Spanish Speaker Perceptions of Access and Fairness of the Superior Court of New Jersey in Vicinage XV and Improvement Recommendations

Transcription

1 Spanish Speaker Perceptions of Access and Fairness of the Superior Court of New Jersey in Vicinage XV and Improvement Recommendations Institute for Court Management Court Executive Development Program Phase III Project April 11, 2008 Saul E. Hernandez Operations Division Manager Superior Court of New Jersey Vicinage XV (Cumberland, Gloucester, & Salem Counties)

2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with any project of similar undertaking, it could not be effectively completed without the assistance and inspiration from key individuals. First, I would like to thank James R. Castagnoli, Trial Court Administrator (retired as of the date of submission for this project) for providing the encouragement to complete this phase of the Court Executive Development Program. Also, I d like to thank my current Trial Court Administrator, Mark Sprock, for his continued support in my new capacity. Thanks to Stephanie D. Snow, Finance Division Manager for allowing me the time to attend the classes in Williamsburg. A special thanks to Honorable Georgia M. Curio, Assignment Judge Vicinage XV, for providing the vision and leadership that helped motivate me to complete this project. For the practical application of this research, I thank the Court Interpreters and Bilingual Probation Officers of Vicinage XV for pre-testing and providing their input on the proper instructions. I would like to thank my wife, Jessica, for supporting me and keeping me on par throughout this phase. Last, but certainly not least, my daughter, Juliana for tolerating the loss of substantial reading time. ii

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION....4 A. Context and Description of the Issue...4 B. Goal of the Project C. Outline of the Project LITERATURE REVIEW...8 A. Historical Synopsis: Summary of Research on Court Interpretation..9 B. Various Law, Rules, and Procedures from Literature Review...11 C. Methods of Research, Findings, and Future Trends..15 D. Past Literature and The Proposed Research Plan/Methods...18 E. Description of Research Items from Other Reports and Correlation METHODOLOGY..21 A. Pre-test of the Survey Tool...21 B. Dissemination and Collection of the Surveys. 24 C. Obstacles Throughout the Process RESEARCH FINDINGS...28 A. Results From the Pre-Test B. Results From the Access and Fairness Surveys CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Articulating the Findings..32 B. Practical Implications and Action Steps BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES.38 iii

4 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Graph #1 Subject Matter Expert (SME) Average Responses.23 Graph #2 Completion Percentage of Survey Answers by Respondents Graph #3 Reply Averages from Respondents iv

5 LIST OF TABLES TABLE #1 TABLE #2 Hispanic Population by County within the Vicinage 25 Comparison of Average Responses of SMEs vs. Respondents (Q. #3 and Q. #5). 31 v

6 LIST OF APPENDICES 1. Instructions for Filling out Surveys (Pre-Test) Notice to Litigants (Spanish) Access and Fairness Survey (Official) Access and Fairness Survey (CourTools) Bilingual Clerical Career Brochure Bilingual Probation Officer Career Brochure BICAT Program Operating Procedure Respondent Survey Replies Tabulation Subject Matter Expert Survey Responses Tabulation..57 vi

7 I. ABSTRACT This research is dedicated to defining, reviewing, and analyzing the Spanish speaking clientele s perceptions of access and fairness provided by Vicinage XV of the New Jersey Superior Court. Vicinage XV is comprised of Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties wherein lie eight buildings (courthouses and operational facilities) which contain judges, court management and personnel. There are nine divisions that make up vicinage court structure. These are led by the Assignment Judge, who oversees all court management personnel and the respective judges for the four case management divisions (civil, criminal, family and municipal). The Spanish speaking population is most densely concentrated in Cumberland County, but all three counties are experiencing increases in the Spanish-speaking population as a whole. This research was conducted to assess and analyze the perceptions of the Spanishspeaking population. Does this section of the general population perceive that it has access to the courts and is treated fairly? Providing access and fairness is a large component of doing justice and justice should not only be done, but be perceived as being done. This research focuses less on what the vicinage has done to provide access and fairness to Spanish speakers and more on the perceptions of the Spanish speakers do they believe they had equal access to services? Do they feel they were treated fairly? Much data have been compiled and research has been done about the provision of Spanish court interpretation and the relevance of these services. Most of the research involves interpreting services provided during in-court proceedings. However, very little data, anecdotal and otherwise, exist describing the challenge of providing services to - 1 -

8 Spanish speaking clientele at the ancillary areas of the court system (for example, at customer service windows). These individuals often receive less than effective services simply because of the language barrier. As a result, their perceptions of access and fairness may be tainted (ie. feelings of trust in the court system could falter). The perceptions of the Spanish speakers in Vicinage XV were measured to determine whether access to justice is made readily available. Measuring these perceptions allowed the vicinage to determine areas of improvement. An adaptation of the survey tool provided by the CourTools Trial Court Performance Measure one: Access and Fairness 1 (Spanish version) was used to assess perceptions of access and fairness. The method of research consisted of the basic dissemination, completion and collection of surveys. These surveys were pre-tested by subject matter experts within the vicinage (court interpreters and Bilingual Probation Officers). Once pre-testing was completed, the survey tool was modified and physically placed at all the customer service windows within the vicinage, including all municipal courts. Pre-testing predicted that overall responses by the Spanish speaking public would be positive. The surveys were displayed for a period of three months and collected periodically for tabulation. Results indicated that Spanish speaking clientele generally perceived that they have access and are afforded fairness in the vicinage s courts, except in two areas: 1. Understandability of judicial forms: Most of the forms are English only; therefore, Spanish speakers will have difficulty deciphering them. Also, those that have been translated may be unclear or difficult to understand. 1 entire page

9 2. Language Barriers: At times, there is no immediate availability of bilingual professionals, thus limiting access. As a result of the research, the following recommendations are made for Vicinage XV: Bilingual Probation Officers should be strategically placed in the divisions for more efficient interpreting services. The vicinage should hire bilingual clerical staff and encourage staff that is currently providing interpreting services to take the Bilingual Communicative Ability Test (BICAT) for certification. The forms unit at the Administrative Office of the Courts should continue to translate additional forms into Spanish for this demographic. Implementing these recommendations will provide greater and more equal access and improve the public s perception of fairness and equality in the courts

10 II. INTRODUCTION A. Context and Description of the Issue The barriers faced by Spanish speaking individuals in the court system can hinder access to justice and fairness with regard to adjudication. Specifically, court operations within the three counties of Vicinage XV of the Superior Court of New Jersey face a challenge in meeting the needs of this particular population. Court management, through leadership from the Administrative Office of the Courts, has mitigated the disparity of access and fairness by implementing programs for interpretation by hiring professional interpreters to provide services for its Spanish speaking clientele. The administration has recognized this issue and has promised that, Linguistic barriers to access shall be overcome by providing qualified interpreters and bilingual court support personnel. 2 Vicinage XV is comprised of eight buildings (for example, courthouses, case management, and administrative offices) within Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem counties. There are nine divisions of case and administrative management: 1. Civil oversight of cases dealing with personal litigation (for example, small claims). 2. Criminal oversight of cases involving criminal charges (for example, drug offenses). 3. Family oversight of cases regarding domestic issues (for example, domestic violence). 4. Finance handles all accounting and financial activity (for example, deposit of fees). 5. Human Resources handles activities for personnel within the vicinage (for example, payroll and benefits). 6. Information Technology management of all computer technology (for example, servers). 7. Municipal management of overall municipal court activities. 8. Operations oversight of facilities, jury management, and interpreting services. 2 Court Interpreting, Legal Translating, and Bilingual Services Section, Initiatives of the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts to Ensure Equal Access to Courts for Linguistic Minorities, Administrative Office of the Courts, 1996, page iii

11 9. Probation handles criminal cases that result in probation supervision and monitors child support cases derived from family division. Each division is led by a division manager and, in most cases, assistant division manager(s). The Trial Court Administrator is the lead court executive of the vicinage; all the division managers report to this individual. The Assignment Judge oversees all other judges, the Trial Court Administrator, and the division managers. The Assignment Judge reports to the Administrative Director (seated in Trenton). The Administrative Director reports to the Chief Justice. Vicinage XV has two staff interpreters providing Spanish interpreting services, mostly for court proceedings. According to vicinage management, the overall process of identifying and scheduling interpreting services runs very smoothly. If an internal staff interpreter is not available, the vicinage contacts outside vendors for interpreting services. Criminal, civil and family divisions employ eighteen Bilingual Probation Officers to provide out of court interpreting services for their respective divisions. The vicinage also utilizes a telephonic interpreting vendor service in the event that either the Bilingual Probation Officers or court interpreters are unavailable. As indicated the Judiciary, and specifically Vicinage XV, has taken adequate steps to ensure that Spanish speaking clientele have the opportunity to be provided with sufficient service. However, many instances exist in which Bilingual Probation Officers or court interpreters are not available and clients may be hesitant to utilize the Language Line service. There are employees, not classified as bilingual by title, who often try to help by providing interpreting services at the ancillary areas of the court system. These include customer service windows, pre- and post- court interviews, and other related - 5 -

12 venues. This could result in inaccurate interpretation, thus hindering access and fairness and the perception of access and fairness. It also places pressure on bilingual personnel who do not have official certification to provide these services. This research assesses perceptions of the Spanish speaking clientele and makes recommendations to improve those perceptions. B. Goal of the Project This project does not replicate research already compiled by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Nor does it address those interpreting services provided to Spanish speaking clientele during in-court proceedings or the related costs of those services. Costs involved in hiring vendors have been analyzed and discussed at length. Instead, this research focused on the perceptions of Spanish speaking court users, asking if they perceived that they were afforded justice and were treated fairly. This is unique research and offers a distinctive review of this particular issue. Such an assessment has not been completed within the New Jersey Judiciary and provides insight into the perceptions of these limited-english-proficient (LEP) individuals. It provides leaders with a quantitative analysis with which to review current bilingual staffing levels and recommends improved recruitment of bilingual professionals. C. Outline of the Project Past research and anecdotal data are discussed and analyzed. Literature relating to this issue is evaluated and relevant points are addressed. The research methodology and survey tools are reviewed and the findings of the surveys (pre-testing and customer - 6 -

13 service) are tabulated and examined. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are made. The literature review summarizes past research and provides insight to the background of the issue. It discusses important concepts from published and online literature. Laws, rules and codes relating to interpretation and translation services were correlated with the issue of limited access to fairness and justice by Spanish speaking clientele. It illustrates the research method that was utilized and the rationale behind it, and helps ensure that past research is not duplicated. The research method is a basic survey assessment. CourTools assessment one and the associated survey tool were utilized to assess perceptions of access and fairness for Spanish speaking clientele. The survey tool was pre-tested by subject matter experts (SMEs) and adjusted accordingly. Once the survey tool was completed and ready for dissemination, they were physically placed at all the customer service windows in each building in the vicinage, as well as in all the municipal courts. After three months the surveys were collected and tabulated. The results were analyzed and determined the perceptions of Spanish speaking clientele. The methodology section is used to demonstrate any discrepancies between the survey tool and the relevancy of the surveys. Also, completeness of survey responses was analyzed. Once the findings were examined, conclusions were made. The research findings section related the literature review to the results and determined whether anything new has been learned. Program recommendations and implementations were discussed and suggestions were made as to what could have been done differently to improve this research

14 III. LITERATURE REVIEW It will be assumed, then, that there is more than the normal amount of dissatisfaction with the present-day administration of justice in America. Roscoe Pound 3 Research and documentation including articles, projects, and forums have been conducted regarding court interpreting services and issues involving access to and the fairness of courts and judicial systems. Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, laws, policies, and procedures have been enacted in the U.S. to help alleviate the ongoing issue of equal justice for Spanish speaking litigants. The existing literature, for the purposes of this research, can be categorized into five groupings: A. History of the interpreting issues in the court system. B. Laws, rules, codes, and procedures enacted. C. Past and current research methods/findings, and future trends regarding interpreting services. D. Past literature and the proposed research method. E. Research matter from other reports and how they correlate to this research. Much of the historical data convey information gathered about in court operations. Of course, actual in court proceedings involve the most sensitive record of fact during litigation. Therefore, the majority of the analysis within this section discusses actual court proceedings interpretation. Throughout the literature, the central theme is the issue of access, fairness, justice and the lack thereof for Spanish speaking clientele. It bears repeating that the vast majority of data that exists regarding court interpretation is related to in court proceedings. Consequently, anecdotal data are conveyed (within the literature review) in a manner consistent with past research conducted. However, substantive analysis 3 Roscoe Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice, ABA, 1906, page

15 regarding interpretation in the ancillary areas of the court system is conveyed later in this section. A. Historical Synopsis: Summary of Research on Court Interpretation Issues arising from poor comprehension of the English language have been prevalent since the birth of this country. Instances where inadequate interpreting occurred during litigation posed severe injustices, Consequently the use of unqualified, untested and untrained individuals as interpreters has led to a serious abridgment of due process rights for many United States citizens. 4 Poor interpreting practices can be found in many court systems and are pervasive. In many instances, interpreters were gathered almost at a whim with no preparation for the proceedings in which they would be involved. The earliest case dealing with court interpretation goes as far back as 1808 (In re Norberg 5 ) where a witness unfamiliar with English needed an interpreter. The high court in Massachusetts held that an interpreter must be sworn in and attest to the fact that he/she is acquainted with the language to be interpreted. Also, in Perovich v. United States (1907) 6, the Supreme Court ruling avoided the issue of a right to a court interpreter by addressing the problem on procedural rather than constitutional grounds. 7 It was a major setback for the rights of individuals with limited English speaking abilities. 4 Roseann Duenas-Gonzalez, Victoria F. Vasquez, Holly Mikkelson, Fundamentals of Court Interpretation: Theory, Policy, and Practice, Carolina Academic Press, 1991, page %22+&source=web&ots=NjroEFarnr&sig=2znAnCseAr458YdtSbai1MemdPo; bottom left of webpage k, middle of webpage. 7 Ibid, page

16 For illustrative purposes, the following is an example of early interpretation in a court proceeding and how interpreting discrepancies can result in limited access to justice: Context: Original: Were you burned? A mi me quemaron con una varilla porque cuando pusieron el fuego, lo pues pusieron la varilla ahi. Luego, lo pasaron a los tres asi, por todo el cuerpo, y nosotros nos retorciamos. Interpreter: Uh, I was burned because they put a, a like a a stick, some sort of, uh, a, thing, and they put that in the fire, and then they put it on our bodies, and we kept moving around trying to get away. Should be: They burned me with a rod because when they made the fire, it, well they put the rod there. Then they ran it over the three of us over our entire body like that, and we were writhing. 8 This variation could seem trivial but can cause a multitude of logistical problems for the representing attorney. A jury could construe the testimony as inconsistent or opposing attorneys could unfairly use this to their advantage. Misinterpretations such as this can result in unequal assessment and adjudication of charges and, at times, unnecessary appeals to the higher court. Some case law can be referenced regarding issues surrounding interpreting. In some instances, cases were simply dismissed and in others the court forced the use of public resources to provide this service. The following is a case synopsis which is indicative of issues that arise as a result of improper determination of interpreting needs. It involves a citing in New Jersey of a conviction of DUI that was reversed: State v Rodriguez N.J (Super 129, ) No interpreter was present in municipal court when the defendant was convicted of DUI and leaving the scene of an accident. The appellate court reversed, holding that "There can be no waiver of right to interpreter without knowing, voluntary and intelligent declaration on the record by the defendant, and the trial court must provide an interpreter at 8 See Note 2 supra, page

17 public expense if defendant requires one and cannot afford to pay for these services." 9 Regardless of whether Rodriguez was guilty or innocent, the issue here is proper protocol and the resulting time and resources wasted in the appeal process. Regardless of the public s attitude toward LEP individuals, court interpreters are in great demand. Not only is it critical to have a qualified professional helping with these judicial matters, prudence must be used in attempting to provide legal equivalence. The goal of a court interpreter is to enable the judge and jury to react in the same manner to a non-english speaking witness as they do to one who speaks English. 10 B. Various Law, Rules, and Procedures from Literature Review As a result of the problems posed by the language barrier in court systems, legislators as well as court leaders have responded by enacting various laws, rules, and organizations/committees to help alleviate this issue. Proper recognition of interpreting issues as well as applying appropriate remediation has helped Spanish speaking clientele receive better access to justice. There is, however, much work to be done in helping change attitudes towards the courts specifically relating to Spanish interpreting services. First and foremost, the Civil Rights Act of made inroads for advancing the rights of minorities in the United States. The legislation prompted governmental entities, businesses, and many other organizations to recognize the rights of minorities to fair and equal access. This, of course, includes equal access to justice and the rights therein. 9 middle of webpage. 10 See Note 2 supra, pg beginning of webpage

18 Following in the footsteps of this act were the Bilingual Education Act of (which met the special education needs of children with limited English speaking ability) and the Voting Rights Act of (which granted language minorities equal access to the right to vote). In 1978, legislation enacted in California mandated competency testing of court interpreters and directed the Judicial Council of California to establish standards for certification of interpreters and standards for professional conduct 14 A few months later the U.S. Congress passed the Court Interpreters Act. The Court Interpreters Act (28 U.S.C. 182), established criteria for providing interpreting services in the Federal Courts: The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall establish a program to facilitate the use of certified and otherwise qualified interpreters in judicial proceedings instituted by the United States. 15 Thus, an official doctrine was established for Federal Courts as a protocol in providing for adequate interpreting services. It also resulted in the implementation of the Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examination (FCICE) program. The National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT) provides a forum specifically designed for court interpreting professionals to network and discuss current issues in court interpretation. It provides a code of ethics to its members as a professional guideline: 12 beginning of webpage beginning of webpage. 14 William E. Hewitt, Paula Hannaford, Catherine Gill, Melissa Cantrell, Court Interpreting Services in State and Federal Courts: Reasons and Options for Inter-Court Coordination, October 30, 1998, page v beginning of webpage

19 Members are encouraged continually to upgrade their skills, and to share their knowledge and expertise with the members of the profession and allied professions involved in education and the administration of justice. 16 These types of organizations help enhance professional networking and are an excellent source for court systems in recruiting court interpreting professionals. Several court systems promulgated court procedures in order to provide access to its LEP clientele. For example: the Minnesota Supreme Court promulgated Rule 8 of the General Rules of Practice, to provide Minnesota District Courts with detailed guidelines for the appointment of qualified interpreters in courtroom related matters. 17 Specific guidelines such as this enhance court interpreting services and alleviate issues that could arise if no procedures were in place. Also, the Minnesota Court System provided some guidelines when interpretation is needed outside the court room (for example, client service windows). For example: the Ramsey County District Court has the following resources to help LEP individuals and court staff communicate with each other: I Speak Cards Telephone Conference Customer service/counter help 18 The I Speak Cards can be used to help an individual obtain interpretive services. A sample is illustrated below: 16 beginning of webpage. 17 Mary A. Gagne, Spanish Interpreter Services, NCSC, May 2000, Executive Summary middle of webpage

20 - 14 -

21 In 1995, 14 states (following the footsteps of New Jersey, Washington and California) have instituted certification programs, largely by means of the State Court Interpreter Certification Consortium (sic) 19 The Consortium for State Court Interpreter Certification was organized by the National Center for State Courts and helped eliminate the reliance on untrained and untested court interpreters by testing their skills and level of qualification. Because interpreting needs continue to increase in frequency and the demographic trends indicate that Spanish speakers are the fastest growing minority in this country, governmental entities and court organizations must continue to strive to meet this need. Given the lack of progress that has been made regarding this issue, sustained focus and research must be completed in order to keep this problem within manageable parameters. Courts are encouraged to prepare for this anticipated major change in demographics over the next two decades by strengthening, expanding and upgrading court interpreter services. 20 C. Methods of Research, Findings, and Future Trends Research on access, fairness and the public s perception has been completed to a satisfactory degree. However, this study expounds upon existing research by providing tabulated results of the perceptions of Spanish speaking clientele and its assessment of the service they receive up to and including the ability to be effectively heard at the ancillary areas of our court system. The National Center for State Courts has produced court performance measures known as CourTools 21. One of the performance measures 19 Joanne I. Moore, Immigrants in Courts, University of Washington Press, 1999, page Deborah M. Schaefer, Court Administrator, Assessment of Court Interpreter Service Delivery Methods for the Superior Court in Yavapai County, Arizona, NCSC, May 2004, page entire webpage

22 (measure one) helps courts assess and quantify access and fairness as perceived by court clientele. This assessment tool was utilized for this research (see Appendix Number 3). The New Jersey Judiciary, specifically the Language Services Section at the Administrative Office of the Courts, has compiled empirical data regarding court interpreting services. Most of the statistics revolve around court interpreting instances during in-court interpretation. The New Jersey Courts recognized the need for interpreting services outside of the courtroom when a New Jersey Supreme Court Task Force wrote, other communication occurs almost exclusively outside of the courtroom. 22 These activities include attorney consultations, client interviews, filing of litigation, probation processes, etc. As such, much of the LEP constituency needs appropriate and accurate interpreter services in order to receive the same quality of service that an English speaking client would receive in the same situation. Sometimes, perceptions of access to justice may differ between leaders in the court and the court interpreting professionals: When exploring the fundamentals of judicial integrity and fairness to all the parties participating in immigration proceedings, interpreters and judges appear to have competing interests in determining who is responsible for ensuring that due process and access to justice for non-english speaking respondents in immigration hearings are protected, though both groups strongly believe that interpreters are instrumental in ensuring the immigration hearing process will be fair to all parties, namely, 90% of the judges and 84% of the interpreters. 23 However, in the end, all parties agree that interpreters are needed in ensuring fairness. 22 Herbert S. Alterman, Chairman, Equal Access to the Courts for Linguistic Minorities, Final Report of the New Jersey Supreme Court Task Force on Interpreter and Translation Services, New Jersey Superior Court, May 1985, page Martin A. Roldan, Immigration Court Interpreters: Their Standing as Professionals, Office of Chief Immigration Judge, Falls Church, Virginia, May 2000, Executive Summary

23 Some alternatives to judiciary employed interpreting services do exist. Some courts utilize technology for this purpose; for example telephonic court interpreting presents a practical alternative for courts that are otherwise unable to access qualified inperson interpreting services. 24 However, the logistics of providing this service can be difficult given facility constraints (for example, the window areas in the various court buildings are not conducive to telephonic interpretation due to space or the physical barriers between the client and staff). Hiring qualified court interpreters poses another barrier to court systems nationwide. The pool is very limited and interpreters (particularly Spanish) are in high demand. Given the budgetary constraints of all court systems, providing a competitive salary can prove to be difficult. Hiring qualified interpreters that can pass the nationally recognized exam is also a major constraint. Also, training of qualified interpreters, once hired, becomes a priority. In recent years more and more states are sponsoring or requiring skills training for interpreters As stated earlier, the demographic trend is that the Spanish speaking population is growing faster than the rest of the population categories. Therefore, attention must be paid to the anticipated growth in Spanish speaking clientele the courts will serve. Hispanics continue to be the largest minority group at 42.7 million. With a 3.3 increase in population from July 1, 2004, to July 1, 2005, they are the fastestgrowing group Lesley Duncan, Remote Court Interpreting, Development of a Pilot Project in California, California Administrative Office of the Courts, San Francisco, California, 2001, page Wanda Romberger, Skills Training for Foreign Language Court Interpreters, Court Interpreting Services, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia, 2007 page beginning of webpage

24 Of course, the highly concentrated areas (such as North Jersey/New York metro area) where the Hispanic populations are located will see this influx immediately. D. Past Literature and The Proposed Research Plan/Methods Critical data collection and statistical analyses involving court interpreting services generally focus on instances of in court interpretation. Therefore, there are very few examples/illustrations describing actual events of interpretation occurring at the ancillary areas of the court system (for example, client windows, pre-case interviews, etc.). This research uses CourTools Trial Court Performance Measure One: Access and Fairness (i.e. Surveys). Also, interviews with key personnel throughout the New Jersey Judiciary and leaders/staff involved in community based organizations were conducted. The Court Interpreting Plan of Action from the state of New York provides its detailed recommendations and implementations regarding interpreting services. The document lists criteria and the respective procedures for proper provision of interpretation for various court scenarios. It: will ensure that interpreting issues are included in all new-employee orientation sessions and programs for non-judicial associations annual meetings, and...sensitize officer trainees, who participate in several training modules on the subject. 27 The following is an excerpt from the Court Interpreting Plan of Action from the state of New York. It exemplifies appropriate steps to take in providing front level interpreting services to judicial clientele: IMPROVE SERVICES IN NON-COURTROOM SETTINGS. Providing interpreting services in non-courtroom settings poses challenges different from those in the courtroom, in that the need outside the courtroom almost always arises with little or no advance notice, the exchanges are typically brief and often occur at high-volume public counters, and services may be needed at a variety of 27 page

25 locations throughout a courthouse, including the information desk, a cashier s window, the record room, or the office of the self-represented. While in some circumstances a staff interpreter who speaks the required language may be available on site, all too often that is not the case. To ensure that interpreting services are available when needed for these important interactions outside the courtroom, the following steps will be taken: Remote interpreting is particularly well-suited for non-courtroom settings, and, by September 2006, will be made available at public counters, offices of the self-represented and other non-courtroom settings where the public seeks services or information. o With the statewide expansion of remote interpreting, the current practice in some New York courts of retaining private interpreting firms to provide court interpreting services should be substantially curtailed, if not eliminated. Use of private interpreting firms, although perhaps occasionally necessary when no other viable alternative is available, is expensive and provides no assurance that the interpreter is competent to perform the needed interpreting services or aware of the unique nature of interpreting in the courts. The availability of booklets, forms, instructions, web pages, and other materials in a variety of foreign languages provides another means of communicating with non-english speaking court users. As discussed below, the translation of additional materials will be expedited. Here, as in all aspects of interpreting services, training is crucial to success. A training program will be implemented so that, by September 2006, when remote interpreting will be available in noncourtroom settings statewide, all appropriate non-judicial staff will have been trained and fully prepared to assist court users obtain interpreting services. 28 Recognition of interpretation instances outside the courtroom is commendable and should be utilized as a benchmark by other court systems. Interpreting instances are random and are difficult to predict. Therefore, having court interpreters and bilingual staff on call for these instances can be unproductive and logistically difficult. 28 See Note 19 supra, page

26 E. Description of Research Items from Other Reports and Correlation Other reports about this topic include analysis of hard data (for example, costs, languages translated, number of times per annum, etc.) and soft data (for example, attitudinal surveys, interviews, etc.). Many of these reports focus on court interpretation as a profession, the requirements for qualification, and the responsibility of the courts in their hiring practices. Some revolve around the cost of these services and how court systems can minimize expenditures while providing quality service. Some reports do not necessarily deal with court interpreting services specifically, but also delve into issues of access and fairness. A considerable number of these reports utilize some form of a survey, if not the CourTools assessment tool one. There were varying results, but all were fairly consistent in the questions asked (see Appendix Number 4 for CourTools one survey tool). This research utilized the CourtTools survey and customized it to deal with access and fairness issues within Vicinage XV. It also compares and contrasts answers as provided by subject matter experts (Vicinage XV) during the pre-testing phase of the survey. The pre-testing instructions follow a modified Angoff Study where the subject matter experts (SMEs) completed the survey, predicting the responses of Spanish speaking clientele. The Angoff procedure requires judges to estimate the proportion of borderline candidates who would answer each test question correctly. 29 Language is the tool of the courts. English is the language of our courts. Without a skilled interpreter, a party who speaks or hears no English cannot listen to the testimony, present their case, challenge the evidence or consult with an attorney. A party who cannot communicate is being denied access to justice as surely as if the door was locked against them. Hon. Elsa Lamelas, Milwaukee Circuit Court middle of webpage beginning of webpage

27 IV. METHODOLOGY The research design of this project is a basic dissemination and collection of access and fairness surveys and tabulation of the results. These surveys are, in essence, opinion based and are a modified version of the CourTools Measure One survey tool (Appendix Number 3). Subject matter experts (SMEs) consisting of Bilingual Probation Officers and court interpreters were utilized in pre-testing the surveys. The surveys were posted in conspicuous areas in all of the court facilities. The instructions (Appendix Number 2) directed clients to complete the survey and return it to the staff member at the nearest client service window. These surveys were made available to the Spanish speaking public for a period of three months. This method provides the most basic and direct insight into perceptions of access and fairness for Spanish speaking clientele. A. Pre-test of the Survey Tool The Judiciary relies upon the New Jersey Department of Personnel to classify positions and titles. Currently, two of these classifications are utilized in the vicinage for bilingual services: 1) court interpreters and 2) Bilingual Probation Officers. Both positions require that the individuals pursuing these positions pass an examination and be certified to provide interpreting services within the Judiciary (Bilingual Communicative Ability Test [BICAT] for Probation Officers and the Court Interpreter Oral Exam for court interpreters). The exam for court interpreters is more difficult than the BICAT mainly because the former involves an oral section. However, both exams certify that the individuals have the ability to provide sufficient services in these positions to Spanish speaking clientele

28 Two court interpreters and eighteen Bilingual Probation Officers served as subject matter experts and comprised a focus group that pre-tested the Spanish version of the survey tool in the CourTools Trial Court Performance Measure one: Access and Fairness. They were provided with two tasks while pre-testing the survey tool (see the Instructions For Filling Out Surveys in the appendix [number 1]): 1) Complete the survey by predicting the response they believe a Spanish speaking respondent would give. 2) Consider whether the questions (in all three sections) would make sense to a Spanish speaking individual. The survey questions can be answered from a rating of one to five (one being strongly disagree and five being strongly agree ). Also known as a Likert Scale 31, this survey has questions where respondents are asked to rate the level at which they agree or disagree with a given statement. There are five levels used in the survey tool for this research: 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree Nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree The 15 questions (English version) are listed as follows: 1. Finding the courthouse was easy. 2. I easily found the courtroom or office I needed. 3. The forms I needed were clear and easy to understand. 4. I felt safe in the courthouse. 5. I was able to get my court business done in a reasonable amount of time. 6. The court made reasonable efforts to remove physical and language barriers to service. 7. Court staff paid attention to my needs. 8. I was treated with courtesy and respect. 9. The court s website was helpful beginning of webpage

29 10. The court s hours of operation made it easy for me to do my business. 11. The way my case was handled was fair. 12. The judge listened to my side of the story before he or she made a decision. 13. The judge had the information necessary to make good decisions about my case. 14. I was treated the same as everyone else. 15. As I leave the court, I know what to do next about my case. The subject matter experts were given a week to return the completed surveys for tabulation. The average results of the pre-test survey prediction responses are described in Graph 1 below: Graph 1 - Subject Matter Expert Average Responses Ans. #7 Courtesy & Respect Ans. #6 Attention to Needs Ans. #5 Timeliness of Completion Ans. #4 Physical & Language Barriers Ans. #3 Safety & Security Ans. #2 Forms Understandable Ans. #1 Locating Facility Ans. #15 I Know What to do Next Ans. #14 I Was Treated the Same Ans. #13 Judge Had Information Ans. #12 Judge Listened Ans. #11 Case Handled Fair Ans. #10 Court Hours Ans. #9 Website Ans. #8 Finding Office or Courtroom The predictions made by the focus group are discussed in the Findings section of this research. There were some subtle changes made to the official version of the

30 survey tool as a result of the comments made by the focus group. First, the background and color of the survey were changed to a softer color format (white with black lettering) and a change on the size/font of the lettering was made. The survey was given a Vicinage XV header along with the seal of the New Jersey Judiciary. The following are additional changes made to the survey tool as result of pre-testing: 1) Some of the words were changed to utilize synonyms that read better than the original. 2) Some of the questions were worded differently without losing the meaning. Again, the focus group felt that the new wording read better. 3) Under section III, the section that identifies the ethnic background of the respondent was removed. For the purposes of this research, this issue is irrelevant. All respondents would be of either Hispanic or Spanish background. 4) Section IV was added to provide the respondent with the opportunity to provide additional comments. B. Dissemination and Collection of the Surveys Upon completion of the pre-test and the changes to the survey mentioned above, the surveys were ready for dissemination. Prior to dissemination, an was distributed to all of the division managers and municipal administrators explaining the purpose of the surveys. The asked the divisions to store the surveys in a folder until the date of collection. Surveys were displayed at every customer service window in all eight buildings throughout the three counties. They were also sent to all the municipal courts within the vicinage. Instructions for the prospective respondents were placed in a proximal location to the surveys (see appendix number 2). The respondents were instructed, via a notice written in Spanish, to give the completed surveys to the staff person at the respective customer service window

31 Throughout the three months of display, the surveys were collected at bi-weekly intervals. The survey population was comprised of Spanish speaking visitors to the vicinage s customer service windows. This population is a subset of the Spanish speaking population of the three counties. The table below illustrates the Spanish speaking population by county within the vicinage 32 : As described in Table 1 below, the highest concentration of Hispanics is in Cumberland County. Table 1 - Hispanic Population by County within the Vicinage County Total Population Hispanic Population Percentage # of Surveys Collected Cumberland % 21 Gloucester % 11 Salem % beginning of webpage

32 The final collection occurred at the end of three months. A total of thirty-seven surveys were completed. Some were completely answered while others were unfinished. Below is a graph illustrating the completeness of the survey answers. All were at least 65 percent completed, as described in Graph 2 below: Graph 2 - Completion Percentage of Survey Answers by Respondents % % 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% Ans. #1 Locating Facility Ans. #2 Finding Office or Courtroom Ans. #3 Forms Understandable Ans. #4 Safety & Security Ans. #5 Physical & Language Barriers Ans. #6 Timeliness of Completion Ans. #7 Attention to Needs Ans. #8 Courtesy & Respect Ans. #9 Website Ans. #10 Court Hours Ans. #11 Case Handled Fair Ans. #12 Judge Listened Ans. #13 Judge Had Information Ans. #14 I Was Treated the Same Ans. #15 I Know What to do Next As indicated, not every survey was completely filled. Some questions were either left unanswered or were answered not applicable. However, enough answers were provided to determine a general perception in each area

33 C. Obstacles Throughout the Process Because the surveys were simply displayed (ie. volunteers within the vicinage were not recruited to disseminate the surveys), it was difficult to entice prospective respondents to complete the surveys. Collecting enough of a sampling of the population proved difficult despite the fact that staff was proactive and divisions were visited and completed surveys were periodically collected. In addition, the New Jersey Judiciary utilizes its own customer service surveys formatted in English and Spanish. These were displayed in the same area as the surveys for this research. Initially, there was some confusion by staff in differentiating the surveys. We solved the problem by placing surveys in distinctly separate areas around the customer service areas

34 V. RESEARCH FINDINGS A. Results From the Pre-Test As described above, the subject matter experts were instructed to predict the answers they believed the vicinage s Spanish speaking clientele would provide. Conducted as an Angoff study hybrid (in an Angoff study, typically the subject matter experts predict whether the respondents will answer a particular question correctly), the answers provided by the subject matters experts will predict the perception of the general public regarding access and fairness. First, the SMEs suggested that question #8 (I easily found the courtroom or office I needed) should be moved to question #2. The group felt that question one could easily transition into the second because they are similar in ideology. Also, some synonyms were substituted based on the SMEs suggestions. For example, in question #11 (Mi caso fue resuelto en un forma justa), the word tramitado was changed to resuelto. Both words mean resulted, however, the SMEs thought the change resulted in a smoother running sentence. Also, the area under section III dealing with the ethnic background of the respondent was eliminated because all of the respondents were of Hispanic background. As indicated in the SMEs average predictions (see the chart number one, page 23), the SMEs expected a positive reaction to the survey questions. All predicted averages were above the 3.8 range (ie. close to agreement ) on a scale of one to five, with one being strongly disagree and five being strongly agree. Only two categories fell below the agreement threshold:

35 Question #5 (The court makes reasonable efforts to remove physical and language barriers to service). Question #9 (The court s Web site was useful). The more negative responses to question #9 are expected, given that the Web site is in English. The SMEs prediction that the respondents would answer, to some degree, in the negative with regard to question #5 (The court makes reasonable efforts to remove physical and language barriers to service) seems to be accurate. It could be that, in their experience, this is one complaint they hear the most from their respective clients. Or maybe they perceive that activities could be completed in a more expeditious manner. Regardless, the general prediction is positive or in agreement with most questions. B. Results From the Access and Fairness Surveys Once all the surveys were picked up and reviewed the average responses for each question were tabulated (see the respondent s tabulation spreadsheet in Appendix number 8). Respondents, for the most part, completed the surveys without assistance. At times, the surveys were provided to them by staff. Regardless, once completed, they were stored in a folder at the front windows. A total of thirty-seven surveys were collected. Most of these were from case management divisions (for example, family, civil, criminal, municipal, etc.). Most of these divisions typically have Bilingual Probation Officers on staff. Finance, an administrative division, received a few completed surveys as well. None of the thirtyseven surveys were completely answered (ie. at least one question in each survey was answered with N/A or not answered at all)

36 respondents: Graph 3 below indicates the average response per question from the survey Graph 3 - Reply Averages from Respondents Ans. #1 Locating Facility Ans. #2 Finding Office or Courtroom Ans. #3 Forms Understandable Ans. #4 Safety & Security Ans. #5 Physical & Language Barriers Ans. #6 Timeliness of Completion Ans. #7 Attention to Needs Ans. #8 Courtesy & Respect Ans. #9 Website Ans. #10 Court Hours Ans. #11 Case Handled Fair Ans. #12 Judge Listened Ans. #13 Judge Had Information Ans. #14 I Was Treated the Same Ans. #15 I Know What to do Next The 3.0 range reflects a response of Neither Agree nor Disagree with regard to the question being answered. Anything under this threshold should be considered a negative response and addressed accordingly. As indicated above, two categories fell below the 3.0 range:

37 1) Question #3 (The forms I needed were clear and easy to understand). 2) Question #5 (The court makes reasonable efforts to remove physical and language barriers to service). The two categories were then compared to the predicted average answer from the SMEs. Table 2 below illustrates those differences: Table 2 - Comparison of Average Responses of SMEs vs. Respondents (Q. #3 and Q. #5) Group Question #3 Question #5 SMEs predictions Respondents The predictions of the SMEs were more positive than the answers of the respondents

38 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The New Jersey Judiciary has a reputation of being at the forefront of interpreting services and implementing respective programs. New Jersey was a founding state of the Consortium for State Court Interpreter Certification 33 and has served as Chair of the Consortium s Technical Committee since its inception, and has tested interpreters since Statistical data and reports have been provided to Judiciary leadership to help it make educated decisions and establish hiring practices with respect to the Spanish speaking population. The focus of this research deals with an area where little data are readily available. Thus, it should provide insight as to areas of improvement in providing access and fairness to Spanish speaking clientele at the ancillary areas of our court system. A. Articulating the Findings As illustrated on page 30 in the findings section of this research, Question #3 (The forms I needed were clear and easy to understand) and Question #5 (The court makes reasonable efforts to remove physical and language barriers to service) are the two areas where respondents average response is disagreement. These two areas deal with the difficulty of Spanish speaking clientele with regard to communicating with vicinage staff in either written (forms) or oral (interpretation) format. It is rather noteworthy that other responses illustrated a rather positive perception in areas such as security in the courthouse or ease in finding the court facility. A 33 beginning of webpage

39 deduction could be that they answered rather positively in these areas simply because they pale in comparison with respect to language barriers and/or legibility of forms. There is a plethora of forms that clients need in order to use with the court. From landlord/tenant filings in civil to divorce filings in family, these can prove confusing for any litigant, let alone those who do not read or write in English. The responses to this question could be spurred by two reasons: 1. There are not enough translated forms. 2. Forms that are translated are still difficult to understand. Unfortunately, the survey does not delineate the first reason; it simply asks, The forms I needed were clear and easy to understand. However, it would only help if the New Jersey Courts look into whether enough forms are made available in Spanish. Many times, Spanish speaking clients encounter barriers to communication at customer service windows. If the vicinage does not have a bilingual professional available to help the individuals, they leave feeling frustrated with the system. Maybe the vicinage does employ enough Bilingual Probation Officers, but needs to place them strategically in a manner that is conducive to better coverage for interpreting services. Thus, it is not quite surprising that the respondents answers were in the disagree area regarding barriers to communication. 3. Practical Implications and Action Steps Because most of our forms are in English, it is understandable the respondents had trouble deciphering their meaning. Quite simply, the forms section of the Administrative Office of the Courts should consider translating additional documents. Also, current forms that are translated may need to be tweaked for better

40 understandability. The forms unit at the Administrative of the Courts could collaborate with the interpreters section and discuss these issues. The vicinage does not currently employ bilingual clerical staff but The New Jersey Department of Personnel provides a classification for a bilingual clerical title. As previously mentioned, some bilingual staff provide interpreting services for Spanish speaking clientele. This task, within their current titles, was not listed as a job description. These individuals should be encouraged to take the BICAT exam for proper certification. a culturally responsive justice system is one in which the key players have the education, training, and sensitivity necessary to identify the linguistic needs of a diverse population 34 Perhaps perceptions would improve if the vicinage proactively hired from this classification pool. For example, hiring an entry level Bilingual Judiciary Clerk would allow managers to recruit from this applicant pool and be assured that the individual hired is qualified to interpret. Bilingual Probation Officers are concentrated in Cumberland County (family, criminal and probation divisions) because the highest concentration of Spanish speakers is located in Cumberland. However, the other two counties encounter many instances where Spanish speaking clientele need interpreting services at customer service windows. Presently, only one Bilingual Probation Officer is located in Salem and there are two in Gloucester. Management should consider a better strategic distribution of Probation Officers or hiring additional bilingual clerical staff for offices in Salem and Gloucester. Other jurisdictions may review this research and either replicate or expound upon it. It is recommended that, instead of simply placing the surveys at tactical points in 34 Joanne I. Moore, Immigrants in Courts, Washington University Press, 1999, page

41 every building, a more proactive distribution of these surveys could have been implemented. It is also recommended that volunteers be recruited and tables be strategically placed for dissemination, completion and collection of the surveys. Under these circumstances more surveys would likely have been completed. It can be surmised that, as a result of the findings, issues regarding access still exist for Spanish speaking clientele. By assessing perceptions and addressing these issues, other jurisdictions can take a proactive role in establishing procedures and standards that will help enhance access to justice and the perception of fairness to the Spanish speaking population. The courts must continually improve operations in order to achieve our customer service goals

42 VIII. REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY Deborah M. Schaefer, Court Administrator, Assessment of Court Interpreter Service Delivery Methods for the Superior Court in Yavapai County, Arizona, NCSC, May Herbert S. Alterman, Chairman, Equal Access to the Courts for Linguistic Minorities, Final Report of the New Jersey Supreme Court Task Force on Interpreter and Translation Services, New Jersey Superior Court, May Initiatives of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts to Ensure Equal Access to Courts for Linguistic Minorities, Court Interpreting, Legal Translating, and Bilingual Services Section, Administrative Office of the Courts, 1996 Joanne I. Moore, Immigrants in Courts, University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, 1999 Lesley Duncan, Remote Court Interpreting, Development of a Pilot Project in California, California Administrative Office of the Courts, San Francisco, California, Martin A. Roldan, Immigration Court Interpreters: Their Standing as Professionals, Office of Chief Immigration Judge, Falls Church, Virginia, May 2000, Executive Summary. Mary A. Gagne, Spanish Interpreter Services, NCSC, May 2000, Executive Summary. Roscoe Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice, ABA, Roseann Duenas-Gonzalez, Victoria F. Vasquez, Holly Mikkelson, Fundamentals of Court Interpretation: Theory, Policy, and Practice, Carolina Academic Press, Wanda Romberger, Skills Training for Foreign Language Court Interpreters, Court Interpreting Services, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia, William E. Hewitt, Paula Hannaford, Catherine Gill, Melissa Cantrell, Court Interpreting Services in State and Federal Courts: Reasons and Options for Inter- Court Coordination, October 30, entire webpage. beginning of webpage

43 middle of webpage. page beginning of webpage. middle of webpage. beginning of webpage. beginning of webpage. %22in+re+norberg%22+&source=web&ots=NjroEFarnr&sig=2znAnCseAr458YdtSbai1 MemdPo; bottom left of page k, middle of webpage. beginning of webpage. beginning of webpage. beginning of webpage. beginning of webpage. middle of webpage. entire webpage

44 VII. APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: Instructions For Filling Out Surveys Congratulations, you have been chosen to help pre-test the Spanish version of CourTools- Assessment One of the Trial Court Performance Measures as disseminated by the National Center for State Courts. This survey will be utilized in determining Spanish speakers perceptions of access and fairness in Vicinage XV. Please read the following instructions and keep them in mind while filling out the survey: 1. Read and answer each survey question in sections I and II. a. **Respond to the survey questions by predicting the response you believe our Spanish speaking clientele would answer.** 2. Consider whether the questions (in all three sections) would make sense to a Spanish speaker. a. Place a question mark (?) next to the respective question if you feel it is confusing and/or ambiguous. Thank you for your participation in pre-testing this survey!

45 APPENDIX 2: Notice To Litigants (Spanish) AVISO a NUESTROS USUARIOS: Necesitamos de Uds para llevar a cabo una encuesta. Favor de contestar todas las preguntas de esta encuesta, la cual ayudará al Tribunal a determinar si presta los servicios al público de forma justa e imparcial. Sus respuestas a las preguntas de la encuesta serán anónimas. Agradeceríamos su cooperación en este empeño. Entregue la encuesta llena a los empleados en las ventanilla donde se atiende al público. 39

46 APPENDIX 3: Access and Fairness Survey (Official) 40

47 41

48 APPENDIX 4: Access and Fairness Survey (CourTools) 42

49 43

50 APPENDIX 5: Bilingual Clerical Career Brochure 44

51 45

52 46

53 APPENDIX 6: Bilingual Probation Officer Career Brochure 47

54 48

55 49

56 APPENDIX 7: BICAT Program Operating Procedure 50

57 51

58 52

59 53

60 54