23 Interpreter Referral Companies Host Community Conversations about Their Policies and Practices

Video description: A person is describing the solution titled Interpreter Referral Companies Host Community Conversations about Their Policies and Practices. The transcript is provided below.

Issue: Consumers and interpreters do not have clarity on interpreter referral companies’ policies, practices and standards. Multiple concerns were raised during community input sessions that appear to be attributable to interpreter referral company practices, including detrimental impacts to consumers due to competition among companies.

Proposed Solution: Interpreter referral companies host community conversations to share their policies, practices etc. Leave significant time for Q & A and have staff on hand to engage in private 1:1 conversations to review specific instances that community members raise.

Expected outcome: More transparency for consumers and interpreters about interpreter referral companies’ practices and policies. Consumers and interpreters can share feedback with companies for their consideration to shift policies and practices.

Who is impacted: Interpreter referral companies, consumers, interpreters

Timeline: 6 months

Note: The Twin Cities Freelance Interpreter group hosted a conversation with interpreter referral companies January 11, 2024. Interpreter referral companies could connect with TC Freelance group to get more information and considerations prior to hosting a community conversation.

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

Summary of Support

Of the 131 respondents, a vast majority supported interpreter referral companies hosting community conversations about their policies and practices. A small fraction of interpreting referral respondents were strongly opposed.

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: 19%
Support: 45%
Strongly Support: 32%

Click to see the detailed image description for each subgroup.

Interpreter
Strongly Oppose: 3%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 23%
Support: 39%
Strongly Support: 35%

Interpreter Referral
Strongly Oppose: 8%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 23%
Support: 46%
Strongly Support: 23%

DDBHH Consumer
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 3%
Neutral: 21%
Support: 45%
Strongly Support: 31%

Purchasing Agent
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 6%
Neutral: 25%
Support: 44%
Strongly Support: 25%

System Stakeholder
Strongly Oppose: 5%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 23%
Support: 49%
Strongly Support: 21%

Overview of Respondents Opting for In-Depth Solution Analysis

After indicating their support level, 2% of the 131 respondents opted in to further assess whether the solution would worsen or improve on five metrics. Of the opt-in reviewers (3 respondents), 66% supported the solution, 33% were neutral on the solution, and 0% opposed the solution.

The remaining 128 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

Comments from Interpreters suggest uncertainty about whether such meetings would bring communities closer together or create an adversarial relationship between agencies and the community. One comment suggests the need for accountability, inclusivity, and quality assurance to be addressed in these meetings. One comment expresses concern on whether these meetings would hurt or help the relationships between agencies and the community.

Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard of Hearing

Comments from DDBHH Consumers express uncertainty about how these meetings will look and whether they would ultimately help or hurt the community. One comment expresses concern on the potential impact on existing relationships and the effectiveness of such gatherings.

System Stakeholder

Comments from System stakeholders echo concerns about the structure and purpose of these meetings. One comment highlights the need for accountability, inclusivity, and quality assurance, but there is uncertainty about how beneficial these meetings will be.