114 Develop More Communities of Practice as Professional Supports for Interpreters

Video description: A person is describing the solution titled Develop More Communities of Practice as Professional Supports for Interpreters. The transcript is provided below.

Issue: Interpreters need more opportunities to develop skills and a support network.

Proposed Solution: Coalition, with MRID as lead, identify and promote additional Communities of Practice needed in Minnesota. Communities of Practice, focused on developing skills and practices as well as ethical case conferencing, have been demonstrated to improve quality of practice, develop skills and provide mutual support to members.

Expected outcome: Interpreters will experience greater support in their professional practice, leading to higher retention rates and more quality in interpreting work. Sharing these COPs as highlights of working in Minnesota may be a selling point for interpreters coming into the field or moving to Minnesota. DDBHH consumers will experience greater quality and availability of interpreting services.

Who is impacted: Students, new interpreters, experienced interpreters

Timeline: 6 months

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

Summary of Support

The 107 respondents were almost universally supportive of developing more communities of practice as professional supports for interpreters. No group significantly differed from the overall opinion.

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: 1%
Oppose: 1%
Neutral: 10%
Support: 48%
Strongly Support: 40%

Click to see the detailed image description for each subgroup.

Interpreter
Strongly Oppose: 2%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 7%
Support: 52%
Strongly Support: 38%

Certified Interpreter
Strongly Oppose: 2%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 8%
Support: 48%
Strongly Support: 40%

DDBHH Consumer
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 15%
Support: 45%
Strongly Support: 40%

System Stakeholder
Strongly Oppose: 3%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 8%
Support: 51%
Strongly Support: 38%

Overview of Respondents Opting for In-Depth Solution Analysis

After indicating their support level, 8% of the 107 respondents opted in to further assess whether the solution would worsen or improve on five metrics. Of the opt-in reviewers (9 respondents), 77% supported the solution, 22% were neutral on the solution, and 0% opposed the solution.

The remaining 98 respondents did not opt in to further assess the solution. Of these people, 88% support the solution, 9% were neutral on the solution, and 2% 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 85%
No Impact 14%

Interpreting Availability
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 87%
No Impact 12%

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

Reviewer Feedback and Insights

Interpreter

Comments from Interpreters express interest in learning more about existing Communities of Practice (COPs) and ensuring new ones fill identified gaps, especially in Greater Minnesota. One comment raises concerns around differentiating COPs from similar groups to avoid confusion and the sustainability of multiple groups.

Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard of Hearing

No comments were submitted.

System Stakeholder

Comments from System stakeholders note the previous efforts in mentor training and suggest using past training programs and facilitators to develop new mentor training. One comment notes that the Interpreting Institute for Reflection-in-Action & Supervision (IIRAS) is a resource to develop training to become mentors and case consult facilitators. Another comment expresses that Minnesota Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (MRID) may be the most appropriate group to manage such an initiative.