Ill.

CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION OF

SALARIED INTERPRETERS

Findings 

Are Philadelphia's interpreters appropriately classified within the court's overall personnel system, and is their Compensation level appropriate given their current responsibilities and the recommended minimum standards for competency in the future?

No. The First Judicial District's compensation and classification system should be revised to meet contemporary standards, as suggested by the following findings and recommendations. Table 2, below, illustrates the central basis for this finding, which is further supplemented by commentary on the recommendations offered below. Note in Table 2 the discrepancy between compensation of court reporters and interpreters in the Philadelphia courts, and the discrepancy in compensation between interpreters in Philadelphia and New Jersey.

 .

^{Fn 6}  Based on salary schedule provided by the court with an effective date 1/1/94. A new personnel classification and compensation plan, unapproved and unpublished during the study, does little to rectify the inappropriate disparity in compensation of interpreters and court reporters. It is our understanding that the proposed plan places starting salary for interpreters at approximately $25,000 and starting reporters at approximately $35,000.

^{Fn 7}   Based on salaries effective 7/1/94.

Recommendations

Recommendation 6

Revised position descriptions should be prepared for the court's salaried interpreters. ⁸

^{Fn 8}   When this study was undertaken, a draft of an unpublished and unapproved new classification and compensation study was made available to the consultants for information only, with the understanding that it could not be cited in the report. In the consultant's opinion, the new draft position descriptions were generally subject to the same problems as are noted in the discussion below.

Comment: It is apparent that in Philadelphia, as in. most courts, the work of court interpreters and the knowledge, skills and abilities of the position have been poorly understood. The existing position descriptions are incomplete and misleading in several important respects.

1.      The interpreter position descriptions make no mention of the specific skills an interpreter must have in the three modes of interpreting.

2.      The descriptions make no mention of the standards of completeness and accuracy that must be maintained while interpreting. The court reporter's position description, by contrast, includes the following language: "Work requires extreme accuracy.. . " interpreters must be just as accurate in their interpretations, under the same working conditions. Moreover, they are not merely recording the speech in shorthand, they are understanding and converting meaning from one language to another.

3.      The statement in the interpreter's position description "Employees are able to question the speaker on any point that is not understood" is misleading and tends to devalue the skill level that is expected. While the code of professional conduct for interpreters requires them to interrupt a proceeding and secure clarification when they do not recognize the meaning of a word or phrase, this should occur very infrequently if they are qualified for the position.

4.      The interpreter's position description describes desirable experience in terms of "conversation" between two or more individuals. This is hardly what is occurring in a courtroom.

5.      There is no mention in the description of any of the following requirements: 1) to understand courtroom procedures,-practices and policies; 2) have a thorough understanding of legal terminology and concepts, or 3) be thoroughly familiar with a code of professional responsibility.

6.      There is no mention in the position description of a testing requirement. Lastly, nowhere in the position description does the phrase "This is skilled work' appear, as it does in the description for court reporters. ⁹

^{Fn 9} This is not intended to be a systematic nor exhaustive critique of the position description. See Model Guides (note 2, above), Chapter 3 for more detailed information.

Recommendation 7

A plan to increase the salaries of court interpreters to levels at least equivalent to salaries of court reporters should be implemented as soon as possible.

Comment: In Table 2, above on page 7, the substantial discrepancy that exists between the compensation levels for court reporters and interpreters in Philadelphia's courts is clearly apparent.¹⁰   Moreover, the table also shows it distinct difference with salaries for the neighboring state of New Jersey.¹¹   In making this recommendation we appreciate the administrative issues and challenges associated with making such adjustments. Nevertheless, a clear plan for correcting the inequity needs to be developed, even if it must be implemented in stages.

^{Fn 10} Reasonable observers equally familiar with the responsibilities and knowledge, skills and abilities of the court reporters and interpreter (as the author is) might disagree about whether the position of interpreter is more skilled and more demanding than that of a court stenographer. However, there is little room to disagree that they are at least equivalent.

^{Fn 11} Salary comparison with New Jersey is apt because of geographical proximity and presumed similarity n cost of living in the region. Moreover, il is apparent from our proficiency test results that Philadelphia's interpreters are equivalent in competency to New Jersey's interpreters. Other informative comparisons can be made with two metropolitan regions which require proficiency testing and certification prior to employment: Seattle, where the low range salary is approximately $36,000; and San Diego, where the low range is $28,000, increasing to $33,000. Phoenix, which also requires rigorous testing as a prerequisite to employment, has an entry level salary of approximately $25,000, increasing at the high range to $38,000 (source: Shew, Sarah 'Program Evaluation: Off ice of the Court Interpreter, Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County', Institute for Court Management of the National Center for State Courts, Phase III. Research Report, April 30,1993.

---

• Return to Philadelphia Court Interpreter Services Study Table of Contents

• Go to next Section Philadelphia Court Interpreter Services Study:

              IV.       Assessing / Improving the Quality of Per Diem Interpreter Services

• 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