64 Campaign to Support Interpreters in Greater Minnesota Being Hired by Local State Agency Offices
Issue: Consistent work options for Greater Minnesota freelance interpreters has been a challenge. Only interpreter referral companies are included in the vendor list for the state.
Proposed Solution: Commission and coalition work with local state agency offices (State Services, DEED VRS, Courts) to provide more consistent work opportunities for interpreters in Greater Minnesota. Work with Minnesota Management and Budget to allow independent/freelance interpreters back to the state vendor list. Work with DEED VRS to hire staff interpreters in Greater MN that can also support community needs.
Expected outcome: Greater Minnesota interpreters can expect more consistent employment. Greater Minnesota DDBHH could receive more interpreting services, particularly in state settings.
Who is impacted: Working interpreters; consumers
Timeline: 6 months
Note: This solution could also be expanded to be a public/private partnership. Interpreters could be employed through state agencies half-time and half-time in the private sector (medical, private business, etc).
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: 4%
Neutral: 18%
Support: 36%
Strongly Support: 42%
Click to see the detailed image description for each subgroup.
Interpreter
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 3%
Neutral: 20%
Support: 28%
Strongly Support: 48%
Greater Minnesota
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 4%
Neutral: 20%
Support: 32%
Strongly Support: 44%
DDBHH Consumer
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 19%
Support: 41%
Strongly Support: 39%
System Stakeholder
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 6%
Neutral: 22%
Support: 36%
Strongly Support: 36%
Overview of Respondents Opting for In-Depth Solution Analysis
After indicating their support level, 2% of the 110 respondents opted in to further assess whether the solution would worsen or improve on five metrics. Of the opt-in reviewers (3 respondents), 100% supported the solution, 0% were neutral on the solution, and 0% opposed the solution.
The remaining 107 respondents did not opt in to further assess the solution. Of these people, 77% support the solution, 18% 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 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
No comments were submitted.
System Stakeholder
One comment from a System stakeholder suggests the creation of a statewide office of interpreting, allowing interpreters to be hired full-time with benefits and mentorship. The comment also suggests state facilitation of internship programs to enhance the quality of interpreters from ITPs, manage its own referral process, and allow state interpreters to d be available for emergency community interpreting and be utilized by any state agency. Another comment expresses hesitation to involve government efforts in service provision but believes this solution would make sense if there is a low concentration of DDBHH people in different areas, but no interpreting availability.
PREVIOUS SOLUTION
63 Promote ASL for All High School Programs
Issue: Interpreter shortage.
NEXT SOLUTION
65 Develop Legislation and Mechanism to Prohibit Unqualified K12 Educational Interpreters
Issue: School districts, particularly in Greater Minnesota, may be hiring “Langauge Facilitators” and “ASL Paraprofessionals” who are functioning in the role of an interpreter. While a Paraprofessional with ASL competency may be a valid need, oversight is needed to ensure that school districts are not hiring unqualified individuals to serve as working interpreters.
Leave a Reply