i support for the study because it’s a vital for deaf/hard of hearing consumers or others who are unable to communicate fully in an understood speech and who are dependent on American Sign Language to receive appropriate service by skilled sign language interpreters in effective communication between them and concerned parties, such as legal, medical, court, or public safety people. In fact, we are comfortable in interfacing with them by other mean in visual communication than lip reading or listening different or various foreign spoken accents. We must recognize that many of us have been language deprived over the years we have had by limited service in our early childhood times. Again, we must be protected in our right to access communication in any situation that may affect them, in health, financial, or emergency preparedness terms. For the agency, like DPOR,to be effective in licensuring, they must have a working relationship with Virginia Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (VDDHH) or any recognized interpreteing organization, like Registered Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) to assure that the evaluation on their skill be met..

My name is Emily Haynes McGee, and I am a nationally certified interpreter who's worked in the field for ten years. I support DPOR's study of licensure for interpreters. Frequently, I am contacted by doctor's offices, hospitals, mental health agencies, or other entities who are in need of an interpreter. It's not uncommon for my interface with these entities to be their first experience working with an interpreter. I do my best to guide them through the hiring process ethically, with a mind to consumer preference and need. The level of professional autonomy I experience is wonderful, but is terrifying in its potential for abuse. 

I also support a study of licensure as I feel that it would provide a check on interpreter agencies. If an entity contacts an interpreter agency for services, that agency has latitude to send any interpreter on their roster. As interpreter agencies often have a set cost for their services, they are incentivized to subcontract their least qualified/ credentialed interpreter in order to increase their profit margins. I myself operate as a small agency, subcontracting out a handful of contracts in the Richmond area. While I make an effort to provide the best services possible, I have seldom been questioned as to the names, experience, or credentials of the interpreters I'm sending. The entities who hire me don't know what to look for, and the d/Deaf consumers may not have access to a channel of complaint. 

Licensure would provide transparency for those who hire interpreters, elevated professional status for interpreters themselves, and recourse for consumers who are paired with unqualified interpreters. As it stands, consumers of interpreting services have very little power to address unfit interpreters. This disempowerment adds a barrier to access that compounds the marginalization of d/Deaf individuals and generally provides a disservice to all Virginians. 

Hello, My name is Heather Kubitski.  I am an American Sign Language Interpreter, I have a Bachelors in Applied Science in Sign Language Interpreting, and have been interpreting in Virginia, mostly the Greater Richmond area of Virginia, for more than 10 years. 

I understand that the Board is conducting a study on whether the State of Virginia should regulate the field of sign language interpreting.  This study is due to the concerns of the Deaf community regarding qualified interpreters providing federally mandated equal access to communication for them.  I also understand that there have been documented cases in which members of the Deaf community have experienced difficult situations due to unqualified interpreters being assigned to facilitate communication for them.  I know that this situation  happens more often than it should.

This is a definite problem in which a solution must be found.  I believe the best solution to this problem is not through regulation, but going to the source of where the problem is originating. 

The term “qualified interpreter” has never specifically been defined in our field.  The only metric utilized to measure the skills of an interpreter to determine if they are “qualified”, is broken.  The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) was established to provide certification testing for interpreters to certify that they meet the standards that would deem them “qualified” and fit to work in the field.  However, RID has utilized a myriad of different testing iterations, all of which have differing pass rates ranging from 17% - 27% over the years. ( In comparison, the medical and legal oral boards pass rates for 2018 were 87% and 73% respectively). With some test iterations, interpreter pass rates were far better than other test iteration pass rates - the testing is just not consistent. Through the varied test iterations, lengthy moratoriums on testing - where interpreters cannot test at all (we are now experiencing the second moratorium in three years), varied credentials such as NAD, CI-CT, NIC, NIC Advanced, NIC Master - most of which testing has been retired, but credentials still recognized); there is no standard, consistent metric for interpreters in the State of Virginia by which to be measured accurately. With each test iteration released the pass rate data starts all over again.  There are no mentors to help prepare the interpreters for testing which sets up the testing interpreter for failure, as they do not know how to prepare for the new test iteration. 

In the state of Virginia, the only certification recognized to deem an interpreter qualified is the testing provided by RID.  There are no other certification tests recognized in the state of Virginia.

The second part of the problem is that Sign Language Interpreting Agencies who contract with interpreters to fill assignments are not held to any sort of ethical standard.  There is no recourse for agencies engaging in unethical practices to be held accountable.  Many spoken language agencies don’t understand the differences between spoken language and sign language interpreting, and that equal access to communication for members of the Deaf community is mandated by federal law.  These agencies don’t understand interpreting credentials, qualifications, skill level, and the varied language modalities in order to fill assignments appropriately.  They also don’t understand the Code of Professional Conduct that govern the field, and often do not follow it.  Because of this, unqualified interpreters are often assigned to fill the requirement in order for the agency to make a profit.  Because there is no recourse for agencies engaging in unethical practices, interpreters will continue to be placed in situations where their skill level does not meet the communication requirement.  This in turn leads to difficult and even dangerous situations for Deaf consumers, and very uncomfortable situations for the interpreters involved.  Interpreting agencies must be held accountable for engaging in unethical practices which limit equal access to communication for Deaf consumers and take advantage of interpreters in order to make a profit.

Regulating a broken system will further frustrate the interpreters already battling the broken system, and will continue to cause harm to the Deaf community. 

Let us focus our attention and efforts in fixing what is broken before we decide to regulate the field.  Regulating a broken system only makes a broken system legal and will regulate good, skilled interpreters, who cannot obtain the appropriate credentials because of the broken system, right out of the field which will be a further detriment to the Deaf community. 

Thank you.