WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 382

An Act authorizing an easement and release of Project 70 restrictions on certain land owned by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission in Overfield Township, Wyoming County.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Lisa Baker

Michigan state agencies must provide meaningful language access to LEP individuals, offering free oral interpretation and translated vital documents, plus reporting and coordinatio

Referred to State Government
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 382

SB 382 — Equal (Meaningful) Language Access to State Services Act (Michigan) — Summary

Status: Enacted as Public Act 241 of 2023 (effective Feb 28, 2024).
Primary subject: Civil rights — language access for individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP); state agencies’ obligations.

Main purpose

To require Michigan state departments, agencies, and entities (“covered entities”) to take reasonable steps to provide equal (termed “meaningful” in final enactment) language access so individuals with limited English proficiency can access and benefit from public services at a level comparable to English‑proficient persons.

Key provisions and requirements

  • Definitions: establishes terms such as “covered entity,” “limited English proficiency,” “meaningful language access,” “oral language services,” and “vital documents.”
  • Reasonable steps to provide language access must include:
    • Oral language services (face‑to‑face, in‑house or telephonic) provided by competent interpreters (staff, bilingual employees, telephone/video interpretation, or private vendors). Use of family/friends as interpreters does not satisfy the duty (though an individual may opt to use a personal interpreter at their own expense).
    • Availability of sufficient, appropriate oral services based on reliable data about the LEP population served and the frequency/importance of contacts.
    • Translating “vital documents” (e.g., applications, outreach, notices of rights/denials) into languages that, based on reliable data, meet either:
    • 3.0% or more of the overall population in a covered entity’s service area; or
    • For a local office: 3.0% or more of those served, or 500 or more LEP persons served.
    • Local offices are encouraged (but not required) to translate for smaller local populations when appropriate.
    • Designation of a language access liaison for each covered entity.
    • Any additional measures necessary to achieve meaningful access.
  • Prohibitions and cost: covered entities may not charge LEP individuals for oral interpretation or translation services.
  • Reporting and planning:
    • Each covered entity must prepare and submit a report to the Office of Global Michigan at least every two years. Reports must include bilingual staff counts, identified staffing needs by language, plans to remedy gaps, list of translated vital documents and languages, designation of a language access coordinator, and a staff training plan with specified elements (how to obtain services, ensure interpreter competency, collect preferred‑language data, mark LEP status in records, etc.).
    • Covered entities must have staff training plans and public‑awareness plans for language access services.
  • Legislative intent: implementation should be guided by federal Executive Order 13166 and related federal guidance (language access standards), whether or not a covered entity receives federal funds.

Who is affected

  • State departments, agencies, and entities (and their local offices) — required to implement plans, translate documents per thresholds, designate liaisons, and file biennial reports.
  • Office of Global Michigan — coordination role, recipient of reports, public resource for statewide language access (the companion bill, SB 383, provided additional statewide coordination, liaisons, and a complaint process in collaboration with the Department of Civil Rights).
  • Individuals with limited English proficiency — gain improved access to oral interpretation and translated vital documents without charge.
  • Vendors/contractors that provide interpretation and translation services — likely increased demand.

Fiscal and procedural notes

  • Nonpartisan analyses estimated a minimal fiscal impact for most departments; agencies may need to redeploy staff or contract services to deliver oral interpretation and translations. Costs were expected to be modest and, for many departments, within existing appropriations.
  • Reports are required biennially.
  • The law directs agencies to use reliable local demographic/service‑use data to determine language needs (3%/500 thresholds).
  • The act was originally considered alongside companion legislation (SB 383) that addresses statewide coordination and complaint remedies; implementation and oversight were intended to be coordinated across offices.

Practical impact

Implementation standardizes expectations across state government for serving LEP residents — expanding access to services, clarifying agency duties, and creating reporting/accountability mechanisms to identify and address language‑service shortfalls.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.