35 Accredit Interpreter Referral Companies
Issue: Multiple concerns have been raised about interpreter referral company practices. There is no standardization of interpreter referral companies nationwide nor statewide. While RID and NAD have each discussed and held groups to work on developing standards, such as a Code of Professional Conduct, Better Business Bureau ratings or similar system for providing guidance to interpreter referral companies, no such systems or guidance exist.
Proposed Solution: Coalition develop an accrediting system or Better Business Bureau model for interpreter referral companies. Standards of practice, limitations and/or guidance would be developed by the coalition. Proposed solution #29 suggests a Code of Professional Conduct for interpreter referral companies. This solution could wait if #29 were selected to be done first, then develop an accrediting system based on that Code.
Expected outcome: DDBHH consumers and interpreters would have greater confidence in the operations and functions of interpreter referral companies due to a formalized system for accrediting.
Who is impacted: Interpreter referral companies, interpreters, consumers
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: 6%
Neutral: 30%
Support: 39%
Strongly Support: 24%
Click to see the detailed image description for each subgroup.
Interpreter
Strongly Oppose: 2%
Oppose: 9%
Neutral: 31%
Support: 40%
Strongly Support: 18%
Interpreter Referral
Strongly Oppose: 8%
Oppose: 8%
Neutral: 38%
Support: 38%
Strongly Support: 8%
DDBHH Consumer
Strongly Oppose: 2%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 30%
Support: 38%
Strongly Support: 28%
Purchasing Agent
Strongly Oppose: 7%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 53%
Support: 33%
Strongly Support: 7%
System Stakeholder
Strongly Oppose: 5%
Oppose: 8%
Neutral: 45%
Support: 28%
Strongly Support: 15%
Overview of Respondents Opting for In-Depth Solution Analysis
After indicating their support level, 4% of the 122 respondents opted in to further assess whether the solution would worsen or improve on five metrics. Of the opt-in reviewers (5 respondents), 80% supported the solution, 0% were neutral on the solution, and 20% opposed the solution.
The remaining 117 respondents did not opt in to further assess the solution. Of these people, 62% support the solution, 30% were neutral on the solution, and 6% 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 80%
No Impact 20%
Consumer Choice
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 100%
No Impact 0%
Interpreting Availability
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 60%
No Impact 40%
Interpreting Quality
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 100%
No Impact 0%
Reviewer Feedback and Insights
Interpreter
Comments from Interpreters express concerns about how accreditation would impact smaller referral companies and whether accreditation would guarantee better quality. One comment suggests creating clear standards and transparent evaluation processes for accreditation. Concerns also focus on whether this process would be accessible to all companies, especially those with limited resources.
Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard of Hearing
Comments from DDBHH Consumers suggest that accreditation could help improve the quality of services provided by referral companies. One comment suggests involving Deaf and hard of hearing consumers in the accreditation process to ensure their needs are prioritized. One comment expresses concerns on making sure that accreditation leads to tangible improvements in service quality.
System Stakeholder
Comments from System stakeholders support the idea of accreditation but raise concerns about the logistics and cost of the process. One comment suggests establishing an independent body to oversee accreditation and ensure fair evaluation across companies.
Leave a Reply