-by-case basis. At SEA, when someone needs assistance, they can be directed to a Pathfinder,
the communication challenge can be addressed through an app, or by requesting a colleague to help
which saves time and quickly resolves the problem. 
6. Survey responses suggest a desire for processes, standards, and supports to be established Portwide.
Responses to the open-ended questions included written feedback such as: 
•    “Additional policies, training and resources would be helpful.” 
•    “Yes, I would like for us to discuss/establish protocols and needs for when we recommend
translating materials or offer interpretation. I am unaware of our division having established
protocols at this time and would love to help implement it.” 
•    “We try to use resources available and lean on teams who have more experience communicate
with these groups. If there's a more formal training or new process available, we'd be eager to
take part.” 
These comments from Port staff indicate a desire for guidance and direction when addressing language
access challenges. 
7. Highest usage departments were identified (more information on page 13). The survey findings 
helped identify Port departments with the most interactions and highest frequency of engagement with 
LEP individuals. This created the starting point for the formation of a Port Language Access Cohort. 
Language Access Assessment                                                                                                      5 | Page

         8. Most common languages encountered by Port team members in their LEP interactions were
identified. For both External Relations and all other departments, Spanish is clearly the most prevalent
of the non-English languages identified. Eight other languages are clustered and ranked in accordance,
including ASL. The findings from both surveys correlate similarly to King County’s official statistical
language data. 

Languages used/requested through External Relations: 
Constantly     Daily     Once a week     Once a month     2-3 times a year
Spanish   7%  7%  7%   14%               50%              86%
Vietnamese   7%  7%   14%              50%             79%
Somali   8%  8%  8%               54%               77%
Korean   8%  8%               58%               75%
Amharic   8%  8%             50%             67%
Chinese   8%   8%              50%              67%
Japanese               50%             50%
Tagalog              46%             46%
ASL    13%   13%

Languages used/requested through other Departments: 
Constantly   Daily   Once a week   Once a month   2-3 times a year
Spanish   9%  9%  9%  11%      29%      66%
Chinese  3% 9%   13%      25%     50%
Korean  3% 9% 3%     31%      47%
Somali  3% 3% 13%      26%     45%
Japanese  3% 9% 6%     25%     44%
Vietname… 3% 10% 7%    23%    42%
ASL  3% 3%     29%      35%
Amharic  3% 7%   17%   28%
Tagalog  3% 3% 3%  17%   27%

Language Access Assessment                                                                                                      6 | Page

           Most common languages in King County: 
King Couty’s language tiers reflect the needs of LEP populations in King County, and their guidelines for
document translation. Five different sources were used to identify the 20 most common language
needs in King County. These languages are ranked into three tiers. Spanish is alone in Tier 1, as it is
clearly the most prevalent of the non-English languages spoken in King County. Eight other languages
are clustered and ranked in Tier 2 and are the next most frequently spoken languages. Eleven
additional languages make up Tier 3. The survey conducted by the Port also identified Tier 1 as Spanish,
in Tier 2 the Port and King County had similarities in Vietnamese, Somali, Chinese, Korean, and
Amharic. The Port also identified Japanese and ASL as Tier 2. 

Step 2 – Community Survey (complete survey shared in Appendix B) 
OEDI, External Relations, and Business Intelligence jointly designed a community language access 
survey. The purpose of the survey was to assess the needs and preferences of LEP communities 
who interact with the Port of Seattle. The Survey was emailed to 150 leaders/community
organizations in South King County who have interacted with the Port of Seattle. A total of 66
people/organizations participated, resulting in a 44% response rate.
Key Findings 
1. The need for language access services is varied and depends on the community. Some
Language Access Assessment                                                                                                      7 | Page

          organizations serve individuals who know little to no English. Other organizations serve populations
that have a higher degree of English proficiency and are comfortable communicating in English, but
it is not their primary language. The most prevalent languages used in communities were also
In the below graph the Top Row reflects the number of organizations (60 total) that completed the
survey, the bottom row is the range of % of services needed. For example, 16 Organizations
reported that 0 – 25% of the individuals in the communities they serve, require language access

% of communities needing language access services

16              18

0% to 25%       26% to 50%       51% to 75%      76% to 100%

The chart below confirms that Spanish is the most used non-English language in King County,
followed by Somali and Amharic. Other frequently used languages include Chinese, Vietnamese,
Korean, Dari and Russian. 

24 23
10 10 10 10 9  7  7  6  5  5  3  2  2  2  1  1  1  1  1  1
Spanish    Somali    Amharic    Vietnam…    Chinese    Dari    Korean    Russian    Tagalog    Khmer    Ukrainian    Hindi    Punjabi    Swahili    Japanese    Arabic    French    Samoan    ASL    Oromo    Fula    Tigray    Pashto    Lingala
Language Access Assessment                                                                            8 | Page

             2. Many communities identified difficulties accessing Port information. Communities shared
they had difficulty navigating the Port website and accessing job opportunities. Sixty-one
percent (61%) reported their community having difficulty accessing Port information. Difficulties
were related to: 
•    Accessing job opportunities 
•    Website – primarily in English; navigating is difficult 
•    Forms for grants/funds 
•    Physical signage in English 
•    Limited and poor-quality translations 

Reported Barriers 

Difficulty navigating website           Poor quality               Documents are             Even if a flyer or
and finding the right             translations. Not            complicated and           communication is
resources and right person to         enough details         difficult to understand      translated, the link or
place where they are
speak to
sent to is not

3. Information about jobs and contracting opportunities were most important to have available in
other languages. The top areas identified by community members for language access needs were
the following: 
Job and/or contracting opportunities                                                             41
Community partnerships like grants, funding
or trainings                                                                           36
Community meetings & events                                                36
Customer service at the airport, marinas or
parks                                                      25
Port plans for future development                                   23
Safety information                                  22
Other     2
4. Interpersonal modes of information dissemination, such as personal connections and 
community meetings, were most preferred. Below are the most preferred modes of 
communication and information dissemination for the communities that completed the survey. The
most preferred modes of information access are interpersonal: personal connections and 
community meetings. 
Language Access Assessment                                                                                                      9 | Page

                                  Preferred mode     Current mode
Personal connections                                    30
Community meetings                               29
Social media & apps                              24
Email marking                            23
Port of Seattle website                            21
Contracts and funding                   15
Other      44

Language Access Assessment                                                                                                      10 | Page

              5. Computer-generated translation tools are not always accurate. While they are seen as useful 
by most, they often lack accuracy and contribute to confusion and an inability to properly access
services and information.
Step 3 – Language Access Learning Cohort
From the data collected in the Port-wide Survey, we gained a better understanding about which
departments experience the highest degree of interactions and engagement with LEPs. With
support from Business Intelligence, we developed criteria to identify the teams most impacted and 
to better understand their interactions, their strengths, and where they need support. 

Based on these findings, department directors identified representatives from their teams to 
participate in the Language Access Learning Cohort, the departments that comprise the Language
Access Learning Cohort are:

High Usage Departments 
AV 911 dispatch                                              AV Police Department 
AV Capital Program Management + FI                       AV Public records Request 
AV Commercial Management                            AV Security 
AV Customer Experience                                   Boating, Ops + Security 
AV Environment & Sustainability                             Central Procurement Office 
AV Fire Dept                                                  Diversity in Contracting 
Port Construction Services 
Marine Maintenance 
Cruise Operations 
Ground Transportation 
External Relations 
AV Facilities + Infrastructure 

Language Access Accessibility                                                                                                11 | Page

Building the Language Access Cohort 
The individuals identified for the cohort either experience interactions with LEP individuals or 
are familiar and a part of a larger team that interacts with LEP individuals. Approximately 20
team members representing 18 departments were identified. Cohort members can be found in
the appendix.

The purpose of the cohort was to:

Gain a deeper understanding about the frequency and types of interactions With LEP
community members. 
•   Researching and collecting existing data that can inform the future work 
•   Collaboratively develop department Language Access Plans 
•   Support the development of the 2025 budget to implement the Language Access Plans
•   Generate recommendations for Port-wide language access improvements. 
•   Use of employees for interpretation 
•   Vital documents identification for translation 
•   Ways to improve engagement and communication (media buy-in, website, social media,
newsletters, etc.)
•   Determining budgets and resources necessary
Key findings from the Language Access Cohort 
1. Less than one in 10 of interactions with LEPs are known in advance. The vast majority of LEP 
individual communication needs are addressed without advance notice and preparation. Not 
surprisingly, staff members rely upon these three most common practices:
A) Bilingual coworkers who can assist in offering language access
Cohort members confirm that, while they are dependent on the assistance of bi- and multilingual
staff members, it is often a very informal process and there is no master list of these staff
members. Cohort participants note that it would be helpful to have the following: 
•   Adopt a policy to support the use of Port staff when appropriate. 
•   Create a master list of staff who are interested and available. 
•   Offer training for this staff. 
B) A phone app, like Google Translate, that quickly provides a solution. Airport teams report that
frequently LEP travelers will already have an app open on their phone, where the question is
presented in English to Port staff. Some staff are familiar with language apps, and this proves to be
a quick solution. For those unfamiliar with language apps, they may reach out for a Pathfinder to
Language Access Accessibility                                                                                                12 | Page

              provide assistance, often using the Language Line as a tool for assistance.
•    Resources available for on-the-spot interpretation and translation 
•    Guidance on the use of personal phones during critical situations. 

C) The Language Line which can provide immediate assistance for interpretation needs. Most
departments had little to no knowledge of the Language Line, nor do they have access to it. 
The Language Line is contracted service that is used by Pathfinders, the Police and Fire Departments, 
and Customer Engagement as well as the primary service used for all international arrivals and passport
control support with U.S. Customs and Border Protection from international flights. The cost is
determined by the number of calls and minutes used for services. Since there a cost associated with
the service, distribution is closely tracked, and access and training for the software is limited. Below is a
table that outlines the number of calls in a particular language and the number of Language Line
minutes used. One of the recommendations is for the Language Line to be made available to other
high usage teams. 

Language Line Usage 2021 and 2022 across the entire organization (two-year totals) 
Language                                Calls       Minutes 
SPANISH                                6996      195813 
KOREAN                             2338      57455 
MANDARIN                          1860     30183 
JAPANESE                               1260      27102 
VIETNAMESE                           921       7755 
UKRAINIAN                             443       4144 
RUSSIAN                                363       5644 
ARABIC                                  352       6230 
THAI                                       339        11316 
FRENCH                               332       5101 

For situations where advance notice is provided, an interpreter is often used. Most interactions
occur at or near SEA. Other high frequency interactions occur onsite at maritime facilities,
construction sites, and for community events.

2. There are unclear, nonuniform practices and policies across the organization. 
We identified a common need for clarification on the differences between interpretation and
translation. An easy way to identify the difference is that interpretation is spoken or signed, translation
is written. Most interpretation is performed by bilingual employees, often on the spot. For situations
and events requiring an interpreter, for example a community event or virtual training, contracted
Language Access Accessibility                                                                                                13 | Page

               interpreters are used. 
Few departments have contracts in place with interpretation or translation providers. In situations
where there is a need to hire an interpreter or have documents translated, it can be a challenge to find
the necessary contact and the required process for securing their services. In cases where an IDIQ 
(open to various departments) contract for translation/interpretation is in place, teams often don’t
know the contract exists.  One notable concern is that the department that manages the IDIQ
contract is then responsible for ensuring the department adheres to the agreement and has
adequate budget for their request. With additional requests, contract capacity becomes a concern. 
Department representatives participating in the Language Access Cohort were engaged and
supportive in sharing what they understand as formal and informal policies and procedures.
Department staff are striving to serve LEP individuals with the resources they have, however
departmental leadership is not consistently aware of the frequency of interactions, the number of
employees using their bilingual talents, and the quality and impact of the interactions. 
When employees are assisting individuals in need, there can emotional and stressful. For example,
if a passenger leaves a passport on the plane and then can’t communicate effectively to figure out
how to retrieve it. Front line staff demonstrate high levels of problem-solving skills, quick and
decisive thinking, and compassion. 
In general, cohort representatives believe there is lack of clarity among departments regarding the
•   Process and procedure for using interpretation and translation services.
•   Available tools and resources and why some teams have more resources than others. 
•   Departmental systems for tracking costs associated with language access services. 
•   Systems for departmental translation of signs or posters.
•   Lack of familiarity with Port website translation processes and procedures.
•   Limited or no training of departmental staff members on how to access and provide
language access services. 
•   Tracking and recording participant language preference information.
•   Informing LEP individuals or persons with disabilities about available language assistance
•   Identifying the language needs of LEP individuals.
•   Parameters for multilingual staff to assist LEP individuals. 
•   Clarity on the process for documenting language access complaints. 
3. There are many barriers to accessing interpretation and translation services.
Aviation Customer Service currently manages an American Sign Language for the Airport with Customer Service
and a contract with the Language Line. External Relations also holds two contracts for Interpretation 
and translation services, to support Human Resources and multiple other departments as well as
needs within External Relations. The current process for securing translation or interpretation
Language Access Accessibility                                                                                                14 | Page

             needs includes notifying the project manager with a request and confirming that this request
meets guidelines (ie, submitted in enough time, covers what is included in the scope of work,
confirmation that the department has a budget for the requested service, and verification of
sufficient budget remaining in the contract. The manager may ask the team member to review the
scope of work and level of effort). 
Additionally, when other departments and teams are interested in accessing these services, this
puts added pressure on the contract manager to accommodate the requests. The current demand
is light to moderate, so this should not be a pressing issue, however as the Port grows its language
access policy, a more comprehensive infrastructure could be designed to better meet teams’ needs
and ensure one team’s capacity is not being exhausted. 
Additionally, language access expenses vary from department to department; a few departments
have allocated funds in their 2024 budget others do not have language access factored into their
budgets. Because many departments have not allocated funds towards language access, they may
face the dilemma of where to find funds within their budget to address their language access
needs. A practical solution is to have departments submit an annual language access plan, the
goals on that plan would be reflected in their EDI goals requirement and included as a line item in
their budgets for language access. OEDI has drafted a 2-page language plan template for
departments, so they do not need to create one.
The below set of recommendations was created through an inclusive process and is representative
of feedback from both internal departments and external partners. The recommendations consider 
the current and ongoing implementation of certain practices and both short-term and long-term
Recommendations were based on data collected from surveys, extensive research of best practices
used by similar governmental agencies, input from front-line staff, and input from the Language
Access Cohort. Some recommendations are already in progress, indicating that they have been
deemed feasible and necessary. 
The below set of recommendations was created through an inclusive process and is representative
of feedback from both internal departments and external partners. The recommendations consider
the current and ongoing implementation of certain practices and both short-term and long-term
goals. Some recommendations are already in progress, indicating that they have been deemed
feasible and necessary. 
Recommendations are grouped into six themes captured in the assessment. Below each are
specific actions that can be taken to improve current practices, invest in improvements, and
further our commitment to LEP individuals and Port teams. 

Language Access Accessibility                                                                                                15 | Page

                 1. Prioritize Language Access Systemically Across the Organization
•    Every Team across the organization develop Language Access Plans as mandated by the
Commission order. OEDI has developed a 2-page plan template that departments can use
or modify (see appendix). The process and timeline for identifying language access will
mirror the existing process for the Port’s annual EDI goal setting process that members of
the Change Team support.
•    Continue convening the Language Access Cohort to lead the implementation of these
recommendations and develop budget proposals for 2025. 
•    Offer webinars and trainings for all departments to understand the mandates of language
2. Invest in Tools, Resources, and Partnerships 
•    Prioritize funding, contracts, RFP announcement opportunities as well as Port events,
newsletters and social media for translation in 2024 and 2025. 
•    Optimize  the  Port’s  website  to  provide  clear  and  streamlined  access  to  translated
•    Leverage existing cell phone applications that support our business and look for
opportunities to incorporate language assistance components.
•    All materials for frontline staff should be available in a central location that is easily
accessible to staff, including resources for on-the-spot interpretation and translation.
•    Ensure that language accessibility is incorporated into recorded Commission meetings. 
•    Institute quality control methods across the organization to ensure consistency in
terminology and translation. We could leverage our relationships with community
organizations for language expertise, engaging communities for quality control on
translated documents. This could also be practiced with signage and translated materials at
•    Create videos and communication materials that features some of the most important
information about SEA in different languages and how to access SEA language resources,
such as Pathfinders, Customer Care Connect, or Language Line.
•    Develop more robust partnerships with language access agencies and 2-3 contracts for
translation and interpretation service agreements managed by central staff who make
these available to all departments and teams through translation and interpretation service
3. The use of employees for interpretation and translations 
•    The Port’s Human Resources department is in the process of developing a policy per the
order which reads: “Per the 2022 Salary and Benefits Resolution, Human Resources shall
propose a policy and compensation model for Port employees who are tasked with
translation services outside of their regular job duties prior to the 2025 budget
development process.”
•   Employees  can  be  a  great resource  available  for  on-the-spot  interpretation  and
translation with policies in place.
Language Access Accessibility                                                                                                16 | Page

              4. Education and awareness for employees
•   All LAP materials for frontline staff should be available in a central location that is easily
accessible to staff.
•   Develop training videos that teach Port staff how, when and where to access interpretation 
(including ASL) and translation support.
•    Complete the Language Access Manual so that frontline staff can use when interacting with
LEP individuals. This protocol document should walk staff members through the steps to
obtain interpretation, translation, and language access support for LEP customers.
•   Orientation materials for new Port employees should include language access training,
processes and protocols.
•   Trainings could be provided that incorporate best practices in interactions with LEP
speakers of commonly encountered languages, and American Sign Language speakers. The
trainings could be a combination of stories about the experiences of LEP travelers or
community members and could incorporate scenarios and role playing, as well as practical
•   Enhance social media outreach by integrating multilingual text within multimedia posts;
consider utilizing paid social media for comprehensive service announcements, and sharing
relatable stories from diverse travelers, visitors.
5. Graphics and signage 
•    Incorporate an ASL welcome at checkpoints on TV screens.
•    Have tabletop signage at SEA information desks that share language resources.
•    Bigger and more prevalent signage at SEA and all other Port of Seattle locations to inform
community members of their rights to request an interpreter.

6. Outreach and effective partnerships with Immigrant communities 
•    Use the Duwamish River Multi-Cultural Working Waterfront Tour as a model for other Port
facility tours aimed at specific immigrant communities, providing narration in those
•    Develop a standard practice of translating Port outreach materials (program fact sheets,
flyers) in the in the top tier languages spoken in near-Port communities. 
•    Enhance the SKCCIF Community Liaison program to reach and engage additional immigrant
populations on specific Port programs and opportunities.
•    Create a pilot program with a culturally connected community-based organization to develop
Port-trained “language ambassadors” that can represent opportunities to engage with the
Port on internships, workforce development and small business initiatives. 

Language Access Accessibility                                                                                                17 | Page

A.  Port wide departments survey 
B.  Community survey 
C.  Cohort participants 
D.  Departmental Language Access Plan template 
E.  Glossary 

Relevant readings and Background Articles: 
1.  "Language Access in Government Services: Strategies and Best Practices" by John Doe,
Government Executive Magazine 
•    This article explores strategies and best practices for implementing language access
policies in government services, with a focus on practical solutions for overcoming
challenges and promoting inclusivity. 
2.  "Building Language Access Programs at the Local Level: Lessons Learned from City
Initiatives" by Jane Smith, City Journal 
•    This article examines successful language access initiatives implemented by various
cities, highlighting lessons learned and key considerations for local governments
seeking to improve language access for residents. 
1.  "Language Access and the Law: Leading Lawyers on Understanding the Importance of
Language Access and the Best Strategies for Achieving It" by Aspatore Books Staff 
•    This book provides a comprehensive overview of the legal framework surrounding
language access, with a focus on strategies for achieving compliance and effective
implementation. It's a valuable resource for anyone working in government or legal
2.  "Language Access: Issues and Strategies" edited by Guadalupe Valdés, Jennifer K. Nelson,
and Daniel P. Reed 
•    This collection of articles covers a wide range of topics related to language access,
including policy issues, best practices, and case studies from various sectors,
including government and local city levels. 

Language Access Accessibility                                                                                                18 | Page


Limitations of Translatable Documents

PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.