Spanish Interpreter

Recommendations for conferences:

Preliminary Information, schedules, agenda for the conference and printed material if available.

Facts

It is not enough to be bilingual, full and specialized command of both languages is an absolute must. Cultural awareness and specialized terminology is a determining factor in order to be able to adjust to the speaker's level of sophistication and background to produce an exact rendition.

For those of you with whom I have not had the pleasure to work with, I interpret locally for a diverse group of individuals, corporations, attorneys, conventions, seminars, shows etc. I provide interpreting services for arbitrations, depositions, hearings and trials at the industrial commission, mandatory arbitration centers, employee training sessions, OSHA compliant machinery installation, instruction, MSDS, human resources meetings, etc.

In the legal field; some of the areas covered are Antitrust, Bankruptcy, Business/Contracts, Real Estate, Trusts and Estates, Construction, Consumer, Class Action, Education, Employment, Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Wrongful Termination, Environment, Family, Franchise, Government Contracts, Healthcare, Insurance, Bad Faith, Casualty, Life, Disability, Coverage, Uninsured Motorist, Underinsured Motorist, Worker's Compensation, Intellectual Property, Landlord/Tenant, Lender Liability, Professional Malpractice, Marital Dissolution, Personal Injury, Probate, etc.

Medical evaluations, examinations, patient feedback where the usage of specialized terminology is often a burden and a great source of frustration for those who have not acquired good command of the English language.

Depositions, sworn statements, arbitrations, trials, where the need for alertness, speed and accuracy is of utmost importance in order to ethically and impartially convey the exact message both, attorneys and either plaintiffs or defendants express in their native tongues, providing the "link" that facilitates effortless communication between parties for a seamlessly agile process. It is an intricate and challenging proposition that enlivens all parties involved bringing out the best in those participants. Even though the same grammatical structure applies to all formal and correctly spoken Spanish and English for that matter, slight and sometimes marked differences apply, just as it happens with Irish, New Zealanders, British, Australians, Texans, New Yorkers and so on. Even though the Spaniards scattered their imprint throughout the Americas, it is a rich and amply varied culture whose communities shine under an infinite rainbow of historic and linguistic influences, from Moors to African Slaves to Europeans not to mention the thousands of continental full blooded indigenous peoples. Whom will your next client or defendant be? The migrating and under employed Argentinean engineer who got tired of driving a cab in Buenos Aires, the 50 year old Colombian ex-judge forced to seek political asylum in the US due to flagrant death threats or the Chemical engineer from the Dominican Republic who lost his job in Russia or the regular worker from any nation? These have actually been cases I have interpreted at and it never ceases to enrich me. It is therefore important to remain in constant "upgrade" status, assimilating all sorts of abundant peculiarities by being there, learning....

A slower paced wait-and-then-interpret-after-I'm-done procedure where short statements or questions are needed, specially during phone interpretation.

The art of rendering the correct translation of a document that is presented to the interpreter.

January 29, 1998 Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin
Discrimination--Persons with Limited-English Proficiency

Introduction to Limited-English-Proficiency Guidance

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has issued the following guidance memorandum on national origin non-discrimination and Limited-English-Proficiency (LEP) to OCR staff to ensure consistent application of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to health and social services programs funded by HHS. The import of the memorandum is that it addresses language assistance that may be required for effective communication between health and social service providers and persons of Limited English Proficiency (LEP). Pursuant to Title VI, such assistance is appropriate where language barriers cause LEP persons to be excluded from or denied equal access to HHS-funded programs.

In reviewing the memorandum, you will note that it spells out factors that OCR staff will consider when working with HHS-funded programs to ensure that persons of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) are not discriminatorily denied equal access to or an equal opportunity to benefit from health and social services programs on the basis of national origin. The guidance also describes a variety of options that may be used in addressing the language assistance needs of LEP persons. In presenting these options, the guidance stipulates that health and social service providers are not required to use all of the suggested methods listed. However, providers should establish and implement policies and procedures for fulfilling their Title VI equal opportunity responsibilities to LEP persons. OCR developed this guidance based on tested practices identified in compliance reviews and negotiated settlements with recipients to provide language services.

I. Background

This memorandum is intended to offer guidance to staff of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) with respect to its enforcement of the responsibilities of recipients of Federal financial assistance from HHS to persons with Limited-English Proficiency (LEP), pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 2000d et seq. ("Title VI"). Such recipients include hospitals, managed care providers, clinics and other health care providers as well as social service agencies and other institutions or entities that receive assistance from HHS. This document will provide guidance to OCR investigators in assessing compliance, negotiating voluntary compliance, and providing technical assistance. It also stresses flexibility, particularly for small providers, in choosing methods to meet their responsibilities to LEP persons. Through OCR's investigative activities in this area, both recipients and LEP beneficiaries will be made more aware of their respective obligations with respect to the provision and receipt of services.

The guidance is intended to clarify standards consistent with case law and well established legal principles that have been developed under Title VI.

Section 601 of Title VI states that "no person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Regulations implementing Title VI which are published at 45 C.F.R. Part 80, specifically provide that a recipient may not discriminate and may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program with respect to individuals of a particular, race, color or national origin.

The statute and regulations prohibit recipients from adopting and implementing policies and procedures that exclude or have the effect of excluding or limiting the participation of beneficiaries in their programs, benefits or activities on the basis of race, color or national origin. Accordingly, a recipient must ensure that its policies do not have the effect of excluding from, or limiting the participation of, such persons in its programs and activities, on the basis of national origin. Such a recipient should take reasonable steps to provide services and information in appropriate languages other than English in order to ensure that LEP persons are effectively informed and can effectively participate in and benefit from its programs.

English is the predominant language of the United States and according to the 1990 Census is spoken by 95% of its residents. Of those residents who speak languages other than English at home, the 1990 Census reports that 57% of U.S. residents above the age of four speak English "well to very well." The United States is also, however, home to millions of national origin minority individuals who are limited in their ability to speak, read, write and understand the English language. The language barriers experienced by these LEP persons can result in limiting their access to critical public health, hospital and other medical and social services to which they are legally entitled and can limit their ability to receive notice of or understand what services are available to them. Because of these language barriers, LEP persons are often excluded from programs or experience delays or denials of services from recipients of Federal assistance. Such exclusions, delays or denials may constitute discrimination on the basis of national origin, in violation of Title VI.

LEP persons can and often do encounter barriers to health and social services at nearly every level within such programs. The primary reason for this difficulty is the language barrier that often confronts LEP persons who attempt to obtain health care and social services. Many health and social service programs provide information about their services in English only. Many LEP persons presenting at hospitals or medical clinics are faced with receptionists, nurses and doctors who speak English only, and often interviews to determine eligibility for medical care or social services are conducted by intake workers who speak English only.

The language barrier faced by LEP persons in need of medical care and/or social services severely limits their ability to gain access to these services and to participate in these programs. In addition, the language barrier often results in the denial of medical care or social services, delays in the receipt of such care and services, or the provision of care and services based on inaccurate or incomplete information. Services denied, delayed or provided under such circumstances could have serious consequences for an LEP patient as well as for a provider of medical care. Some states recognize the seriousness of the problem and require providers to offer language assistance to patients in certain medical care settings.

This guidance sets out factors for OCR staff to consider in determining whether federally-assisted providers of medical care or social services are taking steps to overcome language barriers to health care and social services encountered by LEP persons. The guidance emphasizes flexibility to providers in choosing the language assistance options they will employ. Thus, small providers and/or providers who serve only one or two language groups may be able to meet their responsibilities by choosing fewer or different options than the options selected by larger providers or those providers serving many language groups.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), recognized that recipients of Federal financial assistance have an affirmative responsibility, pursuant to Title VI, to provide LEP persons with meaningful opportunity to participate in public programs. In Lau v. Nichols, the Supreme Court ruled that a school system's failure to provide English language instruction to students of Chinese ancestry who do not speak English denied the students a meaningful opportunity to participate in a public educational program in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ¹

Since the Lau decision, OCR has conducted a number of complaint investigations and compliance and pre-grant reviews involving language barriers that impede the access of LEP persons to federally-assisted health and medical care and social services. OCR has found that where language barriers exist, eligible LEP persons are often excluded from programs, denied medical services or suffer long delays in the receipt of health and social services. Where such barriers discriminate or have had the effect of discriminating on the basis of national origin, OCR has required recipients to provide language assistance to LEP persons.

OCR's position as set forth in this document is fully consistent with a government-wide Title VI regulation issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 1976, "Coordination of Enforcement of Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs," 28 C.F.R. Subpart F. The DOJ regulation addresses the circumstances in which recipients must provide language assistance, in written form, to LEP persons.² The DOJ regulation does not address the question of oral language assistance. OCR's experience in conducting complaint investigations and compliance and pre-grant reviews demonstrates that oral communication between recipients and program beneficiaries is an integral part of the exchange that must occur in order for assisted programs and activities to appropriately function. Thus, OCR's longstanding position has been that recipients may be required to provide oral language assistance in languages other than English. This statement affirms this position.

II. Discussion

All entities that receive Federal financial assistance from HHS, either directly or indirectly through a subgrant or subcontract, are covered by this guidance. Covered entities would thus include any state or local agency, private institution or organization, or any public or private individual that operates, provides or engages in health, medical or social service programs and activities that receive or benefit from HHS assistance.

All recipients have the responsibility for ensuring that their policies and procedures do not deny or have the effect of denying such LEP persons equal access to federally assisted health, medical and social service programs, benefits and services for which such persons qualify.

The key to ensuring equal access to benefits and services for LEP persons, is to ensure the service provider and the LEP client can communicate effectively, i.e., the LEP client should be given information about, and be able to understand, the services that can be provided by the recipient to address his/her situation and must be able to communicate his/her situation to the recipient service provider. Recipients are more likely to utilize effective communication if they approach this responsibility in a structured rather than on an ad hoc basis. ³

Developing policies and procedures for addressing the language assistance needs of LEP persons may best be accomplished through an assessment of the points of contact in the program or activity where language assistance is likely to be needed, the non-English languages that are most likely to be encountered, the resources that will be needed to fulfill this responsibility and the location and/or availability of such resources. In identifying available resources, recipients may find it helpful to consult with national origin organizations and groups in their service areas. Achieving effective communication with LEP persons may require the recipient to take all or some of the following steps at no cost or additional burden to the LEP beneficiary:

In determining the type of interpreter services that will be provided, a recipient has several options. To meet its Title VI responsibility with respect to the provision of interpreter services a recipient may:

Factors that may be considered by a recipient in determining which option(s) will best meet its needs and the needs of its LEP beneficiaries are its size, the size of the LEP population it serves, the setting in which interpreter services are needed, the availability of staff members and/or volunteers to provide interpreter services during its hours of operation and the proficiency of available staff members or volunteers available to provide the needed services.

A recipient should not require a beneficiary to use friends or family members as interpreters. Use of such persons could result in a breach of confidentiality or reluctance on the part of beneficiaries to reveal personal information critical to their situations, to family or friends. In a medical setting, reluctance or failure to reveal critical personal information could have serious, even life threatening, health consequences. In addition, family and friends may not be competent to act as interpreters, since they may lack familiarity with specialized terminology. However, a family member or friend may be used as an interpreter if this approach is requested by the LEP individual and the use of such a person would not compromise the effectiveness of services or violate the beneficiary's confidentiality, and the beneficiary is advised that a free interpreter is available.

A recipient should ensure that it uses persons who are competent to provide interpreter services. Competency does not necessarily mean formal certification as an interpreter, though this certification generally is preferable. However, the competency requirement does contemplate proficiency in both English and the other language, orientation or training which includes the ethics of interpreting, and fundamental knowledge in both languages of any specialized terms and concepts peculiar to the recipient's program or activity. For example, a hospital or medical clinic could use a nurse as a volunteer staff interpreter for a Hispanic beneficiary if the nurse speaks both English and Spanish proficiently. It can be assumed that in addition to language skills enabling the relay of critical information about the patient to medical personnel, the nurse will be sufficiently familiar with medical terminology to convey the medical meaning and importance of what is being communicated to the LEP patient. However, it would be inappropriate to use a person who had little knowledge of medical terms or a person who spoke English poorly. Similarly, it would be inappropriate to rely on a medical student who worked part-time and had learned some Spanish but did not speak the language proficiently. While the student would understand the medical terminology, and the use of part-time staff would be appropriate in many circumstances, it is unlikely that such a student would have sufficient Spanish language skills to communicate what is being said and its importance, by and to the LEP patient.

The options available to recipients for providing interpreter services to LEP persons have differing weaknesses and strengths depending on the situation. Hiring bilingual staff for certain critical positions, e.g., for patient or client contact positions, would facilitate participation by LEP persons. However, where there are several LEP language groups in a recipient's service area this option may be impractical as the only interpreter option, and additional language assistance options may be required.

Use of staff or community volunteers may provide recipients with a cost-effective method for providing interpreter services. However, recipients should ensure that such a system is sufficiently organized so that interpreters are readily available during all hours of its operation. In addition, recipients should ensure that such volunteers are qualified, trained and capable of ensuring patient confidentiality.

The use of contract interpreters may be an option for recipients that are small, have a significant but small LEP population, have less common LEP language groups in their service areas, or need to supplement their in-house capabilities on an as needed basis. Such contract interpreters should be readily available, qualified and trained.

Paid staff interpreters are especially appropriate where there is a very large LEP presence in a few major language groups. As in other options, these persons should be qualified and available. In most instances these employees are salaried and are entitled to the same benefits received by other employees.

A telephone interpreter service such as the AT&T language line ⁴ may be a useful option as a supplemental system, or may be useful when a recipient encounters an unusual language that it cannot otherwise accommodate. Such a service often offers interpreting services in many different languages and usually can provide the service in quick response to a request. However, recipients should be aware that such services may not always have readily available interpreters who are familiar with the terminology peculiar to the particular program or service or may require special arrangements to use such persons.

III. Compliance and Enforcement

The recommendations outlined in Section II(B) are not intended to be exhaustive. Recipients are not required to use all of the suggested methods and options listed. However, recipients should establish and implement policies and procedures for fulfilling their Title VI equal opportunity responsibilities to LEP persons in the population eligible to be served.

In determining a recipient's compliance with Title VI, OCR's concern will be whether the recipient's system allows LEP beneficiaries to overcome language barriers and thus have equal access to, and an equal opportunity to participate in, health care and social service programs and activities. While a recipient is not required to use the options listed, and may use options that are equally effective, a recipient's appropriate use of the options and methods discussed in this guidance, will be viewed by OCR as evidence of a recipient's intent to comply with its Title VI obligations.

For example, a small health care clinic that accepts patients by appointment only and serves a small but significant LEP population may be able to meet its responsibility to its LEP clients by making arrangements for interpreter services on an as needed basis, and appropriately publicizing the availability of such arrangements.

On the other hand, the emergency room in a large hospital located in an area with a larger and more diverse LEP population may require a combination of language assistance options. In this setting, there are likely to be a variety of patient contact points, and immediate and accurate information to and from patients is usually critical. In such a situation the recipient also should have staff that are bilingual in English and other frequently encountered languages, in critical patient contact positions. If available staff is insufficient, the recipient should employ other staff interpreters and/or make other language assistance arrangements to ensure that there are no delays in providing medical care and no misunderstandings when conveying information to, or obtaining information or informal consent from, patients.

The procedural provisions of the regulations implementing Title VI, found at 45 C.F.R. Sections 80.6 through 80.10, are applicable to all complaints or compliance reviews regarding a recipient's compliance with its Title VI responsibility to LEP beneficiaries.

¹ The Lau decision affirmed the U.S. Department of Education's Policy Memorandum issued on May 25, 1970, titled "Identification of Discrimination and the Denial of Services on the Basis of National Origin", 35 Fed. Reg. 11,595. The memorandum states in part: "Where the inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students."

² The DOJ coordination regulations at 28 C.F.R. Section 42.405 (d)(1) provide that "[w]here a significant number or proportion of the population eligible to be served or likely to be directly affected by a federally assisted program (e.g. affected by relocation) needs service or information in a language other than English in order effectively to be informed of or to participate in the program, the recipient shall take reasonable steps, considering the scope of the program and the size and concentration of such population, to provide information in appropriate languages to such persons. This requirement applies with regard to written material of the type which is ordinarily distributed to the public."

³ A requirement to ensure effective communication is also found in the area of disability discrimination law. See 28 C.F.R. Section 35.160(a), 45 C.F.R. Section 84.52(c) and 45 C.F.R. Section 85.51(a).

⁴ OCR does not endorse any particular organization, product, or service mentioned herein.