RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The Committee sought quantitative data about the need for interpreter services in Pennsylvania through three survey instruments. The first, the Community Agency Survey, was drafted by the Committee and distributed in 2001 to community service agencies across the Commonwealth. The second survey was prepared and circulated in 2000 among all Court of Common Pleas Judicial District administrators by the Pennsylvania Association of Court Management. The third survey, the Philadelphia Court Interpreter Services Study, was conducted by the National Center for State Courts and distributed to Philadelphia County court administrators and personnel in 1995.

THE COMMUNITY AGENCY SURVEY

The Committee’s initial source of survey data was its Community Agency Survey, a questionnaire that asked local community agencies with LEP clients to describe the experiences of their staff and clients concerning the need for interpreters in the Pennsylvania court system. The survey was distributed to 157 agencies, of which 41 responded. A large majority of the respondents were from the central and southeastern part of the Commonwealth, where most of the LEP population is located. The responding community agencies surveyed are located in 13 Pennsylvania counties, but serve at least 24 counties. Many of the agencies are headquartered in either Harrisburg or Philadelphia.

Participants in the Community Agency Survey were asked to address a wide range of language and interpretation issues. The survey requested that they list languages spoken by their clients and the languages for which there was the most frequent need for interpretation. Agencies were then asked to address how the courts meet their clients’ interpretation needs; the general availability of language services in their area; and the arrangements they make to address the needs. Questions also covered the role that the participating agencies played in providing interpretation or translation services, and the compensation supplied for those services. Finally, the survey addressed translation services and provided an opportunity for participants to suggest methods of addressing deficiencies in the system.

Respondents reported that Spanish, Vietnamese, and Russian were the languages for which interpreter services were most frequently requested.

Eight other languages were reported by at least 10 percent of the respondents: Cambodian, Korean, Arabic, Cantonese, Haitian Creole, French, Mandarin, and Laotian.¹⁰

The survey demonstrated the extent to which LEP litigants are relying upon informal sources of language services:

TABLE 1

(Q1) Who is meeting the need for interpreter services?

(check all that apply)

 

 

 

Other arrangements include using an interpreter phone service, volunteers, community people, and a courthouse janitor.

In a related question, the survey asked what arrangements were made when the court did not provide interpreters. The most common arrangement reported was for the community agency to provide interpretation services. The survey found agencies enlisting interpreters from any source available. Only two agencies hired professional interpreters. The majority of respondents did not know how or where to request interpreter services. Nearly 15 percent reported experience with state courts or agencies that refused to provide a court interpreter. Nine of the agencies, or 22 percent, said their clients had had contact with courts or agencies that did not provide translation of key written information.

Among the responses received were general observations that many LEP persons perceive a language bias in the courts and feel intimidated because their English language skills are poor or non-existent. This was reported by MidPenn Legal Services to be “very true at the district justice level and the administrative court level.”¹¹

 

PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF COURT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COURT INTERPRETER AND TRANSLATOR SURVEY

In 2000, the Pennsylvania Association of Court Management’s Research, Planning & Development Committee conducted the Court Interpreter and Translator Survey, the results of which were reviewed by the Committee. A total of 41 of the 61 Commonwealth judicial districts responded to this survey. It addressed the following issues: the responsibility of the court to provide language and sign interpreters; the availability of interpreters; interpreter qualifications, including testing and certification; and interpreter compensation.

Participants were also asked to discuss the use of technology in their provision of interpreters, and to voice an opinion on whether Pennsylvania should become a member of the Consortium for State Court Interpreter Certification.

The survey found fairly substantial support among court administrators for the notion that the court should provide interpreter services:

 

 

Respondents were then asked to indicate the availability of interpreters in their respective judicial districts and their needs for interpreters in 2000. Significantly, nearly 20 percent of the responding court administrators indicated that the availability of interpreters was a “major problem” and an additional 60 percent indicated that it had been at least a “minor problem” for them. While the First Judicial District in Philadelphia indicated that it generally did not have problems except for certain languages, that office noted that problems could arise from an immediate mandate for certified interpreters.

Some respondents indicated the languages for which their court used interpreters in 2000, and some trends did emerge from the data. In general, Spanish was the language generating the greatest need for interpreters (81 percent of the responding districts). The next most frequent need was for sign language interpreters (73 percent). Eleven different languages were cited by at least 10 percent of the court administrators for which interpreters were needed.¹²

A significant percentage, or 32 percent (13 of 41), of the respondents reported that their courts had video conferencing equipment available for video interpreting, while fewer than 15 percent reported use of an audio interpreting service. One additional district had the video conferencing technology, but did not use it for interpretation.

Finally, respondents were asked whether Pennsylvania should join the National Consortium for State Court Interpreter Certification (consortium). Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they needed more information about the consortium before they were able to answer the question, suggesting a lack of expertise among local administrators in issues of interpreting. Thirty-four percent favored joining, while only two respondents said Pennsylvania should not join the consortium.

PHILADELPHIA COURT INTERPRETER SERVICES STUDY

The Committee also reviewed the 1995 Philadelphia Court Interpreter Services Study, conducted by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). The study addressed the qualifications required for professional interpreters; qualifications for contract interpreters; program management; and whether or not the court would benefit from a review of its rules and practices related to the use of interpreters. Although the focus of the study was the Philadelphia court interpreter system, the results are relevant to the general issues being examined by the Committee.

The NCSC administered the New Jersey Screening Test for Interpreting Proficiency to nine Spanish staff interpreters in Philadelphia. Seven passed the exam. The test results suggested the strengths and weaknesses of the tests currently in use in Philadelphia. Five of the staff interpreters tested at or above the 98^th percentile established among those who have taken the exam in New Jersey, but two of Philadelphia’s interpreters failed. The study recommended that Philadelphia consider joining the consortium and using standardized tests for interpreter applicants. The study also found that the pay levels for staff interpreters were inadequate; they were paid far less than Philadelphia court reporters and interpreters working in New Jersey. The NCSC recommended that the court raise interpreter salaries at least to the level of court reporters as soon as possible.

NCSC also found that contracted interpreters for languages other than Spanish were not formally tested, and some agencies did not provide training. According to the study, “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.”¹³  NCSC recommended using salaried staff interpreters in languages other than Spanish, depending on the volume of work. Additionally, NCSC recommended screening of agency interpreters to improve their skill levels.

The study also recommended changes in the management of interpreter services, which were found to be fragmented and without adequate coordination, data gathering, and program leadership. To improve operations and streamline services, NCSC proposed the creation of a centralized office covering all divisions of the Philadelphia County court system, led by a senior manager who would oversee the supervising interpreter, formulate policy, and establish data gathering and evaluation systems.

Despite the many suggestions in the report, the study noted that the interpreting services provided to Spanish speakers in Philadelphia County are generally of high quality, especially when compared to many other major metropolitan areas.

 

In particular, Philadelphia County has conducted training of court interpreters, and has produced training materials for a court interpreter orientation seminar as well as an interpreter’s manual for domestic violence cases entitled Interpreters Manual for Courtroom #3—Abuse Court. Additionally, in a program called Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Fairness in the Courts, supporting materials addressing the needs of LEP litigants were developed and presented by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to judges and their staffs.

 Philadelphia County employs eight interpreters, all of whom work full-time for the court.  Of the eight, Family Division employs two full-time interpreters and provides Spanish translations of court documents. Municipal Court employs two interpreters who work exclusively for that division, and there are four full-time interpreters who work for the Criminal Division. Philadelphia County also regularly collects court data that include a listing of the languages for which interpreters are requested each year; the frequency with which interpretation for each language is requested; a log of requests for interpreters; a listing of interpreter agencies used by the court; a listing of costs for hearings for which interpreters are provided; and an annual report submitted by the family court interpreters employed by the court.

PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY

The Committee heard about the experiences and concerns of LEP litigants at the six public hearings it conducted in 2000 and 2001 throughout Pennsylvania. Among those testifying at the hearings were academics and experts who have studied the issue; professionals who work with and advocate for these individuals; and average citizens who shared their personal experiences and suggestions for addressing deficiencies in the system. For the most part, the testimony consisted of anecdotal evidence about current deficiencies in interpretation services.

The main issues raised by witnesses included the following:

LACK OF STANDARDIZED MEANS FOR PROVISION OF INTERPRETATION SERVICES

Courts in Pennsylvania have no standardized means for providing interpretation or translation services. Some courts use agencies, some appoint interpreters on an ad hoc basis, and some provide no interpretation services at all. Relatives and friends of the parties are sometimes asked to translate court proceedings, and advocates and observers have reported being pressed into service as interpreters by the court. An advocate from Harrisburg testified that she attends spousal abuse hearings with her clients to provide emotional support, and that while present at such hearings, she has been asked to interpret for the accused as well. “I feel very uncomfortable doing this, because my presence at the court is to support my client and to help him or her with his or her needs,” the advocate said, adding that she felt it was both unethical and a conflict of interest for her to perform this service. ¹⁴ The problem of access to competent interpreter services is especially pronounced in juvenile court, where the child, who is the defendant, is often placed in the position of interpreting the proceedings for his or her parents. In addition to the obvious potential for a conflict of interest, the use of a bilingual child as an interpreter can be detrimental to both the defendant and to the family as a unit. LEP litigants are also affected by monetary considerations because interpreter services are too expensive for most of them to afford.

 

LACK OF STANDARDS FOR INTERPRETER QUALIFICATIONS

Pennsylvania courts do not have set standards by which to evaluate interpreters’ qualifications.¹⁵ In general, the pay scale in Pennsylvania’s court system is inadequate to attract and retain well-trained and qualified people. Further, because the courts do not pay travel expenses, agencies are unable to send experienced interpreters to suburban and rural counties. The practice of using unskilled, poorly qualified, and uncompensated interpreters can easily lead to misinformed juries and judges when the interpreter misstates or misrepresents what the litigant has stated. Such misrepresentations can significantly affect the outcome of a trial. The problem is compounded by the fact that there is no avenue by which LEP litigants can object to the adequacy of the interpretation services.

INTERPRETATION AND BILINGUAL STAFFING NEED TO BE ENHANCED AT THE INITIAL CONTACT WITH THE SYSTEM

Most LEP litigants first come into contact with the court system through court staff, process servers, or, in criminal cases, police. Each of these encounters generally occurs only in English. Indeed, at every stage of the justice system, LEP persons encounter court staff who are able to communicate only in English. The procession of English-speaking intake workers, secretaries, attorneys, and judges may leave LEP participants in the justice system unable to understand the proceedings. The language problems resulting from the predominance of monolingual court staff is most pronounced with Spanish-speaking parties. Given the status of Latinos as the fastest growing population in the U.S., projected to be one-fifth of the population by 2025, the courts should give priority to the hiring of bilingual, bicultural staff. Such staff are able to serve LEP parties efficiently by delivering services in Spanish and other languages without the need for an interpreter.

LEP litigants may need both interpretation and documentary translation, which are distinctly different services. Anna Arias, an advocate in Wilkes-Barre, explained: “In Pennsylvania, the role of district magistrate is especially important because it is the entry point in what can become a long, confusing, and sometimes terrifying journey through the criminal justice system for recent immigrants who are unfamiliar with American laws.”16 Arias went on to tell the story of a young adult Latino male arrested on a drug charge who had no interpreter present during police questioning following his arrest or at the magistrate hearing. Arias, who had been called to interpret but was detained at another hearing, testified:

“I arrived during the hearing. As the defendant was being led out of the courtroom, he asked me in Spanish to explain what had just happened. The police officer told me not to speak to the defendant. I told the police officer that the defendant didn’t know what was going on, and I wanted merely to explain why he was being taken back to jail. The policeman said, ‘Let his attorney explain.’ His attorney does not speak Spanish.”¹⁷

District magistrates need information and training about the threats to civil liberties that stem from poor enforcement decisions—and in extreme cases, fatally flawed prosecutions—that end up in their courts. At a minimum, a commitment to providing interpreter service at all levels is a necessary condition for sorting out such cases involving LEP persons.

 

OTHER STATE SYSTEMS AND THE STATE COURT INTERPRETER CERTIFICATION CONSORTIUM

The scattered and inadequate provision of interpreter services for LEP litigants in Pennsylvania today mirrors the situation of LEP litigants in other states in the early 1990s. As recently as 1994, few states had comprehensive statewide mechanisms for ensuring that interpreters possessed the minimum skills required for interpreting adequately in a legal setting. Due in part to the lack of financial resources, most state court systems did not respond to problems created by inadequate language interpretation.

Since the mid-1990s, this situation has changed markedly. In 1995, after extensively studying the problems of LEP litigants, the National Center for State Courts established the State Court Interpreter Certification Consortium, with initial participation by the states of Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington. The consortium was formed to respond to the findings by many state commissions, studies, and other investigations that the needs of LEP litigants were not being met in state courts and that the litigants’ rights to equal justice were being severely limited. The consortium also became a means for states to share expertise and the expense associated with developing and administering testing and certification programs for interpreters. ²³ Establishment of the consortium was one of four pressing initiatives identified in the NCSC study, along with interpreter training, referral databases, and judicial education.

A total of 29 states had joined the consortium by September 2002.²⁴ The members have interpreter programs containing some or all of the following components:

• Adoption of the Code of Professional Conduct for Interpreters;

• Creation of a court interpreter advisory committee or task force;

• Consortium membership;

• Employment of state office program personnel;

• Adoption of state supreme court rules or administrative orders governing interpreter qualifications; and

• Implementation of regular statewide orientation and training programs for interpreters.

Philadelphia remains the only Pennsylvania county that attempts to provide interpreter services to courts in a systematic manner. Interpreter certification and training—two key components in an interpreter system—do not exist in the Commonwealth.

Given the clear need for a statewide system of providing certified interpretation services, the multi-state consortium is one avenue for Pennsylvania to pursue in attempting to meet its needs. Although there is a fee for membership in the consortium, the cost is less than the Commonwealth would spend to create its own certification and training program for interpreters. Membership in the consortium provides testing in 11 languages; training for interpreters employed by the state court system; a standard of test validity and reliability to protect the courts from legal challenge; test credibility; reciprocity between states; test administration innovations; and comprehensive interstate networking.

Some states that have yet to implement interpreter certification programs have nonetheless recognized the need for statewide regulations to ensure consistency in interpreter qualifications. For example, while legislation in Florida to create a statewide certification program is still pending, the state²⁵ adheres to NCSC procedures and administers the NCSC examination Mississippi, which has no program in place, has pending legislation that would provide for interpreters in all state courts, and would regulate the certification of the interpreters.²⁶

 

ENDNOTES

············································

¹⁰ Other languages identified and the percentage of responding agencies identifying them included:

Some respondents provided other detailed information about language needs identified in their work. Other languages reported: Ukrainian (2), Khmer (1), Serbo-Croat (1), Bosnian (1), Albanian (1), Pashto and Farsi (1), Lingala (1), Swahili (1), Romanian (1), Hmong (1), Tigrina (1), Dinka (1), and Huen

¹¹ MidPenn Legal Services, Lancaster Office, Response to a Community Agency Survey, 8.

¹² The breakdown of the languages for which interpreters were identified as needed is:

Language	% of Respondents
Spanish	81%
Sign	73%
Russian	37%
Vietnamese	29%
Other Asian	24%
Polish	22%
Arabic	15%
Korean	15%
Cantonese – Chinese	15%
French	12%
German	10%
Croatian	7%
Italian	7%
Serbian	7%
Other Eastern European	7%
Haitian Creole	5%
Czechoslovakian	5%
Laotian	2%

¹³ National Center for State Courts, Philadelphia Court Interpreter Services Study, p. 14 (1995).

¹⁴ Testimony of Ho-Thanh Nguyen, Harrisburg Public Hearing Transcript, pp. 121–22.

¹⁵ Pennsylvania Association of Court Management-Research, Planning & Development Committee, Court Interpreter and Translator Survey, Appendix Vol. I.

¹⁶ Written testimony of Anna Arias, Wilkes-Barre Public Hearing Transcript, p. 2.

¹⁷ Id.

¹⁸ Testimony of Rebecca Ardoline, State College Public Hearing Transcript, p. 81.

¹⁹ Testimony of Paul Uyehara, Philadelphia Public Hearing Transcript, p. 235.

²⁰ Testimony of Im Ja P. Choi, Philadelphia Public Hearing Transcript, p.131.

²¹ U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population, Profile of General Demographics for Pennsylvania: (1990) & (2000).

²² Testimony of Arthur N. Read, Philadelphia Public Hearing Transcript, p. 139.

²³ Madelyn Herman & William Hewitt, The National Center for State Courts and The Consortium for State Court Interpreter Certification Program, American Translator’s Association Chronicle, 35–37, October 2001.

²⁴ The states belonging to the consortium are Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois/Cook County, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

²⁵ Louise Story, Interpreters Balance Scales, Court Interpreters Make Sure Everyone is Heard, and Demand for their Services is Growing, Osceola Sentinel, July 2, 2001.

²⁶ H.R. 718, 2002 Regular Session (Miss. 2002).

²⁷ National Center for State Courts, Philadelphia Court Interpreter Services Study, Translating and Bilingual Services Section of the Administrative Office of New Jersey Courts, Robert Joe Lee, Director of Court Interpreting, pp. 16–17.

Go to top of document

---

LITIGANTS WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY

 Table of Contents

                                                                                                                                 Report Page

CHAPTER 1:  LITIGANTS WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY.................... 17

Introduction........................................................................................................................ 18

Synopsis Of Findings.........................................................................................................  20

Legal Analysis....................................................................................................................  21

Research Methodology......................................................................................................  25

Public Hearing Testimony.................................................................................................  31

Other State Systems And The State Court Interpreter Certification Consortium............  36

General Findings................................................................................................................  38

Recommendations..............................................................................................................  43

Endnotes............................................................................................................................  44

Go to top of document