mopdf.com

Court Interpreters Advisory Panel(January 2020)Hon. Brian L. McCabe, ChairJudge of the Superior Court of California,County of MercedMr. Hector Gonzalez, Jr., Vice ChairCourt Executive Officer, Superior Court ofCalifornia, County of TuolumneHon. Teresa P. MagnoJudge of the Superior Court of California,County of Los AngelesMr. Gurinder Pal Singh AujlaRegistered Hindi Court InterpreterIndependent ContractorMs. Violet RomeroCertified Spanish Court Interpreter, Region 4Superior Court of California, County ofSan BernardinoMr. Chris RuhlCourt Executive Officer, Superior Court ofCalifornia, County of MontereyAdvisorsMs. Regina CoronadoCertified Spanish Court Interpreter, Region 3Superior Court of California, County ofSacramentoMs. Jennifer De La CruzMs. Claritza J. CallaciInterpreter Services ManagerCertified Spanish Court Interpreter, Region 1 Certified Spanish InterpreterInterpreter Services Supervisor, Superior Court Superior Court of California, County ofof California, County of Los AngelesSan BernardinoMr. Hany FaragCertified Arabic Court InterpreterIndependent ContractorMs. Mary Ann RamirezCourt Operations Supervisor, Superior Courtof California, County of San DiegoMs. Sharmen Gragirena LewisCertified Spanish Court Interpreter, Region 3Superior Court of California, County of KernMs. Tara PotterveldCertified ASL Court InterpreterIndependent ContractorMs. Carol M. PalacioCertified Spanish Court Interpreter, Region 2Superior Court of California, County ofSan MateoLead StaffMs. Sonia Sierra WolfAnalyst, Court Interpreters ProgramLanguage Access Services

AcknowledgmentsThis report reflects the work of many individuals across California who have dedicated theirprofessional lives to improving access to justice for limited-English-proficient or deaf orhard-of-hearing court users. The Judicial Council of California would like to recognize theongoing work of over 2,500 talented and dedicated bilingual staff and court interpreters whoprovide services every day that court is open, as well as the 58 superior court Language AccessRepresentatives who serve as their court’s language access resource for all court users, courtstaff, and judicial officers.We thank the California Department of Education, California Department of Finance, Center forImmigration Studies, and Migration Policy Institute for their helpful research, including analysisof data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.Judge Steven Austin, Superior Court of Contra Costa County, Judge Jonathan Conklin, SuperiorCourt of Fresno County, and Justice Laurie Zelon, Second Appellate District of the Court ofAppeal, have been great leaders for branch language access efforts.Justice Terence Bruiniers, First Appellate District of the Court of Appeal (retired), and CaliforniaSupreme Court Justice Ming Chin provided vision for the branch on the appropriate use oftechnology for efficiency and improved service for all court users.From the Judicial Council, Leah Rose-Goodwin, Manager of the Office of Court Research, andMartha Wright, Manager of Criminal Justice Programs, provided helpful input for this report.Finally, we thank California Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar and JudgeManuel Covarrubias, Superior Court of Ventura County, who led the Language Access PlanImplementation Task Force from 2015 through 2019. Justice Cuéllar encouraged and inspiredstaff of the Judicial Council of California to improve and maintain language access datacollection efforts on an ongoing basis to support the development of sound policy and maintainlanguage access as a core service of the court.v

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary . 1Purpose. 1Overview . 1Key Findings . 2Summary of Recommendations . 5Part One: Interpreter Use in Mandated and Civil Case Types . 7Introduction . 7Language Access Services Program . 8Program Resources . 10Data Sources for Court Interpreter Services . 14Looking Back: Status of the 2015 Recommendations . 15Methodology for This Report . 16Statewide and Regional Interpreter Use in Spoken Languages . 18Summary of Part One. 38Part Two: Projecting Future Language Need . 39Introduction . 39Overview: Languages Other Than English in California . 39Limited-English-Proficient Population and Language Trends in the United States . 40Limited-English-Proficient Population and Language Trends in California . 43Caseload Trends and Projections . 47Challenges and Opportunities in Providing Language Access Services . 50Summary of Part Two . 52Recommendations on Future Credential Status . 53Part Three: Conclusion . 55Appendix . 57vii

2020 Language Need and Interpreter Use StudyList of TablesTable 1. Number of Certified Court Interpreters for California’s 10 Most-InterpretedSpoken Languages (as of December 2019) .12Table 2. Number of Recent Passers of Bilingual Interpreting Exam Required forQualification as a Certified Interpreter .13Table 3. Overall Number of Certified and Registered Interpreters Remained RelativelyStatic From 2014–2019 .13Table 4. Foreign- and U.S.-born Populations, California and the United States .41Table 5. Increasing Language Diversity: Top 15 States Where People Speak a LanguageOther Than English at Home (1980–2018) .42Table 6. California’s Most Prevalent Languages, by Number of Speakers .45Table 7. Home Languages Spoken by California English Learners, School Year 2018–19 .46Table 8. Total Service Days, 30 Most-Interpreted Spoken Languages (2015 Study) .57Table 9. Regression Outputs .59List of GraphicsGraphic 1. Regional Proportions and Total Interpretations by Fiscal Year .21Graphic 2. Regional Proportion per Fiscal Year and Trend Over Time .22Graphic 3. Total Filings and Interpretations During Study Period .23Graphic 4. Top 30 Most Interpreted Languages .25Graphic 5. Top 30 Most Interpreted Languages by Fiscal Year .27Graphic 6. Proportion of 30 Most-Interpreted Languages by Region .28Graphic 7. Assignments by Session Type.30Graphic 8. Assignments by Employment Status.31Graphic 9. Assignments by Certification Status .32Graphic 10. Civil Expansion Compared to Mandated .33viii

2020 Language Need and Interpreter Use StudyGraphic 11. Number of Interpretations and Proportion by Case Type .34Graphic 12. Number and Proportion of Interpretations by Case Type and Region .35Graphic 13. Interpretations by Language and Case Type .36Graphic 14. Proportion of Language by Case Type .37Graphic 15. Filings Forecast .50Graphic 16. Interpretations by Language and Case Type (Civil) .60Graphic 17. Interpretations by Language and Case Type (Criminal) .61Graphic 18. Interpretations by Language and Case Type (Family) .61Graphic 19. Interpretations by Language and Case Type (Juvenile) .62Graphic 20. Interpretations by Language and Case Type (Other) .63ix

Executive SummaryPurposeAs the policymaking body for the judiciary, the Judicial Council of California is responsible forproviding direction for the fair and impartial administration of justice in the state courts ofCalifornia. The availability of language access services is essential to the fair and impartialadministration of justice, as well as a fundamental right guaranteed by the CaliforniaConstitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 14). This constitutional provision exists to ensure equal accessto justice for litigants with limited English proficiency. In order to monitor the availability oflanguage services, Government Code section 68563 was enacted to require that the JudicialCouncil conduct a study of language and interpreter use in the trial courts beginning in 1995 andevery five years thereafter, reporting its findings to the Governor and the Legislature:The Judicial Council shall conduct a study of language and interpreter use andneed in court proceedings, with commentary, and shall report its findings andrecommendations to the Governor and to the Legislature not later than July 1,1995, and every five years thereafter. The study shall serve as a basis for(1) determining the need to establish interpreter programs and certificationexaminations, and (2) establishing these programs and examinations through thenormal budgetary process. The study shall also serve as a basis for(1) determining ways in which the Judicial Council can make available to thepublic, through public service announcements and otherwise, information relatingto opportunities, requirements, testing, application procedures, and employmentopportunities for interpreters, and (2) establishing and evaluating these programsthrough the normal budgetary process.This report, pursuant to section 68563, provides a comprehensive look at interpreter servicesused in courts for spoken languages from fiscal year (FY) 2014–15 through FY 2017–18, andoffers analysis on future language need in order to consider changes to the designation oflanguages for certification.OverviewCalifornia’s superior courts recorded over 4.4 million interpretations for the four-year studyperiod. Criminal cases are the main driver of interpretation volume. Criminal case interpretationsnumbered approximately 3,315,799 for the study period. However, criminal interpretationsdeclined steadily during this time, almost certainly because criminal filings fell sharply in theseyears. Juvenile interpretations for the entire four-year study period accounted for 474,750 whilefamily law case interpretations accounted for 334,681. Juvenile case interpretations declinedthroughout the four-year period, while family law interpretations rose steadily and significantlyin all but the last year. Ultimately, any trends in language access across case types should beviewed through the lens of the civil expansion policies outlined in the Judicial Council’sStrategic Plan for Language Access in the California Courts in 2015. These policies have1

2020 Language Need and Interpreter Use Studyexpanded interpreter services to cover all case types beyond the mandated case types of criminal,traffic, juvenile, and mental health. And while the mandated case types still make up the majorityof interpretations for the study period, the expansion of interpretation services into non-mandatedcivil case types increased significantly, from 141,298 in FY 2014–15 to 196,650 in FY 2017–18,an increase of almost 40 percent. Case types falling into the civil expansion category amountedfor roughly 11 percent of overall volume in FY 2014–15, but represented over 18 percent of allinterpretations by FY 2017–18.Generally, California trial courts use the Court Interpreter Data Collection System to aid in thetracking of interpreter services throughout the state. Improved data reporting, including the useof more granular metrics that more thoroughly measure language need and case-type volume, hasimproved the analysis of interpreter needs and services, adding clarity to recommendations andthe trends they are based on.Key FindingsThe findings are divided into two sections, reflecting the two sections of the report.Part One: Interpreter Use in Mandated and Civil Case Types California’s superior courts reported over 4.4 million interpretations for the four-yearstudy period of FY 2014–15 through FY 2017–18. Criminal cases are the main driver of interpretation volume (around 75 percent). Criminalcase interpretations numbered approximately 3.3 million for the study period. Spanish is by far the most interpreted language in the state in courtroom proceedings,accounting for 91.36 percent of the overall interpreter volume for the study period. Vietnamese was the second most-interpreted language, accounting for 1.47 percent ofoverall volume for the state during that same period. No other language accounted formore than 1 percent of interpretations for the study period. The top ten most commonly interpreted languages for this study period were (in order ofprevalence) Spanish, Vietnamese, American Sign Language, Mandarin, Cantonese,Korean, Punjabi, Russian, Arabic, and Farsi. Region 1 generated the most interpreter activity for the study period. 1 This is likelybecause Region 1 contains the trial court in Los Angeles County, which accounted for1Region 1 courts are those superior courts in the counties of Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara.Ventura would be in this region but has a statutory arrangement under Government Code section 71828 that allowsit to operate outside the regional structure.2

2020 Language Need and Interpreter Use Studyapproximately 1,281,065 interpretations during the four-year study period, which isroughly 28.64 percent of all interpreter activity statewide. Region 4 accounted for the second-most interpreter activity, with 29.51 percent of allinterpretations, while Regions 2 and 3 accounted for 17.69 percent and 18.81 percent ofthe state courts’ interpretations, respectively. 2 Many languages are interpreted in significant volume across the state while others areconcentrated in one region or even one county. Interpretations in civil case types—including limited, unlimited, complex, and other“traditional” civil case types—rose dramatically throughout the study period, almostdoubling from 35,213 interpretations in FY 2014–15 to 67,645 in FY 2017–18.Additionally, the interpretations in cases covered under the expanded civil interpretationpolicy (everything other than the mandated case types of criminal, traffic, juvenile, andmental health) increased from 141,298 in FY 2014–15 to 196,650 in FY 2017–18. This isan increase of almost 40 percent.Part Two: Projecting Future Language Need Over 200 languages are spoken in the California courts. In 2016, approximately 10,678,000 (10.7 million) foreign-born individuals resided inCalifornia, accounting for 27 percent of the state’s population. This represents twice theimmigrant share of the U.S. population overall (14 percent). The states with the largest percentage of their populations speaking a foreign language athome in 2018 were California (45 percent), Texas (36 percent), New Mexico (34percent), New Jersey (32 percent), New York and Nevada (each with 31 percent), Florida(30 percent), Arizona and Hawaii (each with 28 percent), and Massachusetts (24 percent). As of 2018, 44.1 percent of California households speak a language other than English,and 18.1 percent of the California population over the age of five (6.6 million out of 37.7million) speak English less than “very well.”Region 2 courts include Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa,San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma. Solano would be in this region but,like Ventura, has the same statutory arrangement under Government Code section 71828 to operate outside theregional structure.2Region 3 courts include Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Lassen,Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sierra,Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, Yolo, and Yuba.Region 4 courts are Imperial, Inyo, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego.3

2020 Language Need and Interpreter Use Study The U.S. Census Bureau groups language usage differently from how California tracksinterpreter usage by language. However, the most commonly spoken foreign languages inCalifornia per the census are generally the same as the most frequently interpreted spokenlanguages. Data collected by the California Department of Education indicates

455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 Tel 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865-4272 Fax 415-865-4205 www.courts.ca.gov HON. TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE