Philadelphia Court Interpreter Services Study
National Center for State Courts
February 15, 1995
IV.
ASSESSING IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF
PER DIEM INTERPRETER SERVICES
For languages
other than Spanish, the court acquires interpreters through four primary for-Profit
contractors. Three of the contractors are agencies that provide foreign language
interpreters; one is an individual who does most of the court's interpreting
in sign language. None of the contract agency interpreters are formally tested
for court interpreting proficiency prior to their employment. One of the agencies
sponsors short training programs in legal and court interpreting. Managers
of these agencies generally recognize the special qualifications required
for court interpreters and appear receptive to cooperating with programs to
improve training and screening of interpreters. On the other hand, there is
no doubt that some of the interpreters provided to the court by these agencies
do not meet minimum standards of knowledge and proficiency. Recommendations
provided below are offered for correcting this over time, and for mitigating
the potential for substantive injustice meanwhile, when the court has no other
option but to use interpreters who have not been formally screened and trained.
Recommendations are offered with an eye on budgetary constraints and other
issues of feasibility, as well as on achieving optimum standards of interpreting
proficiency.
Did the study find reasons to suggest that the court should reevaluate
it's current contract policies?
No, at least not with respect to fundamentals. Over time, court contracts should begin to include requirements for training and, in some languages, for certification of interpreters. But the court must first develop internal standards and rules, improve the program management capacity, and work with the agencies to develop improved training and testing.
The court
spends approximately $220,000 annually on contract interpreting services.
Table 3 and Table 4, below, show that the typical hours and amounts charged
by all of the agencies are quite similar.12 The tendency of the
data in Table 4 to show that the firm of Inlingua charges more for a typical
case than do the other agencies might be the result of a few unusually long
proceedings. While the mean and median amounts charged per case, and the mean
number of hours charged per case are the highest for Inlingua, the median
number of hours charged by all of the agencies (Table 3) are identical.
Fn 12 The contract for the Lang agency (sign language interpreting) specifies a minimum charge of two hours.
When similar
tables are constructed for the major languages (Tables 5 and 6,below), results
are generally similar. It is noteworthy, however, that sign language expenses
overall are more expensive than other languages. Moreover, when the cost of
the services provided by the Lang agency under contract (Table 4) are compared
with all sign languages (Table 6), it is clear that the Lang agency provides
services at lower costs than do other providers of sign language services
despite the Lang contract provision specifying a two-hour minimum. The mean
amount charged by the Lang agency per case is $123, while the mean amount
for all sign interpreters is $142 per case.13
Fn. 13 This study did not include any evaluation of sign language interpreter proficiency, so there is no way to compare cost and quality between the Lang agency and other providers.
What languages
other than Spanish are in greatest demand?
The foregoing
Tables 5 and 6 show the languages the court uses most often, after Spanish.
Table 7, on page 12, provides more detail.
Using the same
data displayed graphically (following page), the relative importance of Korean
and Vietnamese languages compared to other languages is plain.
Yes, but some frequently used interpreters appeared
to be qualified. Knowledge and proficiency testing is the only way to make
a confident assessment of an interpreter's qualifications, when an observer
does not speak the language fluently. However, careful observations of interpreters
at work provide a basis for discerning whether there are obvious problems.
During the study it was possible to make some observations which are described
in Appendix 1 of this report. In summary, two interpreters who are frequently
used appeared to be qualified (allowing for the observer's inability to get
behind the language barrier.) One interpreter coped reasonably well overall,
but engaged in some glaring violations of proper conduct. For example, the
interpreter answered a lawyer's question in English without interpreting the
question into Korean, and waiting for the witness to answer in Korean.
14 Because the record in interpreted cases includes only what the interpreter
says in English, the record in the case attributes to a witness an answer
that she never gave.
Fn.14 The interpreter was taxed sorely during the
colloquy by repetitious and confusing questions by the attorney. This is not
uncommon and is one of the reasons why court interpreting is a 'highly skilled'
professional occupation, requiring considerable training that goes beyond
language fluency.
A fourth contract interpreter was obviously unqualified. Although the record in the case would reflect the fact that an interpreter was provided to assist the defendant, the interpreter apparently lacked the skills to interpret - in the simultaneous mode, or did not understand his responsibility. He spoke to the defendant only intermittently during the questioning and the testimony of an adverse witness.15 In addition, the defendant appeared to ask questions occasionally about what was going on, to which the interpreter made brief responses. Moreover, the interpreter made no effort to have these questions directed to counsel who was sitting next to the defendant at the table. In short, it was plain that the interpreter appeared to provide little if any useful service in making the defendant "present' during the proceeding.16
Fn. 15 An example of similar "misconduct" by an interpreter is included in an educational videotape made for judges, entitled Working With Interpreters," available through the National Center for State Courts.
Fn. 16 Due
to scheduling problems with the case, testimony for which was concluded for
the day in about one hour, the court paid $300 for this interpreter's time.
The following
considerations are also relevant to the finding:
·
Per-diem interpreters
are not tested using a valid performance test, nor are they subject to any
screening or evaluation by qualified court personnel.
·
The court has
no records related to the experience and qualifications of the per diem interpreters
used by the agencies, regardless of how frequently the interpreter is used.
Moreover, until this study, no one in the court was able to identify who these
individuals are (except for the agency directors who interpret in court).
·
Experience
in other states and local courts suggests that without a program of testing
or other meaningful screening, a majority of the interpreters who are used
in courts are not qualified for court interpreting.
·
Despite opportunities
provided free of charge, only 15 of the approximately 200 different interpreters
used by the court attended training opportunities provided by the court as
part of this study.
This circumstance
appears to have been largely attributable to communication problems, not to
lack of interest on the part of the interpreter agency directors or the interpreters.
The court should
consider using salaried interpreters for Korean and Vietnamese language cases,
full- or part-time.
Comment: Table
8, below, shows the expenditures made recently by the court for just over
one year for the five most frequently used languages-provided by interpreter
agencies. It is plain that the costs for Korean and Vietnamese interpreting
are high enough to warrant careful consideration of a permanent staff interpreter
position funded at full or 3/4 time (in each language, one individual does
about 55% of the interpreting. See
Appendix 2.) While the recommended strategy would not necessarily lower costs
immediately (depending on many interrelated factors having to do with scheduling),
it likely would control future cost increases. Most importantly, however,
it would increase the court's capacity for improved quality of interpreting
services in two important respects. First, the court could require certification
as a condition for employment. This would ensure that the majority of services
in these languages would be provided by a skilled interpreter. Second, having
professional interpreters on staff in two very different Asian languages would
enhance the court's ability to strengthen training and on-the-job monitoring
of per diem interpreters.
The court should
explore the feasibility of contracting directly with two individuals (per
language) for services in Cambodian and Cantonese language cases.
Comment: Table
8 shows that the court spends nearly $18,000 per year for Cambodian language
interpreting, and about $8,000 for Cantonese. It is possible that a contract
for this amount of money divided between two individuals (to allow for scheduling
conflicts) is enough to provide an incentive for these individuals to
"professionalize"
what may now be only a sideline occupation.
However, this recommendation needs to be cautiously considered. The reasons for making the recommendation
are twofold: first, there is a significant amount of money 'on the table'
as a result of differences between what is charged by the interpreter agencies
($50-$52 per hour) and what the agencies pay the individuals whom they send
to the court ($25 per hour). Spending the same amount of money, but placing
it directly in the hands of the interpreters, would concentrate more work
in the hands of fewer people. This would lead to increased experience and
opportunities for professional training. On the other hand, the action might
substantially decrease the incentive
that some or all of the agencies have to continue contracting with the court
to provide reliable service responses
in the other languages. Moreover, individual interpreters in those languages
may not wish to "break ranks" with the agency which sponsors them.
close scrutiny of the pros and cons of the recommendation, Moreover, these
considerations illustrate why it would be advantageous for the court to institutionalize
the kind of data collection the study has provided, and why it is important
to establish an Office of interpreter Services. Management expertise is necessary
to weigh these kinds of considerations and apply them during contract reviews
and negotiations with the private language service vendors in the future.
The concerns with quality of service are important enough, however, to warrant
Management of per diem interpreter services should be located in an Office of Interpreter Services (0IS) to increase the opportunity for evaluation and training of the interpreters.
Comment: The
court currently relies on the office of court reporting services to schedule
contract interpreters and to audit invoices submitted by the agency against
in- house records related to the assignments. The system appears to work well
for these purposes. It's disadvantage is that it systematically isolates the
court's professional interpreters from the contract interpreters, which is
dysfunctional. The persons at the court with whom the agency directors and
interpreters communicate (court reporting office and fiscal services) have
very little idea of what the court should expect of the agency or the individual
interpreters and what items, apart from hourly rates and responsiveness, might
be subject of negotiation and comparative assessment of contract proposals.
This puts the program squarely within the framework of what one very experienced
professional observer refers to as 'the appearance standard" for assessing
interpreter qualifications and preference for employment. That is, the organization
is satisfied if someone: 1) is available, 2) shows up on time, 3) is appropriately
dressed and appears professional, 4) appears to be bilingual, and 5 ) no one
complains.17
Fn. 17 Robert Joe Lee, Director of the Court Interpreting,
Translating and Bilingual Services Section of the Administrative Mice of New
Jersey Courts.
Each new interpreter
referred to the court by an interpreter agency should complete a qualifications
assessment questionnaire and be interviewed by the supervising interpreter
or another staff interpreter prior to her or his first assignment. The court
should exercise the right to conduct a substantial skills assessment interview
for any interpreter as an apparent need and opportunity arises.
Comment: The capacity to engage in the recommended screening does not exist in the court under its current management structure. Changes are needed in program organization and administration to develop this capacity. The NCSC publication Model Guides, pp. 7 75- 1 79 describes assessment techniques that can be used by a qualified manager of interpreting services to make the recommended assessments, regardless of language.
-
Return to Philadelphia Court Interpreter Services Study Table of Contents
-
Go to next Section Philadelphia Court Interpreter Services Study:
- Open full report as Adobe PDF File Philadelphia Court Interpreter Services Study National Center for State Courts (February 1995) text searchable1.5 megabyte Adobe Portable Document File