Interpreter Bill Status
2/20/00 - The Interpreter bill did not make it in the legislation session this year. It looks like it will have to go back to WSAD to decide what to do next for the legislation on January of 2001. Jim Morris and I have the opportunity to talk with some of the representatives. Their biggest concern is the serious shortage of interpreters in this state and they don't see it logical to have it a requirement by the laws to have interpreters certified and licensed. This would reduce the number of interpreters available.
The sad part about this is there is no standard policy at the schools districts on hiring or how to evaluate interpreters. Nor does Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (who oversees all of the public schools) have established such policy nor were they willing to that in the past 7 years.
In Utah and in Minnesota, their state required that interpreter must be certified and the number of interpreters certified double since that law was passed. It is WSAD's goal to see that it also happens in this state.
I am hoping that WSAD, WSADIC, and WSRID and any other organization will have another opportunity to work to together in find a way to require all interpreters be certified. Especially now since elections is coming up this coming November for new legislation for the next 2 year which could have an impact on this particular bill.
This bill #2596 was not a perfect bill, however there
were several legislation tips that allows us to make changes during the legislation
session.
You can find a copy of the current bill at
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/2575-2599/2596.pdf
12/22/99 - WSAD is working with WSRID and WSADIC to get this
Interpreter Bill into law. WSADIC has formed a legislation committee and WSRID still
working on getting a legislation committee to team up with WSAD.
Biggest worry now, is the impact of I-695. This will come into effect Janurary 2000 for
all car tabs and it will only $30.00. However this does have negative impact to many
areas. The biggest area is transporation services. Many bus routes will be eliminated. We
do not know how much of an impact it will to to our current Interpreter Bill up at the
legislation. WSAD will be meeting with a House of Representative in Janurary to discuss
the impact to our bill and what we will need to do.
The survey many of you did at the town meeting is still being review for the total number
counts. Once that is done, WSAD legislation members will present it to the board for an
approval for permission to have it posted on the website. We hope to have this done before
the end of Januray of 2000.
We are still continuing to look for volunteers who are willing to join our WSAD
Legislation committee to work in the home town area. If you are interested, please contact
Jenifer Baker at jtbphoto@aol.com.
9/21/99 - WSAD is working with WSRID and WSADIC to get this Interpreter Bill into law. WSADIC and WSRID will soon formed their legislation committee and team up with WSAD. This is in effort after a disappointing survey done by the Department of Licensing. Laura Petersen wrote this article for RID newsletter:
Licensure Survey Update
At the RID conference I learned how lucky we are in Washington to have such
cooperation and input on the proposed interpreter bill. They’ve passed
licensure of interpreters legislation in Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
Kentucky , Utah and Minnesota (for educational interpreters only). There
doesn’t seem to be much consistency in the interpreter bills unfortunately.
One example being Rhode Island, I was shocked to learn that licensure in
Rhode Island means just filling out an application, sending in $30 and a
letter of recommendation. They have 5 levels of licensure under the
department of health ranging from freelance to student. So someone who has
taken a couple courses can be licensed as a student, unfortunately many
people think that if someone says they’re licensed that means they are a
qualified interpreter.
I continue to work in conjunction with WSAD’s Legislative Chair, Jenifer
Baker with the hopes of creating a meaningful interpreter licensure bill.
We met on September 10th in Olympia with Representative Romero and several
other interested parties: Don Hanson of OSPI, Rhonda Coats of the State
Board of Community and Technical Colleges, Bob Lichtenberg (Office of Deaf
and Hard of Hearing Services), John Evans (Department of Personnel), Char
Doland (President of WSAD), Jenifer Baker (Legislative Chair for WSAD),
Erin Moe Short (President of WSAD Interpreter Chapter), Lona Jennings and
Penny Allen from Self Help for the Hard of Hearing, Jim Morris (Director of
the Southwest Deaf Center), Larry Petersen (WSAD Deaf Education Committee),
Roxie Andrews (recent ITP graduate), Ann Ellsworth (ITP faculty), and
Ginevra Deianni (interpreter) the goal of the meeting was to discuss issues
with the House Bill 1573.
After scheduling the meeting a draft of the sunrise study, researching the
need for the state to regulate interpreters for the deaf and hard of
hearing, by the Department of Licensing was completed. Walt Fahrer from the
Department of Licensing was invited to the meeting and the majority of the
meeting was spent clarifying the results of the study.
The general recommendation from the Department of Licensing is to not
support legislation of interpreters for the deaf and hard of hearing. This
was very disappointing to hear since this study will heavily influence the
Committee on Children and Family Services who requested the study after the
hearing of the bill during the last legislative session in January.
The sunrise study was based mainly upon surveys sent out to the ODHHS
mailing list, despite input from ODHHS that this was a skewed population
consisting of many hard of hearing people who do not use interpreters. The
Department of Licensing had originally planned to solicit input through
public hearings but cancelled the hearings despite urging from ODHHS.
The survey was sent out to 6000 hearing impaired and deaf consumers which
solicited a “weak response” of about 500 returned surveys. Walt stated that
it is general practice to send a reminder to return surveys, this was not
done. Most of the complaints regarding interpreters were about educationl
interpreters.
The following summary of the results are taken from a copy of a portion of
the draft of the study.
Of the deaf and hard of hearing surveyed:
231 said they preferred a certified interpreter
7 said they preferred a non-certified interpreter
133 said it doesn’t matter if the interpreter is certified or not
When asked if they ever had problems (unqualified, confidentiality/ethical
issues, carelessness, misinterpreting, or omitting important information)
with interpreter services:
156 said yes
195 said no
When asked which group the problems occurred, the consumers responded
54 had problems with certified interpreters
119 had problems with non-certified interpreters
(Note: consumers were able to check both boxes if they had problems with
both groups)
When asked what type of regulation would help to provide better interpreter
services, the consumers that responded to the survey favored:
Private certification (RID, NAD) 51
State Regulation 43
Private and State Regulation 111
School District Regulation 56
(Note: consumers were able to check any or all boxes for this response)
Additional surveys were sent to an unstated number of certified interpreters
and non-certified interpreters. Walt stated that three hundred school
districts were surveyed and asked if they had any complaints from students
and/or parents regarding interpreters in the last five years. A complaint
was defined as a request for a due process hearing, mediation or citizen
complaints. The study reported only one complaint in the last five years
which was a Due Process Hearing.
Walt Fahrer answered several questions regarding the methods of his study.
Many people shared concerns that responses were only elicited through
written surveys when it is known that English is a second language for most
deaf people and the average reading level of the deaf population is sixth
grade, in which many would be intimidated by or unable to read/comprehend
the written survey. It was also pointed out that there were also no
questions about oral or cued speech interpreters.
Questions were then brought to Rhonda Coats of the State Board of Community
and Technical Colleges regarding her opposition to the bill at the hearing
last January. She stated that the community college is able to hire
qualified interpreters and they do not have a need for more regulation. She
did state that there is a concern that interpreter costs would increase if
the bill were passed.
She shared some of the current issues facing the community colleges. She
stated that they have had difficulty hiring qualified interpreters in places
such as Walla Walla and Yakima. The community colleges served approximately
13, 000 deaf students in 1997. In one college there were 600 disabled
students of which 10 were deaf. There was $40,000 budgeted for
accommodating disabled students. The ten deaf students would require the
full $40,000 in funds for interpreter services before the end of the year.
Colleges have been forced to get money from other departments. She also
stated that DVR often doesn’t financially support deaf students.
Bob Lichtenburg suggested that community colleges could be part of the
solution by providing more interpreting training programs and increasing the
pool of interpreters.
Don Hanson from OSPI was also questioned on his opposition to the bill. He
stated that teachers are the only staff certified all others are classified
employees. He is concerned about the precedent it would set if interpreters
were also certified. He also shared concerns that interpreter costs would
increase and the labor pool reduce if the interpreter bill was passed. He
stated that as shown in the Department of Labor’s sunrise study there have
been few complaints filed about interpreters despite providing different
vehicles for complaints to be heard.
A recent ITP graduate stated that in a interview with a school
the people interviewing stated she had wonderful interpreting skills
despite them not knowing sign language. She also stated that there is a
huge difference between being able to sign and being able to interpret.
This group will meet again. There is a lot of work to do in order to make a strong case
for the bill especially since the Department of Licensing sunrise study does not support
such legislation.
To join the WSRID Legislative Team, contact Laura at laura@thenrggroup.com.
To join the WSAD or WSADIC Legislative Team, contact Jenifer at jtbphoto@aol.com.
You can find a copy of the current bill at
www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1550-1574/1573_01291999.txt
Interpreter Links:
www.sccd.ctc.edu/~ccdeafst/terping.html
www.gallaudet.edu/~cceweb/slpshttp://www.purdue.edu/ODOS/apjf02.htm#8
© copyright 1999 Washington State Association of the Deaf (WSAD)