8 Establish a New Fund for Home & Community Services Interpreting Needs
Issue: DDBHH consumers are often denied interpreting services from home and community service entities due to ficial constraints.
Proposed Solution: Commission and State Services work in conjunction to establish a new legislatively funded program for businesses, organizations (both nonprofits and for profit entities) and individuals that do not have the funds to provide interpreting, particularly for home services (plumbing, HVAC, etc.) and other professional services not typically covered by ADA or other resources. This would be similar to ERAF (#1) and the State Services funded program for funerals, 12-step and other support group interpreting. A public outreach campaign would also be needed to inform both DDBHH Minnesotans and small businesses and organizations that this fund is available.
Expected outcome: DDBHH Minnesotans will gain greater access to communication in home and community based settings that have previously not been accessible. Interpreters will be compensated in settings where they may have not been working or may have provided pro-bono interpreting services.
Who is impacted: Consumers, interpreters
Timeline: 6 months
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: 2%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 26%
Support: 38%
Strongly Support: 33%
Click to see the detailed image description for each subgroup.
Interpreter
Strongly Oppose: 2%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 25%
Support: 46%
Strongly Support: 25%
Deaf
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 32%
Support: 32%
Strongly Support: 35%
DDBHH Consumer
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 1%
Neutral: 28%
Support: 32%
Strongly Support: 38%
DeafBlind
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 0%
Support: 0%
Strongly Support: 100%
System Stakeholder
Strongly Oppose: 3%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 26%
Support: 31%
Strongly Support: 41%
Hard of Hearing
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 0%
Support: 50%
Strongly Support: 50%
Overview of Respondents Opting for In-Depth Solution Analysis
After indicating their support level, 4% of the 125 respondents opted in to further assess whether the solution would worsen or improve on five metrics. Of the opt-in reviewers (6 respondents), 66% supported the solution, 33% were neutral on the solution, and 0% opposed the solution.
The remaining 119 respondents did not opt in to further assess the solution. Of these people, 70% support the solution, 26% were neutral on the solution, and 3% 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 63%
No Impact 36%
Consumer Choice
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 90%
No Impact 9%
Interpreting Availability
Makes It Worse 8%
Makes It Better 75%
No Impact 16%
Interpreting Quality
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 63%
No Impact 36%
Reviewer Feedback and Insights
Interpreter
No comments were submitted.
Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard of Hearing
Comments from DDBHH Consumers expressed interest for the fund to be expanded to cover sports and recreation services.
System Stakeholder
No comments were submitted.
Leave a Reply