83 Develop Legislation to Regulate the Minnesota Judicial Branch Court Interpreter Program Advisory Committee

Video description: A person is describing the solution titled Develop Legislation to Regulate the Minnesota Judicial Branch Court Interpreter Program Advisory Committee. The transcript is provided below.

Issue: There are many issues with achieving effective communication access in court settings. Quality issues include: Inconsistency of interpreters assigned Struggle to assign CDIs Working interpreters having no consistent venue for sharing necessary feedback regarding the work conditions

Proposed Solution: Commission put forth legislation to reinstate an Advisory Committee for the MJB Court Interpreters’ Program. Commission to coordinate and advocate with state government entities (legislature, governor’s office and court system). Multiple quality issues identified within the Court Interpreters’ Office and coordination of interpreters can be remedied by a policy advisory group of interpreters. Advisory Committee would be developed based on input from current and recent past SC:Ls familiar with signed language interpreters, spoken language interpreters and MJB.

Expected outcome: Consumers will receive effective communication in the court system. Interpreters will experience better working conditions.

Who is impacted: Consumers, hiring entities, interpreters

Update 8/4/24: MJB has now established an advisory committee; however, there is no legislative requirement for MJB to comply with recommendations and may disband the advisory committee at any time.

Timeline: 6 months

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

Summary of Support

Of the 94 responses, the majority of respondents supported developing legislation to reinstate an Advisory Committee for the Minnesota Judicial Branch Court Interpreters’ Program Advisory Committee. More interpreters were neutral while Nearly one third of Interpreters were neutral while the vast majority of DDBHH consumers were supportive.

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: 2%
Neutral: 23%
Support: 41%
Strongly Support: 33%

Click to see the detailed image description for each subgroup.

Interpreter
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 31%
Support: 35%
Strongly Support: 33%

DDBHH Consumer
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 10%
Support: 51%
Strongly Support: 37%

System Stakeholder
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 3%
Neutral: 18%
Support: 36%
Strongly Support: 42%

Overview of Respondents Opting for In-Depth Solution Analysis

After indicating their support level, 1% of the 94 respondents opted in to further assess whether the solution would worsen or improve on five metrics. Of the opt-in reviewers (1 respondents), 0% supported the solution, 0% were neutral on the solution, and 100% opposed the solution.

The remaining 93 respondents did not opt in to further assess the solution. Of these people, 75% support the solution, 23% were neutral on the solution, and 1% 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 additional in-service training for judges, lawyers, and court staff to improve their understanding of interpreter-related issues. Another comment notes that this solution has already been completed, with the advisory board established and representatives from the ASL interpreter and Deaf communities selected.

Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard of Hearing

One comment from DDBHH Consumers raises concerns that pushing for this legislation would be difficult, indicating that legislators tend to avoid micromanaging the judiciary due to the separation of powers between government branches.

System Stakeholder

No comments were submitted.