|
Philadelphia Court Interpreter Services Study National Center for State Courts February 15, 1995 |
||
| I. Study Background and Objectives | ||
|
I. STUDY BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
This study
was commissioned in response to a memorandum submitted the Executive Administrator
of Pennsylvania's First Judicial District by the court's staff interpreters.
The memorandum outlined the professional responsibilities and qualifications
required of court interpreters, suggested "grave concern" regarding
quality of services being provided to the court by contract and free-lance
interpreters (generally languages other than Spanish), and requested an upgrade
of the classification and salary of interpreters.1 Fn1 Memorandum
to Dr. Geoff Gallas, Executive Administrator of the First Judicial District
of Pennsylvania, February 22, 1993, by Frank A. Rivera. Supervisor of Interpreters. After initial
review of the memorandum, exploratory inquiry within the court a consultations
with staff of the National Center for State Courts, Dr. Gallas identified
following issues as the focus for this study:
1.
1. Do the
court's staff interpreters actually possess the qualifications required of
professional interpreters? The
professional standards for court interpreters outlined in the interpreters'
brief appear to warrant consideration of a reclassification. However, the
crux of the matter is whether the staff interpreters do possess those qualifications.
The written and oral testing procedures used the court to determine eligibility
and preference for employment may not be adequate to make this determination.
2.
What
are the qualifications of the contract interpreters used by the court? Are
they adequately screened and trained prior to assignment in the court? If
not, what can be done about it?
3.
Is the
program effectively managed? There is no management unit within the court that is responsible
for oversight of all interpreter program elements, personnel, and factors
related to program cost. Does this cause any problems? If so, what changes
might be made?
4.
Would
the court benefit from a review of its rules and practices related to the
use of interpreters? There
are currently no programs of education for judges and members of the bar regarding
interpreter services. Would these beneficial? The National Center for State Courts sought to answer these questions by pursuing the following lines of inquiry:
1.
Testing interpreters,
using a valid and reliable test of required interpreting skills;
2.
Review of the
testing procedures the court used to screen the current staff interpreters,
prior to their employment;
3.
Review of existing
position classifications and salary schedules of interpreters, comparison
of salaries of interpreters with other job classes, and review of all Philadelphia
interpreters resumes;
4.
Interviews
with all court personnel involved in the scheduling, assignment, payment and
supervision of staff interpreters and contract interpreters, including interpreters
themselves;
5.
Interviews
with directors and interpreters of the private interpreting agencies with
whom the court contracts for interpreting services;
6.
Collection
and analysis of all payment vouchers and records for contract interpreting
services for the 13-month period immediately preceding the study;
7.
Preparation
of an inventory and report on outcomes of all contract interpreter services-scheduled
over a three-day period; and
8.
Observations
of interpreters during evidentiary proceedings. At Dr. Gallas'
request, the work of the project also included actions to improve interpreter
service quality based on preliminary findings of the study. These included
reviews of test performance (strengths and weaknesses) with staff interpreters;
seminars for staff and contract interpreters covering the code of professional
responsibility for interpreters and intensive skills training for Spanish
interpreters.
II.
Qualifications of the Court's Salaried Spanish Language Interpreters
|