The Hawai‘i State Judiciary’s Plan on Language Assistance for Persons with Limited English Proficiency

I. Introduction Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d Prohibition Against Exclusion from Participation in, Denial of Benefits of, and Discrimination Under Federally Assisted Programs on Ground of Race, Color, or National Origin (“Title VI”), provides that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefit of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” On August 11, 2000, President William J. Clinton signed into law Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (“EO 13166”), requiring all agencies receiving federal funds to address the needs of persons who, due to their limited English proficiency (“LEP”) status, cannot fully and equally participate in the agency’s programs and activities.1 Because the Hawai‘i State Judiciary (Judiciary) receives financial assistance from the Department of Justice (DOJ) for some of its programs and activities, it is subject to the mandates of Title VI and EO 13166. Similarly, on July 10, 2006, the Hawai‘i State Legislature enacted Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) chapter 371, part II, to further reduce language barriers to LEP individuals and to increase language access throughout the State of Hawai‘i. HRS §§ 371-31 to 371-37 provide for effective and timely communication between all levels of state government and individuals who might otherwise be precluded from using public services due to language proficiency barriers. HRS § 371-34 specifically requires each state agency or covered entity (entities that receive state funds) to establish a plan for language access (“LAP.”) State agencies receiving federal financial assistance must file an initial LAP by July 1, 2007, and every two years thereafter. II. Four Step Analysis Required To Determine What Services to Provide and

the Extent of Those Services The DOJ Guidance (issued pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), and EO 13166 are intended to assist DOJ-funded programs, including those in the Judiciary, to provide meaningful access for LEP persons. To determine what services to provide and the extent of those services requires an analysis of the following four factors: (1) The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by the program or grantee; (2) the frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with the program; (3) the nature and importance of the program, activity,

1 Under the DOJ Guidance, LEP persons are Aindividuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English.” DOJ Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 67 Fed. Reg. 41455, 41459 (June 18, 2002).

Rev. 07/23/07 1

or service provided by the program to people’s lives; and (4) the resources available to the Judiciary and associated costs. If, pursuant to the above four-step analysis, the Judiciary determines that it requires additional Judiciary personnel to provide language services to LEP persons because more reasonable or appropriate means of providing these services are not available, the Judiciary, consistent with state and federal laws, shall hire qualified personnel who are bilingual to fill existing, budgeted, vacant public contact positions. Upon determining the language assistance services that are appropriate to provide meaningful access to the agency’s programs, services, and activities, a LAP is recommended to address the identified LEP needs of the population served. The DOJ Guidance recommendations for preparing a LAP include: (1) identifying LEP individuals who need language assistance; (2) developing language assistance measures; (3) training staff; (4) providing notice to LEP persons; and (5) monitoring and updating the LAP. The Judiciary has developed this LAP to identify the needs of the community it serves and to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to Judiciary programs, services, and activities in compliance with Title VI and HRS Chapter 371. III. Needs Assessment

Hawai‘i has a diverse mix of people and cultures and one of the highest relative proportions of non-English speakers in the nation. The Judiciary provides court services to a wide range of persons, including people who do not speak or have difficulty speaking English, or who are deaf, or hard-of-hearing. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there were 302,125 residents of Hawai‘i who spoke a language other than English at home, representing 27% of Hawaii’s total population aged five years and older. Of those 302,125 people, 143,505 reported that they speak English “less than very well.” This diversity is also reflected in Hawaii’s state courts. Indicative of a growing LEP population are the Judiciary’s annual expenditures for court interpreters, which have risen dramatically due both to greater demand for interpreting services, as well as, to increased interpreter pay rates. For fiscal year 2006, interpreter tracking data indicates the following languages, other than English, spoken in our state courts.

FIRST CIRCUIT COURT

Language No. of Cases Cost Chuukese 1042 38,275.00 Ilokano 593 30,975.00 Vietnamese 624 30,712.50 Korean 848 30,100.00 Samoan 268 14,700.00 Japanese 262 12,625.00 Tongan 179 9,300.00 Tagalog 138 8,550.00

Rev. 07/23/07 2

Cantonese 16 8,400.00 Marshallese 187 8,300.00 Mandarin 134 6,562.50 Spanish 89 5,712.50 Pohnpeian 80 5,525.00 Laotian 56 3,125.00 Bengali 11 1,150.00 Thai 24 1,150.00 Kosraean 22 1,075.00 Cebuano 18 1,000.00 Hindi 4 600.00 Cambodian 11 500.00

SECOND CIRCUIT COURT

Language No. of Cases Cost Spanish 460 14,175.00 Ilokano 176 8,959.00 Tongan 66 3,675.00 Thai 6 2,593.40 Pohnpeian 32 1,600.00 Marshallese 28 1,500.00 Tagalog 24 991.00 Korean 9 600.00 Vietnamese 4 450.00 Japanese 5 400.00 Cantonese 3 150.00 Portuguese 4 200.00 Yapese 3 150.00 Chuukese 3 100.00

THIRD CIRCUIT COURT

Language No. of Cases Cost Spanish 14 8,670.31 Ilokano 8 7,608.94 Japanese 4 5,562.51 Marshallese 4 5,540.00 Chuukese 5 5,297.51 (blank) 1 3,865.86 Pohnpeian 2 2,350.05 Filipino 4 2,048.25

Rev. 07/23/07 3

Tongan 5 1,125.08 Samoan 5 1,034.72 Tagalog 4 906.97 Korean 2 725.00 Thai 2 453.51 Cantonese 2 287.00 Hawaiian 1 200.00 Kosraean 1 88.27 German 1 50.00 Laotian 1 50.00 Vietnamese 1 50.00

FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT

Language No. of Cases Cost Spanish 12 1,422.00 (blank) 1 1,110.00 Ilokano 17 775.00 Tongan 3 572.00 Yapese 1 352.00 Tagalog 4 250.00 Vietnamese 1 186.00 Marshallese 1 170.00 Japanese 1 50.00

In addition to compiling the above statistics, the Judiciary conducted a self-assessment to identify the public contact in each of its programs and to determine the language assistance needs of those programs. Attachment A- Self Assessment Questionnaire. The Self-Assessment Questionnaire sought information from Judiciary programs about what languages, other than English, were encountered in the delivery of services and activities, and the frequency in which LEP individuals used the programs, services, and activities.

IV. Language Assistance Measures

1. Resources Available for Use in the Courtrooms

Hawaii’s demographics exacerbate the difficulty of responding to the needs of LEP court users. The Judiciary is cognizant of the federal and state legal requirements associated with LEP individuals and has prioritized the development of a comprehensive plan to ensure their equal access to state court services.

a. Legislative Efforts

Rev. 07/23/07 4

In 2005, legislation was introduced by the Judiciary and later enacted by the Legislature establishing a revolving fund for court interpreter education, screening, training, testing, and certification. Prior to implementing the proposed Court Interpreter Certification Program (“Certification Program”), a revolving fund was necessary to create a mechanism for ongoing program fiduciary self-sufficiency. In 2006, the Legislature appropriated $158,329 for the Judiciary’s proposed Certification Program to orient, screen, train, and test court interpreters, which included funding for two certification staff positions. The current requirements to interpret in the Hawai‘i state courts are as follows:

o must be at least eighteen years of age; o must complete a court interpreter registration form; and o must possess a Hawai‘i General Excise Tax license.

In addition, hiring preference is given to interpreters who pass a basic court interpreter ethics examination administered by the Judiciary. The proposed Certification Program plan goes beyond the current registration process and is designed to address the critical need to expand the pool if local interpreters available to interpret in the Hawai‘i state courts and to work collectively to improve the quality of their professionalism, ethics, and interpreting skills. The plan is similar to other states in the National Consortium for State Court Interpreter Certification (“Consortium”), of which Hawai‘i is a member, and will include the mandatory requirements of:

o attendance at a two-day basic orientation workshop on program components, interpreter skills, and ethics;

o passage of the Consortium’s written English proficiency exam and the Hawai‘i Basic Ethics test; and

o passage of a criminal background check.

The proposed Certification Program offers eligible candidates an oral certification exam in court interpreting developed by the Consortium in languages where an oral exam exists or, if in a language where no Consortium exam exists, an alternative oral exam developed by LionBridge, which was designed to screen interpreters for use in the United States Immigration Courts. The overall proposed program structure will allow the Judiciary to categorize court interpreters in different designated levels of status, pay, and hiring preference according to their interpreting skill level as determined through measurable testing criteria.

b. Determining the Need for an Interpreter in the Courtroom

Rev. 07/23/07 5

There are various ways that the Judiciary determines whether an LEP court user needs interpreting services to participate in a legal proceeding. Identifying the need for an interpreter in a legal proceeding and the provision of interpreting services for such legal proceeding may initially occur through the request of the LEP court user or someone on his/her behalf, or through the request of an authorized court clerk, judicial assistant, bailiff, or other court personnel. Non-Judiciary staff, including but not limited to, the public defender, prosecuting attorney, or community advocate, may also identify the need for an interpreter in a particular case and inform the Judiciary of such need. Where no request for an interpreter has been made but it appears that an individual has LEP, the presiding judge will often provide an interpreter to ensure equal access to the courts. The ultimate responsibility for appointment of an in-court interpreter rests with the presiding judge.

c. Resources Available for Legal Proceedings and Out-of-Court

Proceedings Directly Related to a Legal Proceeding

Meeting the needs driven by the linguistic and cultural diversity of Hawai‘i is further challenged by our relative geographic isolation, being the most remote island network from any continental land mass in the world. Hawai‘i cannot rely on interpreters to travel from neighboring states to interpret for a case. The Judiciary recognizes that it must build self-sufficiency in its ability to provide qualified court interpreters for a multitude of languages. The Judiciary has taken steps to systematically address court interpreter needs for over a decade. In the past few years, the Judiciary has given high priority to the development of a localized and standardized court interpreter certification system to provide the greatest possible pool of qualified interpreters via locally based training and testing.

The Judiciary, through its Administrative Director of the Courts, Office on Equality and Access to the Courts (“OEAC”), and Hawai‘i Supreme Court Committee on Court Interpreters (“Committee”), has undertaken many changes in its court interpreter program to significantly improve the quality, consistency, and efficiency of the provision of interpreter services in the Hawai‘i state courts.

The OEAC serves as the platform for planning and policy-making in the area of court interpreting within the Hawai‘i state courts. While the OEAC provides guidance to Judiciary staff regarding court interpreting services obtained and used in the Hawai‘i state courts, direct provision of interpreting services, including scheduling and payment, falls under the responsibility of the court operations of each court level within the Judiciary.

Rev. 07/23/07 6

In its ongoing effort to increase the quality of interpreting in the Hawai‘i state courts, the Judiciary through its OEAC, will launch the proposed Certification Program on July 1, 2007.2 The proposed Certification Program is designed to promote and ensure equal access to Hawaii’s courts for LEP, deaf, and hard-of-hearing defendants and witnesses by providing the best qualified interpreters available. The program will also expand and improve the Judiciary’s pool of qualified interpreters by: (1) establishing a minimum standard for court interpreter certification; and (2) coordinating the screening, training, and testing necessary to assist interpreters in meeting and surpassing this standard. Court interpretation is a highly specialized form of interpreting that cannot be effectively performed without commensurate specialized training and skills. The OEAC will: (1) conduct basic court interpreter orientation workshops; (2) administer court interpreter written English proficiency and ethics exams; and (3) court interpreter oral exams. The Hawai‘i State Judiciary Court Interpreter Registry (“Court Interpreter Registry”) will allow the Judiciary to more effectively identify and give assignment preference to the most skilled court interpreters based on a new system that assigns a numerical tier designation (i.e., Tiers 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1) to each listed interpreter. The higher tiers of court interpreter designation correspond to higher pay rates due to an interpreter’s higher qualifications and recognized credentials. The Certification Program and Court Interpreter Registry will assist judges and Judiciary staff in selecting the highest quality interpreting services available for interpreting assignments. If approved by the Hawai‘i Supreme Court, the Hawai‘i Rules for Certification of Spoken and Sign/Visual Language Interpreters in Hawai‘i State Courts will take effect on July 1, 2007. These rules provide the authority for the Certification Program and establish the process by which court interpreters may be registered, certified, and otherwise qualified to provide interpreting services in the Hawai‘i state courts.

d. Ongoing Identified Forms Translation Project The Judiciary, through the work of the Committee and the OEAC, is in the midst of a project involving Judiciary-funded service to translate standard court forms. The court forms and languages to be translated were selected by polling judges and court staff. To develop suggested protocols for the use of the translated forms, the Committee conducted focus groups of member judges, attorneys, interpreters, and affected court staff.

2 The Hawai‘i Rules for Certification of Sign/Visual Language Interpreters are pending approval and adoption by the Hawai‘i Supreme Court.

Rev. 07/23/07 7

The selected translated forms were determined for introduction into the courts in three phases, starting with the forms with the least complex protocols. Forms included in Phase I of the project were translated by professional interpreter-translators into Ilokano, Tagalog, Korean, Vietnamese, Samoan, Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese. The OEAC’s timetable for completing final revisions of Phase I forms and statewide training for court staff and interpreters is December 2007.

2. LEP Resources for Court Support Services

The Judiciary received no legislative appropriation to cover expenses for providing interpreter and translation services to identified court support services. The Judiciary, however, is committed to taking reasonable steps to ensure that individuals with LEP have meaningful access to the court system and will pursue such efforts through future funding requests. The Judiciary has provided language access assistance to identified court support services in conformity with the four step analysis provided in section II above. LEP individuals may come into contact with Judiciary personnel in court support services primarily via the telephone or in person. The Judiciary is working towards having the following resources available to increase language access to LEP individuals:

a. Language access signage, in 20 languages, at specified court support service areas that are frequently visited by the public and/or LEP individuals. (Pending signage from the State Department of Labor and Industrial Relation’s (DLIR), Office of Language Access.)

b. Provide “What Language Do you Speak?” packets in 38 languages

at specified court support service areas that are frequently visited by the public and/or LEP individuals. Attachment B- “What Language Do you Speak?” Packet.

c. A Registry of Volunteer Bilingual Employees and Community

Members (“Volunteer Registry”) who are willing to assist LEP individuals with interpreting and document translation services.

d. A contract with a telephonic interpreting and translation service.

(Pending)

3. Translated Forms and Documents for Court Support Services and Programs

The Judiciary is in the process of contracting with a telephonic interpreter and translation service provider for translation services upon request of the

Rev. 07/23/07 8

Judiciary, after a determination has been made based on the four factor analysis stated in section II above. The Judiciary is also working to obtain “notice” language to attach to identified court support service’s documents translated into 20 frequently encountered languages. It is anticipated that the content of the notice will include the following: “If you need this document translated, please call the Judiciary’s Limited English Proficiency Plan Coordinator at 539-4125.”

V. Staff Training

Staff training opportunities will be provided to identified court support services staff that work in areas having frequent interaction with the LEP individuals. The LEP Plan Coordinators, OEAC Project Director, and Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Officer (“EEO/Affirmative Action Officer”), are responsible for developing and implementing training for Judiciary employees. The training shall impart the necessary background and understanding to implement the objectives of the LAP. The LEP Plan Coordinators shall develop and disseminate reference material with the essential principles and procedures of the LAP. The training shall also address the kinds of documents that should generally be translated. A check list of “Things To Do When Assisting a LEP Individual” will be distributed to appropriate staff. During training, the trainer will address issues of interpreting such as, competency, confidentiality, and impartiality. All employee and community volunteers on the Volunteer Registry will be required to attend an interpreter/document translator training conducted by the LEP Plan Coordinators. As new employees are hired, information on the LAP and the Volunteer Registry should be included in their new employee orientation. The LEP Coordinators will work with the Judiciary’s Human Resources Department on new employee education and recruitment. VI. Notice to LEP Individuals of the Plan The Judiciary intends to provide notice at identified court support services and/or program centers that interpreter and translation services are available free of charge to individuals with LEP who seek access to court services and/or programs. We are currently awaiting the notification signage from the DLIR, Office of Language Access. We also anticipate posting LEP language access information on the Judiciary’s Internet site. Judiciary staff will be notified of the plan through staff training, email, the Volunteer Registry, and the Judiciary Intranet site. As stated above in section IV(3), the Judiciary is working toward providing a notice to attach to court support documents that a LEP individual may need translated. The notice will be provided in 20 frequently encountered languages and will inform persons who need a document translated to contact the LEP Plan Coordinator at 539-4125.

Rev. 07/23/07 9

VII. Providing Interpretation/Translation Services for Individuals with LEP at Specified Court Support Service Centers and/or Programs

1. Oral Interpretation

In the course of serving the public, situations may arise where LEP individuals are unable to negotiate through court support service centers and/or programs without the assistance of an interpreter. To ensure that LEP individuals are not hindered in accessing identified Judiciary programs, services, and activities, the Judiciary will make reasonable efforts to provide an interpreter, free of charge, to persons with LEP pursuant to the following procedures.

a. In-Person Interpreter

The Judiciary employee helping a person with LEP should attempt to determine what language that person speaks. If that language cannot be readily determined, the Judiciary employee will use attachment B (“What language do you speak?” packet) to determine what language the individual speaks. The employee will allow the LEP individual to review attachment B and encourage him or her to point to the language in which he or she needs an interpreter. As a general rule, a competent, in-person interpreter is preferred over a telephone interpreter. If the person with LEP points to a language on attachment B, then the Judiciary employee will refer to the VolunteerRegistry. The employee will first contact an available interpreter within the Judiciary nearest to that employee’s location. If there is no volunteer interpreter within the proximity of the employee’s office who is assisting the person with LEP, then the employee will proceed to attempt to contact another volunteer interpreter off of the Volunteer Registry. If no one is available within the Judiciary, then the employee assisting the customer will call the contracted telephonic interpreter and translation service.

b. Telephonic Interpreter and Translation Service

If an in-person interpreter within the Judiciary cannot be located, then the employee helping the individual with LEP will call the contracted telephonic interpreter service (contract pending.) The identified court support services staff will be provided with the procedures necessary to utilize the telephonic interpreter and translation service. The cost for telephonic interpretation and/or translation services shall be borne by the court or department that utilizes the services.

At the end of the transaction, the Judiciary employee shall record the matter on a LEP Telephonic Interpreter Service Log (“LEP Telephone

Rev. 07/23/07 10

Log”), detailing the date of the call, the start and end times, and language involved. Attachment C- LEP Telephonic Interpreter Service Log. The LEP Telephone Log shall be submitted to the LEP Plan Coordinator at the EEO/Affirmative Action Office at the end of each month. c. No Telephonic Interpreter Available or Language Not Listed

on “What Language Do You Speak” Flyer If the telephonic interpreter company representative indicates that it does not have an interpreter available the Judiciary employee should contact the LEP Plan Coordinator at the EEO/Affirmative Action Office at 539-4125. The Judiciary employee shall document the interaction on a LEP Telephone Log. The LEP Telephone Log shall be submitted to the LEP Plan Coordinator at the EEO/Affirmative Action Office at the end of each month. See attachment C- LEP Telephonic Interpreter Service Log.

d. Telephone Calls

Should a Judiciary employee receive a telephone call from a LEP person or a representative of a LEP individual needing oral translation, the Judiciary employee should encourage that LEP individual to come into the Judiciary employee’s office, so that oral interpretation services may be arranged as set forth above.

2. Written Translation

As discussed in Section IV(3) above, the Judiciary is working toward attaching a “notice” to identified court support services documents in order to provide meaningful access to LEP individuals. When a request for written translation is received by the LEP Plan Coordinator, the Coordinator has twenty-four (24) hours to notify the court support services division where the document originated, that such a request was made. For translation of a document other than one that has been pre-identified, the LEP Plan Coordinator and the administrator of that particular division shall decide whether or not the request should be granted using the four-factor analysis discussed in the section II above (determining what services to provide and the extent of those services.) It is within the sound discretion of the LEP Plan Coordinator(s) and the administrator to make those decisions.

3. Judiciary LEP Service Reports

Upon completion of providing services or encountering an LEP individual at an identified court support service center, the staff that assisted the individual shall complete a LEP Service Report to document the language needs of that court support service center. Attachment D- LEP Service Report. The LEP Service

Rev. 07/23/07 11

Rev. 07/23/07 12

Report shall be submitted to the EEO/Affirmative Action Office within five working days from the date the assistance was provided.

VIII. Monitoring and Updating the Plan The Judiciary’s LEP Plan Coordinators will be responsible for monitoring LEP interpreter/translation services, requests, and updating the LAP every two years. We have developed a recording process wherein staff, upon assisting an individual with LEP, will complete and submit to the LEP Plan Coordinator a LEP Telephone Log and LEP Service Report that will provide necessary information to keep up-to-date on the needs of individuals with LEP who seek access to Judiciary programs, services, and activities. See attachments C & D- LEP Telephonic Interpreter Service Log and LEP Service Report respectively. IX. Designation of the Judiciary LEP Plan Coordinators The Judiciary’s EEO/Affirmative Action Officer shall serve as the LEP Plan Coordinator for court support services. The OEAC Director shall serve as the LEP Plan Coordinator for courtroom services. Both LEP Plan Coordinators will work together and are responsible for: (1) implementing of the LAP; (2) responding to inquires/comments/ complaints regarding the LAP and its implementation; (3) making any revisions and modifications to the LAP, as necessary; (4) training Judiciary employees on how to comply with the LAP; (5) serving as the primary contacts for LEP individuals who request translation of a Judiciary document; and (6) coordinating efforts to implement, monitor, and evaluate the LAP. X. Conclusion Through the preparation of this LAP, the Judiciary, in compliance with the mandates of Title VI and HRS Chapter 371, has memorialized the initial steps taken to provide reasonable and meaningful access to LEP individuals who seek access to Judiciary programs, services, and/or activities. This LAP shall be effective immediately. _______________________________ ________________________ Thomas R. Keller Date Administrative Director of the Courts

Judiciary Court and Administrative Programs Self-Assessment Questionnaire

Regarding Language Access Needs Title VI - HRS '' 371-33 and 371-34 Compliance Project

Program: Supervisor:

OVERVIEW

Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 371-31 through 371-37, provide for effective and timely communication between all levels of state government and individuals who might otherwise be precluded from using public services due to language proficiency barriers. The Department of Justice (DOJ) Guidance (issued pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), Executive Order 13166, and HRS '' 371-31 through 371-37 are intended to help DOJ-funded programs, including those in the Judiciary, provide meaningful access for persons of Limited English Proficiency (LEP)1. The DOJ Guidance sets forth a three-part process to achieve meaningful language access: (1) identify the demand among the eligible population for language assistance services and the program resources available to provide those services; (2) determine the appropriate form of language assistance to be provided, by balancing the demand with available resources; and (3) develop a Language Assistance Plan (LAP) to implement the services, monitor performance, and modify services as required.

PURPOSE

The following self-assessment questionnaire is provided to facilitate part one of the three-part process described above. This questionnaire is designed to help Judiciary programs and departments evaluate their capacity to (i) determine the demand among the eligible population for language assistance in each of the program=s services or activities; and (ii) identify the resources available to provide those services.

FOCUS

The demand for language assistance services and the resources available to meet that demand are likely to vary for each program and for each service provided. Therefore, this questionnaire focuses on the demand and resources available at the program and service level. Please have all supervisors/coordinators/program managers/court administrators whose staff interacts with the public, in person or via the telephone, complete this questionnaire and return a hard copy of the responses to the Administrative 1 Under the DOJ Guidance, LEP persons are Aindividuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English.” DOJ Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 67 Fed. Reg. 41455, 41459 (June 18, 2002).

2

Staff Attorney’s Office, Attn: Melissa Lewis by May 29, 2007. When answering the questions regarding the demand, consider the demand for language assistance for each service and activity offered by the program or department and at each point of contact with the public. When identifying available resources, first consider the resources within each program/department, but also consider any fungible money available through intra-Judiciary transfers of funds.

1. List each service or activity provided by your program(s) where staff has

contact with the public and individuals with LEP. 2. For each program, is language assistance available at each point of contact? If

yes, please describe, by language and dialect, the type of language assistance available, and the person(s) responsible for providing that service.

3. For each program/service, what methods of communication are used at each

point of contact (e.g., face-to-face conversation, telephonic communication, telephonic recordings, written informational materials, communication expecting a reply)?

4. By language spoken, how many employees in each program fluently speak

and/or read a language other than English? Please identify the language(s) and dialect(s) and whether the employee is bilingual, multilingual, and/or capable of written document translation.

5. Do any non courtroom programs use contract interpreters/translators? If yes,

describe what contract interpreters/translators are used, the type of services provided, and frequency of use for each language and dialect.

6. Are there times when any program allows the use of informal interpreters,

such as friends and family members of a LEP person to assist the LEP individual? If yes, under what circumstances? Please describe.

7. For each program, are minors used as interpreters? If yes, under what

circumstances, and how are issues such as competency, appropriateness, confidentiality, and voluntariness assessed?

8. Does each program work in conjunction with any community-based

organizations (e.g., religious groups, schools, legal aid) that are familiar with the language and dialect needs of LEP persons eligible to participate in any of your program=s services or activities? If yes, please identify the organization(s) and describe the working relationship.

9. Are there any organizations that your program(s) are not currently working

with that might be helpful in obtaining the language and dialect needs of LEP persons eligible to participate in any of your program=s services or activities? If yes, please describe the organizations and why it may be helpful to work in conjunction with those organizations.

10. Please describe the consequences for a LEP person who requires or needs

language assistance but is not provided language assistance for your program(s).

11. For each program, please describe the impact on actual and potential

beneficiaries that may result if LEP individuals are not provided meaningful access to your programs' services and activities.

12. Do any of the program=s activities or services require the participant to pass a

prerequisite step in which language might be a barrier to obtaining services or participation in any programs activities (e.g., applications, consent, interviews)? If yes, please describe the activity or service and its corresponding prerequisite(s).

13. For each program, given the demand for language assistance, what are the

total resources required to provide meaningful access for LEP persons?

14. Is there a staff member in each program assigned to coordinate language access activities and/or services? If yes, please identify by name and title.

15. Identify any additional resources, both monetary and personnel (e.g.,

bilingual/multilingual employees able to assist LEP persons), that may be available to each program for language assistance services.

16. For each program, do bilingual/multilingual staff members currently perform

informal interpretation or translation services? If yes, describe the type of services provided and the frequency of use for each language and dialect.

17. Describe the circumstances and frequency of each program=s use of language

access assistance listed below (if any): a. Telephone interpreter lines b. Community-based organizations c. Community volunteers d. Language banks e. Employee volunteers f. Other (please specify)

18. Do any of the programs provide written information to the public that may include LEP individuals? Please describe the type of paperwork and frequency of it’s dissemination to LEP individuals.

19. If any of the programs provide written information to LEP individuals, would translating the written information into different languages be helpful to increase language access to LEP individuals? If yes, please identify the

3

4

language(s)/dialect(s) the written information needs to be translated into and identify the documents that you believe should be translated.

20. For each program/service where staff has contact with LEP individuals, is there a process for surveying or collecting primary language and dialect data? If no, please move to question number 23. If yes, please provide the data and describe the surveying/collection process including the following information: a. How long has the recording process been active?

b. Describe the survey or collection process. c. What instruments are used to collect data? d. What data is recorded? e. Where is the data stored? f. Who has access to the data? g. Who is responsible for collecting the data? 21. If a data recording/collection process is already in place, is the data broken

down by languages and dialects other than English? If yes, please describe. 22. At each point of contact for each program, does the data recording/collection

process include the frequency and regularity of contact with LEP persons. If yes, please describe by including the following information: a. How long has the recording process been active? b. What instruments are used to collect data? c. What data is recorded? d. Where is the data stored? e. Who has access to the data? f. Who is responsible for collecting the data?

23. If there is no primary language/dialect data recording/collection process, how could a recording or data collection process be developed for each program/service? Please include in your explanation the following information:

a. What method could be used to collect the data? b. Who would be responsible for collecting the data? c. What are the cost implications of the process?

Thank you for your time and assistance in completing this Self-Assessment Questionnaire.

Telephonic Interpreter Service Log

For the Month ending Division/Office:

Date Translation Service Used Start Time End Time Originating Phone #

Language

Comments from LEP individual(s) or their representative(s) regarding quality of services provided: Approved by: Date: