4 Educate Potential Hiring Entities & Employers: ADA Responsibilities

Video description: A person is describing the solution titled Educate Potential Hiring Entities & Employers: ADA Responsibilities. The transcript is provided below.

Issue: Organizations who need to hire interpreters often do not understand how to obtain quality and qualified interpreting services

Proposed Solution: Coalition, with Commission and DEED VRS leading, coordinate gathering of already existing resources and the development of new resources. The goal is to provide easily accessible training and resources to help employers and service providers understand communication access and accommodations. An example of a training resource is “industry standards and potential associated costs to expect when hiring interpreters.” Enhance and more widely publicize the existing State Services resource website. The audience is employers of all different sizes.

Expected outcome: DDBHH people will experience increased and better services when interacting with any employers.

Who is impacted: Consumers, hiring entities, including employers and service providers, interpreters

Update 9/9/24: DEED’s ERAF includes serving as a resource to educate and advise employers.

Timeline: 6 months

Video description: A person is summarizing the level of support that this solution received.

Summary of Support

Of the 144 respondents, most supported educating potential hiring entities & employers about ADA responsibilities. No respondents opposed the solution. No groups significantly disagreed with the overall support for the solution.

Summary of Support Image Description

The stacked bar charts show how respondents rated their level of support and the total number of responses. The percentage for the five support levels is shown from left to right: Strongly Oppose (Dark Red), Oppose (Light Red), Neutral (Yellow), Support (Light Blue), and Strongly Support (Dark Blue).

Respondents may identify with multiple subgroups. The overall level of support is:

Overall
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 12%
Support: 37%
Strongly Support: 51%

Click to see the detailed image description for each subgroup.

Interpreter
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 18%
Support: 38%
Strongly Support: 45%

Deaf
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 5%
Support: 34%
Strongly Support: 61%

DDBHH Consumer
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 4%
Support: 37%
Strongly Support: 59%

DeafBlind
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 0%
Support: 20%
Strongly Support: 80%

System Stakeholder
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 17%
Support: 38%
Strongly Support: 45%

Hard of Hearing
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 0%
Support: 67%
Strongly Support: 33%

Overview of Respondents Opting for In-Depth Solution Analysis

After indicating their support level, 2% of the 144 respondents opted in to further assess whether the solution would worsen or improve on five metrics. Of the opt-in reviewers (4 respondents), 100% supported the solution, 0% were neutral on the solution, and 0% opposed the solution.

The remaining 140 respondents did not opt in to further assess the solution. Of these people, 87% support the solution, 12% were neutral on the solution, and 0% opposed the solution.

Reviewer Evaluation of Solution Effectiveness

Solution Effectiveness Image Description

The stacked bar charts show how respondents assessed the effectiveness of this solution based on five metrics. For each metric, the percentage of respondents is shown from left to right: Worsens (Red), Improves (Blue), No Impact (Gray).

DDBHH Quality of Life
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 100%
No Impact 0%

Interpreter Satisfaction
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 100%
No Impact 0%

Consumer Choice
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 100%
No Impact 0%

Interpreting Availability
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 100%
No Impact 0%

Interpreting Quality
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 100%
No Impact 0%

Reviewer Feedback and Insights

Interpreter

No comments were submitted.

Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard of Hearing