Two weeks ago, Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl re-introduced the State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act (S. 1329), which would devote US$15 million in funds to improving state court interpreter programs. State courts are already required to provide interpreters to individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP). Yet, a new 35-state study of courts from the Brennan Center confirms that nearly half (46%) of all states do not require interpreters to be provided in all civil cases. The big question is this: How close will 15 million dollars come to addressing a nationwide issue? Courts across the country face both a shortage of qualified court interpreters and the resources to pay for them. Recent headlines remind the public of this continuing struggle:

• In southern Colorado, courts have to bring in interpreters from other towns or access them remotely due to the shortage of local resources.
• When Florida courts could not locate an interpreter for Mam — a language of Guatemala — they had to fly one in from California.
• A defendant in Pennsylvania recently claimed that he was unable to understand the court proceedings due to incompetent interpreting services.

Increasingly, courts are looking toward remote interpreting, not only to save money in travel costs, but to improve provide quicker access to qualified interpreters, especially for low-demand languages. In Nebraska, courts have been exploring their video-based interpreting options. Courts in Florida are also actively investing in videoconferencing equipment to better address their needs, too.

We wrote previously about our tour of a high-tech video court interpreting implementation at the Ninth District Court in Orlando, Florida. So, what’s missing among state courts? A shared network of interpreting resources. The Ninth District Court is already developing precisely this type of network for courts in Miami, with plans to do it for more courts in the state. This concept also already exists in the health care space, as we reported from a recent visit to a hospital in California that shares interpreting resources with other hospitals.

So, how would we spend that US$15 million?

1. First, we would allocate a good portion of the budget to improving the technological infrastructure. Adding video-audio networks and purchasing equipment would not only provide a platform for sharing interpreting resources, but would also enable more candidates to obtain the training and education that are necessary to become interpreters. For languages of limited demand (LLDs), and for interpreters in small towns and rural areas across the country, the issue of training is of immediate and growing concern.
2. Next, we would devote funds to develop and provide more outlets for training – not only for interpreters, but for end users (court staff and attorneys) to help them understand their obligations to provide language services, along with practical, hands-on instruction in working with interpreters effectively.
3. Lastly, we would devote some of this money to increasing public awareness, not only to help people understand why comments like, “Let’s get the janitor to interpret… he speaks Spanish!” are inappropriate, but to bolster consensus among constituents. This way, the next time language access legislation is on the table, it will have an even greater chance of passing.