Potential strategies to enhance the availability of quality interpretation and other language services are identified below. Courts should consider these strategies in the context of their own jurisdictional culture and resources and modify procedures accordingly.

1.  Keep track of language service needs

2.  Effectively use existing language services

3.  Educate judges, attorneys, and court staff about interpreter issues.  

4.  Increase the availability of court interpreters  

5.  Improve the quality of court interpreter services  

1.    Keep track of language service needs

Courts should develop a tracking system to ensure that the language service needs of the community are met. A tracking system will identify the types and frequency of requested services to help courts plan their language services resources. An automated tracking system also can facilitate the management (e.g., scheduling and paying interpreters).

Examples and Resources

• Hewitt, W. E. (1995). Court Interpretation: Model Guides for Policy and Practice in the State Courts, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. Figure 11.1 in Chapter 11 provides an example of an interpreter services request form and invoice data that can be adapted to help solve tracking problems.
  
• Oregon established a tracking system in which cases are coded for (a) whether or not interpreting services were needed and (b) if necessary, the type of language required.

Return to TOP

2.    Effectively use existing language services

Effective management of interpreter services includes responding to requests quickly to reduce trial delays, scheduling breaks for interpreters between case assignments to lessen fatigue, and scheduling interpreters so as to minimize waiting time (and therefore costs) for both the interpreters and the court. Court staff should examine the court calendar and consider scheduling options. For example, can the court schedule all the cases that require the services of an interpreter in one time block during the day?  Is the court aware before the proceeding begins that an interpreter is needed in the case?  Can interpreters be shared across county and jurisdictional boundaries?

Examples and Resources

• Minnesota Supreme Court Interpreter Advisory Committee. (1999). Best Practices Manual on Interpreters in the Minnesota State Court System.  St. Paul, MN: Author. See Chapter 7 “Hiring Court Interpreters.”

Return to TOP

3.    Educate judges, attorneys, and court staff about interpreter issues.

Educational programs can help alleviate misconceptions and ignorance regarding the application and utility of interpretation services and enhance their effectiveness in the court environment.  Improving Court Interpreting Services: What the States Are Doing suggests several issues educational programs should cover:

• What goes on ‘behind the language barrier’ when interpreters are used in court
  
• What knowledge and skills are required for interpreting adequately in court, and what goes wrong when interpreters are unqualified
  
• Clues for discerning the difference between qualified and unqualified interpreters
  
• Information about interpreter skills testing (how it works and why it is important)
  
• Guidelines for effective and efficient use of interpreters
  
• What options are available for improving the court’s access to qualified interpreters
  
• How to conduct voir dire to determine the need for a qualified interpreter.

Examples and Resources

• Gill, C., & Hewitt, W. E. (1996). Improving Court Interpreting Services: What the States Are Doing, State Court Journal, 20(1). Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
  
• An educational workshop program, including presentation and material is available through the National Center for State Courts by contacting research@ncsc.dni.us.

Return to TOP

4.    Increase the availability of court interpreters

In some areas, certain language services may be unavailable or not fiscally possible. One way to overcome these barriers is to pool resources. Courts, cities, counties, and states can cooperate and share resources to reduce financial burdens and increase the availability and diversity of resources. By sharing expenses and resources, courts are more capable of making qualified interpreters available to their communities (see, for example, State Court Interpreter Certification Consortium). 

Telephonic or video interpretation services provide alternative methods to increase interpreter availability. By implementing a telephonic interpreting program, the frequency of delayed proceedings due to qualified interpreter unavailability can be attenuated.  Telephonic interpreting can be more time-and-cost-efficient for interpreters, for instance, by reducing the need for travel. Telephonic services also can increase the variety and enhance the quality of language services available to a court.

Although telephonic and video interpreting options require technological set-up and maintenance costs, the efficiency with which interpretation services are presented using these methods has proven to be cost-conservative. The implementation of a statewide telephonic system and in-person interpretation services are preferable, but commercialized services also are an option. When guidelines are implemented, these services can be another cost-effective solution to language diversity problems.

      Examples and Resources

• Court Tech Forum. Telephone interpreting: A long distance success in saving money.
  
• Duncan, L. (2001). Remote court interpreting: Development of a pilot project in California. San Francisco: California Administrative Office of the Courts. Abstract also available. Describes a California telephone interpreting project.
  
• Indiana Supreme Court Commission on Race and Gender Fairness Sub-Committee on Language and Cultural Issues. A judge’s reference guide to language interpretation in Indiana courts. Includes guidelines for commercialized telephonic interpreting usage.
  
• LanguageLine is an example of a commercialized interpreter service.
  
• National Center for State Courts. Language interpreting in the courts. See “Telephonic Interpreting.”
  
• State Court Interpreter Certification Consortium is the largest-scale example of pooling interpreter resources. It is an interstate association that provides member states with resources for certified test design, development, and administration.
  
• Washington Courts: Judicial News Report Detail (July 6, 1998). Interpreting by phone. Discusses the advantages of in-person and statewide telephonic interpreter services. 
  

Return to TOP

5.    Improve the quality of court interpreter services

Establishing a code of professional responsibility for interpreters is a first step towards strengthening the quality of services provided. A code sets conduct and proficiency standards for acceptable interpreter service (see, for example, national model and New Jersey version). The standards outlined in the adopted code help promote minimum competency training for interpreters.

Implementing a form of standardized testing or certification procedure is another method many states are opting to use to reinforce interpreter service quality. Testing should encompass written understanding of English, legal terminology, and the code of professional responsibility, as well as oral proficiency in consecutive and simultaneous interpretation modes.

Consideration also should be given to implementing a team interpreting approach (see, for example, Festinger and Vidal). Court interpreters’ performance quality rapidly deteriorates when operating alone for more than twenty or thirty minutes, or with infrequent breaks. Although team interpreting is more expensive in the short run, its importance has been demonstrated.

Examples and Resources

• Festinger, N. (1999). When is a team not a team? Proteus, 8(3&4). Provides information on successful interpreter teams.
  
• Hewitt, W. E. (1995). Court Interpretation: Model Guides for Policy and Practice in the State Courts, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. Chapter 9 provides an example of a model code of professional responsibility for court interpreters.
  
• The NCSC has workshop curriculum and materials available free of charge, as well as a roster of expert interpreter training consultants to help customize and implement such a program (contact research@ncsc.dni.us). A sample workshop agenda is provided in Gill, C., & Hewitt, W. E. (1996). Improving Court Interpreting Services: What the States Are Doing, State Court Journal, 20(1). Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts (see Figure 3).
  
• The NCSC and the State Court Interpreter Certification Consortium may be helpful in establishing, reinventing, or improving an interpreter certification testing program.
  
• New Jersey Supreme Court. (1994). Code of Professional Conduct for Interpreters, Transliterators, and Translators. Trenton, NJ: Administrative Office of the Courts. Provides an example of a state-specific professional code for court interpreters.
  
• Vidal, M. (1997). New study on fatigue confirms need for working in teams. Proteus, 6(1).

   Return to TOP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   Previous Step: Step 2: Determine Changes  << >>   Next Step: Step 4: Create a Plan