Interpreting Forward 2030

Court/Legal Interpreting

Solutions in this category aim to revise judicial policies for better access to interpreters and establish specialized training programs to enhance legal interpreting skills.

categories

Category A: Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing (DDBHH) Advocacy

Category B: Systems Change Initiatives

Category C: Interpreter Referral Companies

Category D: Community Building for Interpreter Recruitment and Retention

Category E: Certified Deaf Interpreters

Category F: DeafBlind

Category G: Greater Minnesota

Category H: Educational Interpreting in K12 Settings

Category G: Greater Minnesota

Category H: Educational Interpreting in K12 Settings

Category I: Healthcare Interpreting

Category L: Recruiting to Interpreter Training Programs (ITPs)

Category M: Recruiting New Interpreters (not via ITPs)

Category N: Interpreter Training Programs

Category O: Certification Supports for Emerging Interpreters

Category P: Retention of Interpreters

Solutions in category

Minnesota Judicial Branch Revise Policy to Honor Hearing Interpreters’ Requests for CDI Teams

Regulate the Use of VRI in Critical Settings

Provide Legal Interpreting Workshop Series

Commission Lead a Public Campaign to Raise Awareness about the MJB Court Interpreter Program’s ADA Grievance Procedure and Complaint Processes

Study Court Interpreter Program Compensation Practices

Minnesota Judicial Branch Court Interpreter Program Hire Staff CDI

Develop Legislation to Regulate the Minnesota Judicial Branch (MJB) Court Interpreter Program Advisory Committee

MJB Enforce Policy to Reinstate Rule 8 Prioritizing SC:Ls

Promote Texas’ BEI Court Certification to Demonstrate Qualifications to Interpret in Court and Legal Settings

Solution

For each solution within this category, respondents rated their level of support. The survey results are shown below from most popular to least popular, based on the combined level of support and strongly support. The visual breakdown is shown next to each solution. Click on the solution name to learn more in detail.

Image description: A set of stacked bar charts show the percentage of respondents are shown for the five categories from left to right: Strongly Oppose (Dark Red), Oppose (Light Red), Neutral (Yellow), Support (Light Blue), and Strongly Support (Dark Blue). The percentages are shown under each bar.

Strongly Oppose

Oppose

Neutral

Support

Strongly Support

Minnesota Judicial Branch Revise Policy to Honor Hearing Interpreters’ Requests for CDI Teams

Strongly Oppose: 1%, Oppose: 1%, Neutral: 9%, Support: 32%, Strongly Support: 56%

Regulate the Use of VRI in Critical Settings

Strongly Oppose: 0%, Oppose: 3%, Neutral: 9%, Support: 35%, Strongly Support: 53%

Provide Legal Interpreting Workshop Series

Strongly Oppose: 1%, Oppose: 0%, Neutral: 12%, Support: 41%, Strongly Support: 46%

Commission Lead a Public Campaign to Raise Awareness about the MJB Court Interpreter Program’s ADA Grievance Procedure and Complaint Processes

Strongly Oppose: 1%, Oppose: 0%, Neutral: 17%, Support: 45%, Strongly Support: 38%

Study Court Interpreter Program Compensation Practices

Strongly Oppose: 1%, Oppose: 1%, Neutral: 18%, Support: 50%, Strongly Support: 30%

Minnesota Judicial Branch Court Interpreter Program Hire Staff CDI

Strongly Oppose: 2%, Oppose: 4%, Neutral: 16%, Support: 33%, Strongly Support: 46%

Develop Legislation to Regulate the Minnesota Judicial Branch (MJB) Court Interpreter Program Advisory Committee

Strongly Oppose: 0%, Oppose: 2%, Neutral: 23%, Support: 41%, Strongly Support: 33%

MJB Enforce Policy to Reinstate Rule 8 Prioritizing SC:Ls

Strongly Oppose: 2%, Oppose: 3%, Neutral: 25%, Support: 34%, Strongly Support: 36%

Promote Texas’ BEI Court Certification to Demonstrate Qualifications to Interpret in Court and Legal Settings

Strongly Oppose: 1%, Oppose: 4%, Neutral: 35%, Support: 38%, Strongly Support: 22%