House Joint Memorial 1
45th Legislature
State of New Mexico First
Session, 2001
prepared by
Citizens of New Mexico
New Mexico Commission for
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Person
New Mexico School for the
Deaf
November 2002
Acknowledgements
Many thanks for those who contributed their time and effort into the contents of this report:
Linda Bradford New Mexico Association of the Deaf
Tom Dillon New Mexico Association of the Deaf, Co-chair
Phyllis Wilcox New Mexico Association of the Deaf
Bonnie Chauncey New Mexico Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf
Carol Litherland New Mexico Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf
Barbara Shaffer New Mexico Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Co-chair
Karen Courtney New Mexico Commission for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons
Wendy Gordon New Mexico Commission for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons
Kim Corwin New Mexico School for the Deaf
Lisa Perry New Mexico School for the Deaf
Ron Stern New Mexico School for the Deaf
With special appreciation to:
Rey C. Martinez, MSW, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
New Mexico Highlands University
Printed
by:
New
Mexico Commission for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons. 1435 South St. Francis
Dr. Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. November 2002.
Table of Contents
I.
Executive Summary Page
1
II.
Introduction Page
3
a. History
b. Problem
Statement
c. Goal
III.
Definitions Page
5
IV.
Methodology Page
6
V.
Findings Page
7
VI.
Recommendation Based on Findings Page 14
VII.
Outcomes Derived from Recommendations Page 15
VIII. Appendices
Appendix
A Licensure Survey
Appendix
B Town Hall Meeting Comments
Appendix
C Americans with Disabilities Act
Sign Language
Interpreters
Appendix
D Deaf Interpreter Act
Appendix
E Court Interpreter Act
Appendix
F State Department of Education
Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation Regulations 1993
Appendix
G State Department of Education
Division Interpreter
Regulations 1996
Appendix
H House Joint Memorial 1
Executive Summary
The improvement of the quality of sign language interpreters throughout New Mexico has been the focal point for many citizens involved in the Deaf and Hard of Hearing communities. Simply put, over the past decade those who employ the services of interpreters have expressed a concern and therefore a motivation, to elevate the standards of interpreting services whether it is in regard to education, to skill or to ethical practices.
Two years ago, a group of “grass-roots” citizens brought forth to the State a request to study such concerns. House Joint Memorial 1, 45th Legislature-First Session, 2001, charged the New Mexico Commission for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons and the New Mexico School for the Deaf to select a committee to study the feasibility of creating a State Licensing system for sign language interpreters.
The results of this study are conveyed in this report.
The committee (study group), consisting of members of the New Mexico Association of the Deaf, the New Mexico Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, the New Mexico Commission for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons and the New Mexico School for the Deaf. The group met bi-monthly over a period of two years, conducted several town hall meetings, conducted individual research, and solicited public opinion through a computer list-serve and through paper survey at community events.
The committee extended their efforts to collect input from those who were directly or indirectly involved with interpreter issues in New Mexico: consumers (deaf and hearing,) family and friends of consumers, advocates for deaf citizens, interpreters for the deaf, and interpreter education programs.
Of the survey respondents, 76.1 percent were in support of creating a licensure system for interpreters, 23.9 percent were undecided and 0 percent were against. (See figure 1. See Appendix A)
The majority of the findings of the committee focused on input and experience from our state, however it is noteworthy to acknowledge research on the findings, recommendations and actions of other states. At present, more than fifty percent of the states in the U.S. have current or pending legislation to license sign language interpreters.
In sum, the recommendation of this committee is to pursue the establishment of licensure for interpreters for the deaf and hard of hearing. The licensure system should be regulated and administered by a regulating board established under the New Mexico Department of Regulation and Licensing. In addition, a Task Force should be called by the New Mexico Commission for Deaf and Hard of Hearing to develop the mechanism/legislation to institute a Licensure Board for Sign Language Interpreters for the Deaf.
-1-
FIGURE 1
Statewide Survey: Interpreter Licensure *
|
Characteristics of Respondents |
* Conducted through Town Hall Meetings in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Cruces and Farmington by New Mexico Interpreter Licensure Study Group March 2002 – August 2002.
-2-
INTRODUCTION
A. History
The request for this licensure study was initiated by a large group of
deaf and hard of hearing “grass-roots” citizens in New Mexico. Their daily interactions with the general
population in our state evinced a serious need for a sufficient number of
qualified interpreters for the deaf and hard-of-hearing. This group of deaf and hard of hearing
individuals expressed their frustrations to the New Mexico Association of the
Deaf (NMAD), a statewide organization established in 1970 to address social and
communicative needs of deaf citizens.
The organization referred the issue to the ProAction committee, a joint
committee set up by NMAD and NMRID (New Mexico Registry of Interpreters for the
Deaf) to address interpreter issues.
NMRID was established in 1971 as a statewide organization supporting
professional interpreters. The
ProAction committee led the effort in writing a memorial which was presented to
New Mexico’s 45th Legislature – First Session, 2001. Under House Joint Memorial 1 (HJM1), passed
in 2001, the New Mexico state legislature mandated the New Mexico Commission
for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Persons and the New Mexico School of the Deaf to
form a committee to study the feasibility of interpreter licensure to meet the
communication needs of the deaf and hard-of-hearing.
B.
Problem
Statement
The New Mexico deaf and hard-of-hearing population is approximately
8.6% of the state population. According
to the demographic/census report of 2000, there are 1,829,000 New
Mexicans. Roughly 1% of those with
hearing loss use interpreters in order to communicate with the hearing world in
various forms which may include American Sign Language, signed English, or
other modalities that incorporate visual, gestural, or tactile methods. This translates to approximately 1800 deaf
and hard-of-hearing consumers of interpreter services. Interpreters, during an average week, come
into contact with 20 to 90 deaf consumers, 2 to 6 hard-of-hearing consumers, 4
to 5 interpreters, and 90 to 400 hearing consumers.
According to the New Mexico Commission for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing
Persons, there are 225 identified people in our state performing the act of
interpreting, although of that number, only approximately 125 hold national
certification. Of the 225, 89 were
educational interpreters working in 2002 serving over 400 deaf and
hard-of-hearing children in the state.
Those who are certified translate to 55.5%, or roughly half, of all
interpreters. There are several reasons
for this low percentage. While the
Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (ADA) explicitly requires "qualified"
interpreters, it does not require certification of any kind. Nor does the ADA define what is meant by the
term "qualified".
Licensing has been recommended as a mechanism for not only defining
standards of quality, but also for improving the quality of interpreters in New
Mexico.
C. Goal
The goal of this study is to conduct research and gather input from the public as to whether licensure is the correct mechanism to improve the quality of interpreters in New Mexico.
License: a written authorization to engage in the practice of signed language interpreting as regulated by the Board.
Consumer:
1. Deaf - person with little or no hearing who uses interpreting services.
2. Hard-of-Hearing - person with a minor hearing loss who uses interpreting services.
3. General Public - person with normal hearing who uses interpreting services to communicate with deaf consumers.
Interpreter:
person who provides accessible communication between and among persons who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, and hearing. This process includes, but is not limited to, communications between American Sign Language and spoken English. It may also involve various other modalities that incorporate visual, gestural, or tactile methods.
Certified Interpreter:
interpreter who holds current national certification from the Registry of
Interpreters for the Deaf or the National Association of the Deaf.
Signer: person who uses one or more forms of signed language but is not a trained or skilled interpreter.
Rural: classification of a
town in New Mexico with less than 10,000 population.
Urban: classification of a town in New Mexico with more than 10,000 population.
RID: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf which provides a national certification program.
NAD: National Association of the Deaf which provides a national certification program (National Interpreter Certification).
Board: board set up for interpreter licensure under the state of New Mexico.
Freelance Interpreter:
interpreter who is self-employed and who provides interpreting services acting as an independent contractor.
Educational Interpreter:
interpreter who interprets in public schools and post-secondary settings.
CEU: continuing education unit (1 CEU equals 10 hours).
Mandated by the New Mexico state legislature under House Joint Memorial 1 (HJM1), the New Mexico Commission for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Persons and the New Mexico School for the Deaf formed a committee to study the interpreter licensure issue. To serve on the committee, three representatives were chosen from the New Mexico Association of the Deaf, three from the New Mexico Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, and one each from the New Mexico Commission for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Persons and the New Mexico School for the Deaf.
The following methods were used to conduct the study:
1. Research by individual members of the committee
2. Committee group discussions
3. Public feedback at town-hall meetings held throughout the state in 2002
April 12 - CASA (Community and School Awareness for the Deaf
and Hard-of-Hearing) Conference in Albuquerque
May 10 - regular meeting of Santa Fe Club of the Deaf
June 12 - Interpreter Week at New Mexico School for the Deaf
Aug 17 – board meeting of New Mexico Association of the Deaf
In Santa Fe
Aug 24 - Farmington
Aug 24 - Las Cruces in conjunction with meeting of the New
Mexico Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf
4. Compilation and summarizing of statistics from written survey disseminated throughout state (refer to Appendix A)
5. Recording of individual comments from public at town hall meetings (see Appendix B)
FINDINGS
There is no regulatory body that oversees the
qualifications of interpreters for the deaf and hard-of-hearing in New
Mexico. Other than the state public
school systems, some university special services for the handicapped and
several small interpreter referral agencies, there is no widespread regulatory
control over the hiring of qualified interpreters. The American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) specifies that
all businesses with fifteen or more employees must make reasonable
accommodations to persons with disabilities.
This leaves many deaf and hard of hearing people in awkward or
frustrating situations when they encounter hired individuals who are unable to
interpret sufficiently for their needs, yet who have been deemed “qualified” by
unknowledgeable employers. To
accentuate the problem, the ADA does not require smaller businesses to comply
or define the qualification of an interpreter. In addition, there has been little incentive for interpreters to
improve their skills since certification has not been required.
New Mexico is considered to be a rural state and, as such, it has difficulty finding sufficient qualified interpreters to fill the interpreting needs throughout the state. This has led many public and private entities to rely upon interpreters who are less than qualified. Although two educational institutions (University of New Mexico and Santa Fe Community College) have addressed this serious need by offering either degree or certificate programs, many interpreting assignments still involve the use of individuals who have completed only one or two signed language classes. Quite often, these classes involve only rudimentary vocabulary lessons and are void of ethical considerations, interpersonal skills necessary to work in cross-cultural situations, interpreting competencies in simultaneous and consecutive modes, and/or other skills critical to the interpreting profession. Participants in these types of classes are known as signers and are not qualified to interpret. Such individuals are often asked and even encouraged to accept paid appointments in highly critical community settings such as in emergency, prison, medical, and legal environments. More often than not, deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals receive little or no access to communication in such settings which presents a very critical situation in serving their communication needs. As a result, qualified interpreting services are lacking for deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers in New Mexico.
In many cases, providers in critical settings are unaware that interpreting services are available. In legal interpreting, there have been numerous incidents in the court system with unqualified interpreters. Most medical professionals do not provide interpreters. More likely, interpreting
services are provided by current medical staff who may have a very limited knowledge of signed language, or other methods used by deaf or hard-of-hearing consumers. The public needs to be educated on the quality of interpreters and provided with the appropriate access to communication.
Because of the
interpreter shortage in New Mexico, especially in rural areas, many
interpreters need educational opportunities to improve their skills. Many educational interpreters are not
qualified to freelance interpret and vise versa. In addition, out-of-state interpreters often interpret for
conferences or schools in border towns of rural areas. Rural areas do not have many opportunities
for interpreter education. Most rural
interpreters have to travel far to attend workshops in Albuquerque, Santa Fe,
or in other states or access distance education.
A survey on the stance of licensure along with demographic information was disseminated to those involved with the deaf and interpreting communities (Refer to Appendix A for a copy of the survey form).
Sixty-seven people responded to the survey with the following characteristics:
Hearing Category –
deaf 25.4%
hard-of-hearing 10.4%
hearing 64.2%
Status Category –
hearing interpreter 59.7%
deaf interpreter 04.5%
deaf consumer 31.3%
other 04.5%
Certification Type Category –
uncertified 33.4%
certified 66.6%
Live/Work Location Category –
urban 65.7%
rural 32.8%
no response 01.5%
Overall statistics show that 51 of 67 (76.1%) respondents to the survey favored licensure with 16 (23.9%) undecided. None were against licensure. Of the fifty-one who favored licensure, 33 were from urban areas and 17 from rural areas and one person did not respond. (See Appendix A.) See Figure 1 for additional characteristics of respondents.
Analysis of the survey data did not show any significant differences in stance on licensure based on the dependent variables of the demographic data. In each case, the proportion of those for and those undecided on licensure was statistically the same. It appears the general consensus is for licensure, but taking into account implementation concerns is critical in maintaining support for licensure and ensuring a viable licensure system.
a. Current Federal/New Mexico Laws or Regulations
Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (refer to Appendix C for legislation)
Section II-7.1200 (Qualified Interpreter) entitles a deaf person to effective communication with a qualified interpreter in situations as defined in this act. The term “qualified” is not defined.
This act (38-9-1 to 38-9-10 NMSA 1978) entitles a deaf person who is a “principal party in interest” to an interpreter in administrative or judicial proceedings under the authority of the state. This is limited to state proceedings and interpreters can be selected from a list maintained by the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation through agreement with the New Mexico Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf and the New Mexico Association of the Deaf.
Court Interpreters Act of 1978
(refer to Appendix E for legislation)
This act (38-10-1 to 38-10-8 NMSA 1978) refers to providing an interpreter for a non-English speaking person who is a principal party in interest or a witness in judicial proceedings of the state.
This is limited to court proceedings and the “administrative office of the courts” has authority over the qualification of interpreters utilized.
The Division of Vocational Rehabilitation under the State Department of Education set up regulations to implement Section 38-9-7 of the Deaf Interpreter Act of 1978. It was set up to provide a mechanism for state agencies to handle interpreter requests and fees. The standards listed here required national certification through the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) or through the State Quality Assurance (QA) system. The QA system no longer exists and has been replaced by the NAD system. If no approved interpreter is available, the DVR State Coordinator of Deaf Services can allow an unapproved interpreter to be utilized.
State Department of Education
(refer to Appendix G for regulations)
To hold a valid license issued by the State Board of Education, an educational interpreter is currently required to hold certification from either of the two national certifying bodies RID and NAD (level III, IV or V). Currently, this kind of license allows one to perform as an interpreter for the deaf in public schools or in special state-supported schools with state agencies. An application for an initial license for educational interpreting must be sent to the Professional Licensure Unit of the State Department of Public Education.
New Mexico was one of the first states (in 1980) to have RID national certification as a requirement for its educational interpreters through the State Department of Education. It was also one of the first to have the State Department of Education recognize educational interpreters as equals with teachers in salaries.
Albuquerque Public Schools has an additional requirement of a college degree for educational interpreters.
b. Legislation in Other States
As determined from research of other states, approximately 20 states have current licensure and 15 other states are in the process of developing legislation for licensure. Most states used portions of the model legislation set up by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf to develop state licensure.
In a review of other states similar to New Mexico, Kentucky has a successful licensure system. Licensure is also working well in South Dakota.
Utah does not have official licensure, but requires certification which must be accepted by a state board with representatives from the State Department of Education, the deaf service agency, the interpreting group, and consumers. Certifications accepted include RID and other state-level certification. It is a class C misdemeanor to interpret without certification.
Maine has licensure in two categories:
Certified - certification from RID or NAD level IV and V
Limited - proof of 100 hours of American Sign Language instruction and 100 hours of interpreting instruction
Missouri has a licensing board and grants permanent licenses to those with state levels 3, 4, 5 and temporary licenses to those with state levels 1 and 2. It has its own licensing evaluation system and grievance process.
Illinois has RID or NAD certification requirements for licensure. Certification from other states may be allowed.
Many states have licenses for certain areas of interpreting such as legal and medical. In legal interpreting, regulations in other states include the following:
TX - NAD level 3
AZ - RID CSC or CI/CT, NAD level 5, and 600 hours of interpreting in past 5 years
CA - separate legal exam
Several states have chosen one of the following requirements:
1. Degree
2. Graduate of an accredited program
3. RID certification
4. Either RID and NAD certification
c. National Certification Bodies
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) and the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) both have national certification programs for interpreters for the deaf and hard-of-hearing. On the average, most interpreters, including graduates of accredited programs, prepare for certification in three years.
At the present time, RID and NAD are in the process of merging. The National Council on Interpreting (NCI) is a joint body composed of representatives from both the National Association of the Deaf and the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, set up in 1993. The representatives comprise a broad spectrum of deaf and interpreting communities and come from many organizations, cultures, and areas of expertise. They have been meeting regularly in order to review, revise, and validate all aspects of the upcoming joint certification process.
This merging certification was determined to be necessary because each organization had developed individual certification processes which were becoming confusing and conflicting for all interpreters and deaf people involved, as well as for public and private consumers of interpreting services. The major steps of the examination development include analyzing the responsibilities of interpreters; developing a content outline for the examination; writing, reviewing, referencing, and validating the test; assembling the examination; and deciding the score required to pass the test. The New Mexico Licensure Board will need to keep abreast of the progress of the NCI and the certifications being developed by this body in order to implement appropriate changes into the interpreting licensure law in New Mexico.
Both bodies (RID, NAD) currently have requirements for ongoing training. RID has a certificate maintenance program which requires 8 CEUs (continuing education units) every 4 years to keep current certification. NAD has an annual maintenance program of 700 hours of interpreting employment, or 25 hours a year of workshops.
There is ongoing discussion by RID members regarding the requirement of a college degree for certification with time allowed to obtain the degree and grandfathering all those currently certified. RID has tabled any action on degree requirements. In New Mexico, some feel that minorities will fall through the cracks if degrees are required. Because a large number of minorities live in New Mexico, this is of greater concern.
There have been incidents of filed grievances from New Mexico with no action taken by the national bodies. They lack the resources to take the necessary legal action.
d. State Department of Regulation and Licensing and state licensing boards
The committee could not find a general guide for writing licensure procedures or establishing a board. The Uniform Licensure Act does not state any rules on setting up a board. The committee was advised to look at other licensing and board statutes and modify those duties and responsibilities to match our needs.
Most state statutes for other licensing boards have 5 – 7 members with 6-year terms.
The study group made every effort to include input from those who were involved directly or indirectly with interpreting issues in New Mexico. The primary stakeholders in this study included consumers, interpreters for the deaf, family and friends of consumers, interpreter education program faculty and staff, and entities which utilize interpreters. (Comments recorded from the public can be reviewed under Appendix B.) Input from other states played an important role, as the trend is rapidly growing for states to set up legislation for interpreter licensure. More than half the states have current or pending legislation.
Based on the findings accumulated from input, the study group recommends pursuing the establishment of licensure for interpreters for the deaf and hard-of-hearing in the state of New Mexico overseen by a licensing board under the Department of Regulation and Licensing. We also recommend that a task force be set up and funded under the New Mexico Commission for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing to develop the mechanism for the Licensure Board.
Outcomes
1. The quality of interpreters will improve by five percent per year.
With a licensure system in place, certification will be required for most interpreters and would improve the quality of interpret ring for consumers. The Licensure Board will set up exemptions for certain interpreting situations to accommodate the needs of New Mexicans such as multi-language situations, emergency situations, and consumer preferences. Some interpreters such as those who are preparing for certification for a limited period of time will be exempt as defined in the regulations set up by the Licensure Board. Expansion of opportunities for further education and training, especially in rural areas, will assist interpreters in improving their skills and, thus, raise the standards of their profession. Methods to prepare for certification may include classes in accredited educational programs, mentoring, sponsoring through videotapes/experience and distance education, and workshops. Educational stipends would help minority student interpreters get the education they need.
National certification examinations are already offered by two national certifying bodies - the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf and National Association of the Deaf. The highest qualified interpreters nationwide hold certifications from one or both of these bodies. Following these requirements for certification and CEUs (which can be out-of-state) would simplify future licensing board responsibilities and reduce paperwork, investigation, and duplication. A mechanism should be in place for future state licensure regulation revisions if modifications are made by the national certifying bodies.
Improving the quality of interpreting will allow more interpreters to be licensed each year. Most critical, consumers will be better served. Interpreter licensure would eliminate many improper business practices which the current certifying bodies have been reluctant to handle. As with other professionals, a licensed interpreter will be required to behave in a professional manner, otherwise, the license could be revoked through grievance procedures set up by the Licensure Board. The consumer is safeguarded by licensure which will help control and improve the standard of the interpreting profession in the state of New Mexico.
Outcome Measures
3. Track the number of grievance complaints and number of grievance cases closed.
Appendix A1
Statistical Analysis of Licensure Survey
Introduction
A survey (see Appendix A2 for form) was developed
and distributed at the town halls to interested parties in the licensure
issue. The survey asked for demographic
information including deaf/hearing status,
New Mexico residency, urban/rural location, and interpreter/consumer
primary identification. For interpreter
respondents additional information was requested including certification and
degree information. All respondents
were asked to take a stance on licensure: for, against or undecided; and all
were encouraged to comment. Sixty-seven
surveys were returned and the data analyzed.
The analysis follows.
Variables
The data from the licensure survey was entered into
SPSS. The variable designations
include: ethnicity (whether a person is
deaf, hearing or hard-of-hearing); primary (whether a person identifies himself
as primarily an interpreter or as a consumer); location (whether a person
lives/works in an urban or rural area); certification (whether a person is
certified as an interpreter and what specific certification type that person
holds); degree (whether a person holds a degree and what level); graduate
(whether a person graduated from an interpreter training program or is
currently a student); and stance (whether the person was for, against or
undecided on the issue of licensure).
Additional variable designations were made for attendance of a town hall
(attend), for including comments with the survey (comment) and for those
indicating some other primary identity other than interpreter or consumer.
Combined
Variables
In order to analyze the data more effectively we
combined several of the survey item variables above to create two new combined
variables. The status variable was
created based on respondents’ answers to demographic items #1 and #2. If a person identified himself as hearing
and primarily an interpreter their status was recorded as hearing
interpreter. The other status variable
values were deaf consumer, and deaf interpreter. The education/certification combined variable, as the variable
name reflects, is based on the combination of answers to the items regarding
certification type, degree type and whether the person graduated from an
interpreter training program. This was
more difficult to do because of the disparity in education versus certification
levels in this population; some holding
degrees were not certified, while others were certified but held no
degree. Other variability was also
evident which made the variable value designations difficult. In assigning the variable values (high,
moderate and low) a two-out-of-three principle was followed. For example if a person had a high level of
certification (RID CI/CT, NAD4 or above) and had a BA degree or higher but was
not an interpreter training program graduate, that person was assigned a value
of high. However, a value of high was
never assigned to a person who was not certified, regardless of degree level or
type. The moderate value was given to
the degree holding interpreter training program graduates who were not yet
certified. A moderate designation was
also assigned to those holding an NAD 3, holding an AA degree but not in
interpreting. Those who were currently students and those without a degree and
not certified or holding a low level certificate (RID IC/TC, NAD 2 or below)
were assigned a value of low.
Findings
Frequency Data
Of the 67 respondents, 51 (76.1%) were for licensure
of interpreters, 16 (23.9%) were undecided and none were against. (See Appendix A3 for frequency data.) Ninety-one percent of the respondents
attended a town hall and thus were well informed before filling out the
survey. All but five respondents were
New Mexico residents. Rural respondents
made up only one third of the sample population. Of the interpreters responding to the survey, a 33.4% were
uncertified or held a certification below an NAD 3. Most of the respondents to the survey were hearing interpreters
(59.7%). There was not as much representation
from deaf consumers (31.3%). Of the
twenty-one deaf consumers who responded sixteen were for licensure, five were
undecided and none were against. The
three deaf interpreters who responded were all for licensure. Deaf consumers are underrepresented
here. More of an effort to include them
in the survey needed to be made. Also,
some deaf respondents did not complete the entire survey, stopping at the
interpreter section; therefore, they did not state their stance on licensure,
and for this reason were not included in the statistical analysis.
Research Question Results
Several research questions were posed based on an
initial view of the data and current thoughts regarding licensure. Because there were no respondents against
licensure, an attempt was made to determine which demographic or
education/certification variables are descriptive of those unsure on the
licensure issue. (See Appendix A4 for
all Crosstabulations and Chi-Square test results.)
The first question posed was, does
education/certification level affect stance on licensure? We hypothesized that individuals who had a
high level of education and certification , who are likely to have no problem
obtaining a license and who have much to gain if licensure “raises the bar”,
would be more likely to support licensure.
However, we found no statistical difference between high, moderate and
low education/certification respondents (X =(2)=.623). An X value of
less than .05 is considered
mathematically significant.
We hypothesized that urban interpreters and
consumers would be more likely to be for licensure than rural respondents
because of greater educational opportunities and availability of interpreters
in the urban areas. Again our survey
data did not support this hypothesis (X =(1)+.547).
We further hypothesized, combining our first two
research questions, that rural
interpreters ranked as low in terms of combined certification and education
would be more likely to be undecided on licensure. Again this was not supported, though narrowly, by the data (X =(2)=.052). Even if this had shown a statistical significance, there was not
a sufficient sample size to make it valid.
Finally, we questioned whether there was a
difference between deaf consumers and hearing interpreters with regards to
licensure. Because the number of deaf
respondents was so small, one cannot rely on this test; but it appears that
there is no difference between interpreters and consumers stance on
licensure
(X =(2)=.563).
Comments
Comments from respondents focused largely on
concerns regarding the implementation of licensure and what that would look
like. Additionally concerns were
brought up about the severe need for more education and professional
development for interpreters, and whether or not that would be considered as
part of the movement toward licensure.
The comments in their entirety are in Appendix A5.
Interpretation
The
analysis of the survey data did not show any significant differences in stance
on licensure based on the dependent variables of education/certification level,
live/work location (urban vs. rural), combined education/certification and
live/work location, or consumer or interpreter status. In each case the proportion of for and undecided was statistically the
same. It seems we have among each
identified group a similar number of individuals who weigh in as
undecided. Further the comment data
indicates that many responding for added a caveat about education needs, or
other concerns about the details of licensure. Additionally, if our sample of interpreters is representative of
the interpreter population of the state at large with 33.4% uncertified or
holding a certification below an NAD 3, there is a concern that this could pose
feasibility problems with instituting licensure without allowing for
appropriate grace periods to allow for currently working interpreters to obtain
the knowledge and skills necessary for meeting the certification requirements
of licensure. It appears the general
consensus is for licensure, but taking into account vested parties concerns in
the implementation of licensure are critical in maintaining support for
licensure and ensuring a viable licensure system.
Appendix A2
Interpreter
Licensure in New Mexico
Survey
The
Joint Interpreter Licensure Committee requests your input on the following
survey. Be sure to save the contact
information at the bottom of this form should you wish to send us further
comments at a later date. Put your
completed survey in the comment box at the licensure committee display in the
lobby. Thank you.
Demographic items:
Are
you ___deaf
___hard-of-hearing
___hearing
Are
you a New Mexico resident ___yes ___no
Do
you live/work in ___an urban area
___a rural
area
Are
you primarily an ___interpreter
___consumer
___other________________
If you are an interpreter
answer the following items:
Are
you certified ___RID (
___CI ___CT ____other_________)
___NAD
level___
Do
you hold a degree ___AA
___BA
___MA
___PhD
Are you a graduate of an interpreter training
program ___yes ___no
___ITP student now
Licensure items:
What
is your stance on licensure of interpreters in New Mexico?
___for ___against
___undecided
Did
you attend the town hall meeting, Friday, April 12th at CASA? ___yes ___no
Please
comment and give us your feedback on the licensure issue (use the back of this
form):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send comments
or inquiries to : Tom Dillon, Co-chair at tomdillon@worldnet.att.net
or
Barb Shaffer, Co-chair
at bshaffer@unm.edu
Appendix
A3
Deaf / Hearing / Hard of Hearing
|
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid
Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
| Valid |
Deaf |
17 |
25.4 |
25.4 |
25.4 |
| |
Hard-of-Hearing |
7 |
10.4 |
10.4 |
35.8 |
| |
Hearing |
43 |
64.2 |
64.2 |
100.0 |
| |
Total |
67 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Primary Connection to Interpreting
|
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid
Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
| Valid |
Interpreter |
41 |
61.2 |
61.2 |
61.2 |
| |
Consumer |
22 |
32.8 |
32.8 |
94.0 |
| |
Other |
4 |
6.0 |
6.0 |
100.0 |
| |
Total |
67 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Status
|
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid
Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
| Valid |
Hearing
Interpreter |
40 |
59.7 |
62.5 |
62.5 |
| |
Deaf
Interpreter |
3 |
4.5 |
4.7 |
67.2 |
| |
Deaf
Consumer |
21 |
31.3 |
32.8 |
100.0 |
| |
Total |
64 |
95.5 |
100.0 |
|
| Missing |
System |
3 |
4.5 |
|
|
| Total |
|
67 |
100.0 |
|
|
New Mexico Resident
|
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid
Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
| Valid |
yes |
62 |
92.5 |
92.5 |
92.5 |
| |
no |
5 |
7.5 |
7.5 |
100.0 |
| |
Total |
67 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Live / Work Location
|
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid
Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
| Valid |
Urban |
44 |
65.7 |
66.7 |
66.7 |
| |
Rural |
22 |
32.8 |
33.3 |
100.0 |
| |
Total |
66 |
98.5 |
100.0 |
|
| Missing |
System |
1 |
1.5 |
|
|
| Total |
|
67 |
100.0 |
|
|
Certification Type
|
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
| Valid |
Uncertified |
12 |
17.9 |
26.7 |
26.7 |
| |
RID/CI |
1 |
1.5 |
2.2 |
28.9 |
| |
RID/CT |
5 |
7.5 |
11.1 |
40.0 |
| |
RID/CI/CT |
10 |
14.9 |
22.2 |
62.2 |
| |
RID/other |
6 |
9.0 |
13.3 |
75.6 |
| |
NAD2 |
3 |
4.5 |
6.7 |
82.2 |
| |
NAD3 |
5 |
7.5 |
11.1 |
93.3 |
| |
NAD4 |
2 |
3.0 |
4.4 |
97.8 |
| |
NAD5 |
1 |
1.5 |
2.2 |
100.0 |
| |
Total |
45 |
67.2 |
100.0 |
|
| Missing |
System |
22 |
32.8 |
|
|
| Total |
|
67 |
100.0 |
|
|
Degree Type
|
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
| Valid |
AA |
8 |
11.9 |
22.2 |
22.2 |
| |
BA |
18 |
26.9 |
50.0 |
72.2 |
| |
MA |
9 |
13.4 |
25.0 |
97.2 |
| |
Ph.D |
1 |
1.5 |
2.8 |
100.0 |
| |
Total |
36 |
53.7 |
100.0 |
|
| Missing |
System |
31 |
46.3 |
|
|
| Total |
|
67 |
100.0 |
|
|
Graduate of
Interpreter Training Program
|
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
| Valid |
Yes |
18 |
26.9 |
40.0 |
40.0 |
| |
No |
25 |
37.3 |
55.6 |
95.6 |
| |
Current Student |
2 |
3.0 |
4.4 |
100.0 |
| |
Total |
45 |
67.2 |
100.0 |
|
| Missing |
System |
22 |
32.8 |
|
|
| Total |
|
67 |
100.0 |
|
|
Education /
Certification Combined
|
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
| Valid |
High |
18 |
26.9 |
40.9 |
40.9 |
| |
Moderate |
13 |
19.4 |
29.5 |
70.5 |
| |
Low |
13 |
19.4 |
29.5 |
100.0 |
| |
Total |
44 |
65.7 |
100.0 |
|
| Missing |
System |
23 |
34.3 |
|
|
| Total |
|
67 |
100.0 |
|
|
Stance on
Licensure
|
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
| Valid |
For |
51 |
76.1 |
76.1 |
76.1 |
| |
Undecided |
16 |
23.9 |
23.9 |
100.0 |
| |
Total |
67 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Attend Town
Hall Meeting
|
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
| Valid |
Yes |
61 |
91.0 |
91.0 |
91.0 |
| |
No |
6 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
100.0 |
| |
Total |
67 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Comment on
Back?
|
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
| Valid |
Yes |
23 |
34.3 |