As our economy and nation become increasingly more diverse and multilingual, limited language access to public services and institutions poses a growing threat to limited English proficient (LEP) workers. Although federal law mandates that federal agencies—as well as state and local programs receiving federal funds—establish language access plans for their resources, many non-federally funded state and local programs lack this level of accountability. For LEP workers, this can create significant barriers to understanding and exercising their rights across a complicated web of social, political, and economic institutions.

Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities have particularly high rates of limited English proficiency, with Asian Americans—the only racial group that is predominantly foreign-born—having the greatest need for language assistance. Approximately 32% of Asian Americans are LEP or are categorized as speaking English “less than very well.” By comparison, 29% of the Latinx community and 12.2% of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders are LEP, respectively.

The 24 million AAPI individuals residing in the United States reflect a multitude of complex and challenging histories that shape their diverse experiences in this country, including English language proficiency. Factors such as the promise of economic opportunities, the economic and political instability in their home countries, and the domestic devastation from imperial, colonial, and military expansion all contributed to reasons for AAPI groups to migrate to the United States. Between the 19^th and first half of the 20^th century, Asian immigrants were subjected to a plethora of immigration restrictions and racial exclusion policies, revealing deep-seated prejudices and economic anxieties. Additionally, the various Pacific Island nations that were colonized, overthrown, and annexed by the United States and other colonial powers each developed mixed relationships with U.S. political and economic systems because of their different colonial and territorial statuses.

More recent Asian immigrants have entered the United States through various immigration channels, including Diversity Visas, H-1B employment visas, and Temporary Protected Status (TPS), while many others have arrived as refugees. Despite these pathways, still more than 1.7 million Asian Americans are undocumented immigrants, further compounding the marginalization experienced by those whose primary language is not English.

Income, wages, and limited English proficiency among AAPI workers

Different histories of social and economic integration within U.S. society, along with disparities in language access, contribute to inequalities in wages, income, and poverty within the AAPI community. Figure A shows the share of the AAPI population, ages 16 and older, that is LEP by national origin while Figure B illustrates the relationship between LEP rates and median hourly wages for various AAPI groups. Overall, 26.7% of AAPI workers are LEP and the median hourly wage for AAPI workers is $29.49, well above the national median hourly wage for workers in 2022 at $23.31. However, these overall, or aggregate, measures do not tell the full story of AAPI workers’ wages in relation to English proficiency. Bhutanese and Burmese individuals have the highest shares of LEP at 68.6% and 67.9%, respectively, and are also among the lowest wage earners with median hourly wages of $16.59 and $17.68, respectively. Other median hourly wages include Marshall Islanders and Pacific Islanders non-specific who earn $14.90 and $18.99 per hour, respectively. While LEP rates are relatively high among the Marshallese population (41.9%), language is less likely to be a barrier among those identifying broadly as Pacific Islander (23.7%).

At the other end of the earnings spectrum is Asian Indian and Taiwanese workers who both share comparatively higher median hourly wages than other AAPI groups at $44.16 and $40.50, respectively. Asian Indians have some of the lowest LEP rates at 19.1%, but the share of LEP Taiwanese (36.2%) is above the overall AAPI average, suggesting that English proficiency is not the only factor affecting wage outcomes. Differences in the types of visas granted as well as different population concentrations across states and territories with varying local economies and costs of living also play a role.

AAPI state population and limited English proficiency

Place of residence influences economic outcomes through state and local policy decisions that establish important labor standards like minimum wages, paid leave, and collective bargaining rights. When focusing on AAPI workers ages 16 and older, California and New York stand out as central hubs, collectively accommodating 40.3% of this demographic. Notably, California ranks among the top five states of residence for all AAPI groups in our sample, except for Bhutanese and other Micronesian subgroups (excluding Chamorro or Marshallese).

In Figure C, we present states where more than 30% of the AAPI population ages 16 and older have limited English proficiency. New York has the highest LEP rate among its AAPI population (43.9%), followed by Iowa (38.8%) and Nebraska (38.3%).

Most of these states have just a small portion of the total AAPI population, and several are home to smaller, more marginalized AAPI groups. For instance, Oklahoma and Arkansas each have significant concentrations of Marshallese and “other Micronesian” communities, with 11.6% of the Marshallese and 8.5% of the “other” Micronesian population ages 16 and older residing in Oklahoma, and 28.5% of the Marshallese population and 12.6% of “other” Micronesians living in Arkansas. Given that Marshallese and Micronesian workers are among the lower earning AAPI groups, it is noteworthy that both Oklahoma and Arkansas have low state minimum wages with Oklahoma at the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour and Arkansas with a modest $11.00 an hour.

Many states have not passed language access legislation

Among the states in Figure C with over 30% limited English proficiency within the AAPI community, only five have enacted language access legislation: California, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Minnesota. Both California and New York have the highest share of AAPI workers at 31.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Massachusetts (2.5%), Maryland (2.0%), and Minnesota (1.4%) have considerably smaller shares of the AAPI population.  

Among the states lacking language access legislation, Texas and Washington stand out with higher AAPI population shares, leaving these workers vulnerable. States like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Georgia—with AAPI populations and LEP rates comparable with states that have enacted such legislation—still lack statewide policies to improve language access.

Currently, seven states and Washington D.C. have enacted state language access bills, although many cities and counties have implemented local legislation. However, with the continued growth of AAPI populations, the importance of broader language access enforcement and state-level enactment becomes increasingly critical. States such as Texas, North Carolina, Indiana, North Dakota, and South Dakota all experienced Asian population growth rates exceeding 65% from 2010 to 2020. Iowa and Arkansas witnessed a doubling of their baseline Pacific Islander populations during the same period, highlighting the pressing need for comprehensive language access measures in these states to address the linguistic barriers confronting AAPI communities.

Policy recommendations to improve language access

Policymakers must ensure equitable access to U.S. institutions through broadly inclusive language access. The following recommendations for improving language access have been proposed by organizations like the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans and the Migration Policy Institute.

To effectively address the needs of LEP individuals and their communities, it is essential for federal and state agencies to implement comprehensive data collection and reporting mechanisms to better understand the breadth of the issue and what agencies are impacted. State agencies should allocate sufficient resources to systematically track the size of LEP communities and their utilization of language assistance services. This data will provide valuable insights into the specific needs of these populations and enable more targeted and effective service delivery. Furthermore, agencies should establish standardized reporting protocols to ensure that this information is consistently gathered and analyzed, allowing for a clear understanding of service gaps and areas requiring improvement.

In addition to tracking current LEP populations, state agencies must also monitor emerging LEP populations. Demographic shifts and migration patterns can lead to the growth of new LEP communities that may not have been previously identified or adequately supported. By proactively tracking these changes, state agencies can anticipate and respond to the evolving needs of LEP individuals. This approach will help ensure that all LEP populations, including newly arriving groups, have timely access to necessary language assistance services, thereby promoting equity and inclusion.

To oversee and coordinate these efforts, it is recommended that a dedicated state office for language access oversight be established within the jurisdiction, as mandated by law or policy. This office would be responsible for ensuring compliance with language access requirements, facilitating inter-agency collaboration, and providing guidance on best practices for serving LEP communities. By centralizing oversight, the office can streamline efforts, reduce redundancy, and enhance the overall effectiveness of language assistance services. This dedicated focus will not only improve service delivery but also foster greater accountability and transparency in addressing the needs of LEP individuals.

Ensuring comprehensive language access is not only a matter of equity but also a fundamental component of economic and social integration for AAPI workers. With the rapid growth of AAPI populations and the significant proportion of individuals with limited English proficiency, state agencies must prioritize the implementation of robust language assistance programs. These efforts will protect AAPI workers from exploitative practices, empower them to exercise their rights, and enable them to fully participate in the workforce and society. By adopting these policy recommendations, states can create more inclusive and supportive environments for AAPI communities, fostering a future where all individuals can thrive, regardless of their language proficiency.