Equal access to the courts is fundamental to the 

legitimacy of our system of justice and the trust 

and confidence of Pennsylvanians in our courts. 

Language services for individuals who speak 

limited English or are deaf or hard of hearing 

are essential to ensure that they are able to 

fully participate in judicial proceedings 

and court services, programs and 

activities in which their rights and 

interests are at stake.

The Unified JUDICIAL SYSTEM of PENNSYLVANIA
LANGUAGE ACCESS PLAN

Language Access Plan for the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania  

Table of Contents 

I. 
II. 
III. 
IV. 
V. 

 

Introduction and Purpose  
 
Legal Basis for this Language Access Plan  
 
General Principles of Language Access  
Language Needs in Pennsylvania   
 
Language Services and How to Use Them  
A.  Oral Language Services  

1.   Interpreters 
 
2.   Bilingual Staff  

 
 

B.  Written Language Services  

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

1.   Court Forms and Documents  
2.  Signage   
 
 

 
C.  Use of Remote Technology     
D.  Language Access to Services, Programs and Activities Outside the  

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

2 
4 
5 
7 

10 
13 

14 
18 
19 

 

 

 

 

 
   

Courtroom   

 
Early Identification of the Need for Language Services 
Keeping Data on the Need for and Use of Language Access Services   

VI. 
VII. 
VIII.  Qualification Requirements for Interpreters and Translators   
IX. 
X. 
XI. 
XII.        Monitoring and Evaluation of Language Access Plan: Complaint/Feedback  
                     Procedure   

Training and Continuing Education   
Outreach to Court Users and Communities   
Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 

                                                                                             46 

21 
25 
32 
33 
36      
43   
   
44 

       
       

ppendix   

 
 
Appendix to Section VI, Early Identification of Need for Language Services  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48 

         

  A

 

 

 

1 

 

       

 

Language Access Plan for the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania 

I. 

Introduction and Purpose 

Equal access to the courts is fundamental to the legitimacy of our system of justice and the 
trust and confidence of Pennsylvanians in our courts. Language services for individuals who 
speak limited English or are deaf or hard of hearing are essential to ensure that they are able to 
fully participate in judicial proceedings and court services, programs, and activities in which 
their rights and interests are at stake. Without these services, they are effectively denied the 
protection of our laws. Moreover, the courts themselves have an independent interest in 
ensuring the integrity of communications with limited English proficient and deaf or hard of 
hearing court users so that the fact finder can hear evidence accurately and deliver justice 
fairly. 

he policy of the Unified Judicial System is to provide meaningful language access for all 
individuals who are Limited English Proficient ("LEP") to ensure that all persons have due 
process and equal access to all judicial proceedings, court services, programs and activities. 
Ensuring meaningful language access means providing timely, accurate, and effective language 
services at no cost. 

n addition, it is the policy of the Unified Judicial System to provide equally effective 
communication to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, in part, by providing American 
Sign Language interpreters at no cost to litigants, witnesses and court spectators. 1 

s used in this Plan, the term "Limited English Proficient" refers to individuals who do not speak 

English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or 
understand English.2 

he term "deaf or hard of hearing" means an impairment of hearing or speech, which creates 
an inability to understand or communicate the spoken English language.3  

                                                
1 The rights of deaf or hard of hearing litigants, witnesses and court spectators, as well as those who are limited English 
proficient, are addressed in this Language Access Plan because the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts' Interpreter 
Certification Program has jurisdiction over American Sign Language interpreters, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Interpreter Act 
and accompanying regulations. The Plan does not purport to and should not be read as fully delineating the rights of litigants, 
witnesses and court spectators under the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pennsylvania 
Rules of Judicial Administration Nos. 250-252 require all 60 judicial districts as well as appellate courts and Supreme Court 
boards and committees to appoint ADA coordinators, promulgate ADA policies and grievance procedures, and make this 
information available to the public. Those policies, as well as the names of the ADA coordinators for the various judicial 
districts, can be found on the UJS website at http://www.pacourts.us/judicial-administration/court-programs/americans-with-
disabilities-act.   
2 See 42 Pa.C.S. §4402, definition of “Person with limited English proficiency.” 
3 Id., definition of "Deaf.” 

 

 

2 

 

  T

  I

  A

  T

   

 

 
"Judicial proceeding" means "[a]n action, appeal or proceeding in any court of this 
Commonwealth."4 

Court services, programs, and activities” means services administered under the authority of 
the courts. This can include, for example, domestic relations, probation, pro se clinics, 
Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”), or cases involving court-appointed counsel. Court 
services, programs, and activities, as defined in this Language Access Plan (“LAP”), do not 
include activities that, although related to court proceedings or provided in the courthouse, are 
not under the authority of the court. This includes, for example, services provided by the 
Prothonotary or Clerk of Court offices and the District Attorney’s or Public Defender’s office.  
These offices may have their own legal obligation to provide language access, but they are not 
covered by this Language Access Plan. See also Section V(D) Language Access to Services, 
Programs, and Activities Outside the Courtroom. 

The purpose of this Plan is to provide a framework for the provision of meaningful language 
access for those individuals who are LEP, deaf, or hard of hearing who come into contact 
with courts of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania. This Language Access Plan: 
 
(i)  specifies the language access requirements applicable to Pennsylvania courts; 
(ii) assesses language access services currently available to persons who are LEP, deaf, or 
hard of hearing in Pennsylvania courts; 
(iii) identifies action steps that will be taken to fully implement language access 

 

  requirements or planned improvements of language services; and 

(iv) provides the timeframes within which these steps will be taken. 

he sixty judicial districts within the Unified Judicial System ("UJS") have created their own 
language access plans, based on an assessment of the language needs of their own court users, 
utilizing a template provided by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (“AOPC”).  
Each judicial district has appointed a language access coordinator to oversee creation and 
implementation of its plan. These district-specific language access plans went into effect on 
March 1, 2015. 

his was an important step toward achieving meaningful language access in the Pennsylvania 
courts.  However, ensuring the most comprehensive access possible for persons who are LEP, 
deaf or hard of hearing is an evolving process. The UJS Language Access Plan ("Plan") provides 
additional policy guidance and a course of action for improving the provision of language access 
services throughout all sixty judicial districts and the appellate courts.  

udicial districts will be asked to review this Plan and to supplement and amend their district 
language access plans accordingly.    

                                                 
4 Id., definition of “judicial proceeding.” 

3 

 

  “

   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  T

  T

  J

 

I. Legal Basis for this Language Access Plan 

The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania is committed to ensuring meaningful access to its 
limited English proficient and deaf and hard of hearing court users. Title VI of the federal Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 states that "[n]o 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."5 Further, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act requires that “[n]o otherwise 
qualified individual with a disability…shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded 
from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any 
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794. The Americans with 
Disabilities Act extends the Rehabilitation Act’s broad obligation to prevent discrimination on 
the basis of disability to all public entities regardless of Federal financial assistance. 42 U.S.C. § 
12132.  

Pursuant to the "Guidance to the Federal Financial Assistance Recipients" issued by the United 
States Department of Justice, the courts are covered "recipients" of federal funds. As such, they 
must, with respect to LEP parties: 
 

●  Provide qualified interpreter assistance in any judicial proceeding involving LEP parties 

in interest and witnesses; 

●  Take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP court users are given meaningful access to 

court programs, services, and information; and  

●  Provide this access free of charge.6  

he Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 19737 require courts to 
ensure effective communication for individuals with disabilities. To that end, public entities are 
required to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including the provision of qualified 
sign language interpreters, to afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to 
participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program or activity of a public entity.    

n addition to the federal law, the Pennsylvania Interpreter Act, Act 172 of 2006, requires the 
appointment of qualified interpreters for judicial proceedings. As stated in the "legislative 
purpose" section of the Act,  
 

It  is  hereby  declared  to  be  the  policy  of  this  Commonwealth  to  secure  the  rights, 
constitutional and otherwise, of persons who because of a non-English speaking cultural 

                                                 
5 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. See also Department of Justice regulations regarding implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 at 28 C.F.R. § 42.101, et seq.  “Title VI” as used in this Plan includes these regulations. 
6 See Department of Justice Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National 
Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 67 Fed. Reg. 41455 (June 18, 2002), available at 
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-2002-06-18/02-15207.  See also Letter from Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights 
Division, Department of Justice, to Chief Justices and State Court Administrators (Aug. 16, 2010), available at 
https://www.lep.gov/final_courts_ltr_081610.pdf. 
7 See 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq.; 29 U.S.C. § 794; 28 C.F.R. § 35.160 (Subpart E – Communications).  

4 

 

  I

  T

  I

 

background  or  who  because  of  an  impairment  of  hearing  or  speech  are  unable  to 
understand  or  communicate  adequately  in  the  English  language  when  they  appear  in 
court or are involved in judicial proceedings.8  

egulations were also enacted pursuant to Act 172.9 Among other matters, these regulations 

address when certified or otherwise qualified interpreters must be used; when remote 
interpretation may be used; how to determine the qualifications of an interpreter before 
appointing one; interpreter certification requirements; and interpreter rules of professional 
conduct.   

inally, Guidelines for the Procurement and Appointment of Interpreters (“Interpreter 
Guidelines”) address additional practical information about working with interpreters in the 
courts, including such issues as what qualifications are required of interpreters for various types 
of judicial proceedings and court services; how much to pay interpreters; how to search the 
AOPC's Interpreter Certification Program roster; and when to report problems to the 
Interpreter Certification Program.10    

II. General Principles of Language Access 

n recognition of the obligation and commitment to provide meaningful access to court users 
who are LEP, deaf, or hard of hearing, the Unified Judicial System acknowledges the following 
basic principles of language access:  
 

●  Courts are responsible for early identification of the need for language services, 
including, among other things, providing timely and effective notice to those in 
need of such services. 

● 

Interpretation and translation must be provided by the court at no cost. 

●  Persons who request language access services should be provided with them, in 
accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Pennsylvania Interpreter 
Act.  

●  Language access services should be offered, even if not requested, where the 

need is apparent or where the ability of a person to understand and 
communicate in English is unclear.  
 
Individuals who are LEP, deaf, or hard of hearing should never be expected to 
use informal interpreters, such as family members, opposing parties, or their 

● 

                                                 
8 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 4401. 
9 See Administrative Regulations Governing Court Interpreters for Persons with Limited English Proficiency and for Persons Who 
Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, 204 Pa. Code ch. 221 §101, et seq. (2010). 
10 See Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Interpreter Certification Program: Guidelines for the Procurement and 
Appointment of Interpreters (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania), Mar. 27, 2013, available at 
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-1700/file-229.pdf?cb=942e36.   

5 

 

  R

  F

    I

  I

 

counsel, nor should the courts allow them to be used. 

●  Having an in-person interpreter for judicial proceedings is the most effective 
method to ensure effective communication for LEP court participants and is 
strongly preferred under the law. Remote interpretation through audio-visual 
technology, use of Video Remote Interpreting (“VRI”) or telephone is permitted 
only in limited circumstances, as set out in the Pennsylvania Interpreter Act 
regulations. 

●  Courts may use bilingual staff to provide in-language assistance for general court 

business. Telephone or other remote interpretation may be used to assist 
monolingual staff. Designated bilingual staff may not be used for interpretation, 
unless they are also appropriately credentialed to interpret. 

●  Courts must provide interpreters in a timely manner. 

●  When there is no interpreter listed on the AOPC Interpreter Certification 

Program roster available for a specific language, the judicial district must request 
assistance from the Interpreter Certification Program ("ICP") in locating a 
qualified interpreter. 

●  Courts must provide meaningful language access to court users who are LEP, 

deaf, or hard of hearing in all services, programs, and activities of the courts. This 
means access must be provided in judicial proceedings (both criminal and civil), 
and for the general business of the courts. 

●  Courts should consider their need for demonstrably proficient bilingual staff and 

should plan for recruiting and hiring staff who speak the language(s) most 
prevalent in the locality so they can provide timely language assistance in a way 
that avoids delay, denial, or effective denial of the service or benefit, or the 
imposition of an extra burden on an LEP person. 

●  Courts must identify and translate "vital" court documents and forms. Vital 
documents include those 1) containing or soliciting information critical for 
obtaining access to court and court services, 2) advising of rights or 
responsibilities including the consequences of violating a court order, or 3) 
required by law.   

●  This Language Access Plan applies to the appellate courts as well as to the 

judicial districts of Pennsylvania. 

  The decision whether to appoint a foreign language interpreter in a proceeding is 
within the authority of the trial judge, to be exercised in accordance with Title VI 
and Act 172.11 
                                                 
11 “As a general rule, the determination of whether an interpreter is warranted in a particular case is within the sound 
discretion of the [trial] court.  The discretion of the trial court, however, is to determine the factual question of whether an 
interpreter is needed; a trial court does not have discretion to decide whether a defendant who needs an interpreter has a legal 
entitlement to one.  Thus, where the court is put on notice that a defendant has difficulty understanding or speaking the English 
language, it must make unmistakably clear to him that he has a right to have a competent translator assist him . .  . .”  In re 

  ●

6 

 

 

  Sign language interpreters must be appointed whenever requested, by either a 

party or non-party to a case. 

●  The Unified Judicial System will strive to institutionalize the concepts and 

practices of this Plan in its processes.  

 

IV. Language Needs in Pennsylvania 

ennsylvania is the tenth most linguistically diverse state in the country. Statewide, 1,218,174, 
or 10.2%, of Pennsylvania’s 12 million residents speak another language at home. They speak 
more than 100 languages and are dispersed throughout the Commonwealth. The most 
commonly spoken languages vary both within and among counties, and the influx of new 
immigrants brings with it emerging new languages throughout the state.   

 2014 AOPC survey of the district court administrators of Pennsylvania gives a sense of our 
linguistic diversity.12 The languages for which interpreters were most frequently requested in 
Pennsylvania's 60 judicial districts are listed below. The numbers in parentheses reflect the 
number of Pennsylvania judicial districts in which an interpreter for that language has been 
requested.  
 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 

 

Spanish (60) 
 
 
  American Sign Language (51)  
 
Mandarin Chinese (28) 
 
 
Russian (23) 
 
 
Vietnamese (16) 

 

6.  
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 

Arabic (16) 
Korean (11) 
Bosnian (9) 
Serbian (9) 
Croatian (9) 

ata from the Penn State Data Center reflects that 14 counties in Pennsylvania have a 

population that is more than 10 percent LEP. A chart reflecting the top 15 counties for LEP 
population in Pennsylvania follows.     

                                                
Garcia, 984 A.2d 506, 511 (Pa. Super. 2009), citing, inter alia, 42 Pa. C.S. § 4412, Appointment of Interpreter. See also   
Commonwealth v. Knox, 142 A.3d 863, 868-9 (Pa Super. 2016). 
12 Survey distributed to District Court Administrators at language access trainings provided by the AOPC in April, 2014.  

7 

 

 

 

 

  P

  A

  D

                     

 

Percent of Non-English Speaking Persons by County 
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates13 

County 

Total 
Population 
(5 years 
and over) 

Speak only 
English 

% Speak 
only 
English 

Spanish 

% of 
population 
Spanish 
speaking 

All Other 
Non-  
English 
Speaking 

% Other 
Non- 
English 
Speaking 

Total LEP 
Citizens 

% LEP 
Population 

Lehigh 

333,274 

258,859 

77.7% 

51,074 

15.3% 

23,341 

7.0% 

74,415 

22.3% 

Philadelphia 

1,440,405  1,125,246 

78.1%  145,257 

10.1% 

169,902 

11.8%  315,159 

21.9% 

Berks 

388,412 

322,101 

82.9% 

50,956 

13.1% 

15,355 

4.0% 

66,311 

17.1% 

Lancaster 

491,624 

414,705 

84.4% 

31,849 

6.5% 

45,070 

9.2% 

76,919 

15.6% 

Monroe 

160,381 

136,803 

85.3% 

13,417 

8.4% 

10161 

6.3% 

23,578 

14.7% 

Montgomery 

762,889 

664,123 

87.1% 

25,555 

3.3% 

73,211 

9.6% 

98,766 

12.9% 

Northampton 

283,711 

248,472 

87.6% 

20,237 

7.1% 

15,002 

5.3% 

35,239 

12.4% 

Chester 

476,502 

419,001 

87.9% 

26,197 

5.5% 

31,304 

6.6% 

57,501 

12.1% 

Delaware 

526,934 

465,003 

88.2% 

14,120 

2.7% 

47,811 

9.1% 

61,931 

11.8% 

54,495 

48,473 

88.9% 

3,041 

5.6% 

2,981 

5.5% 

6,022 

11.1% 

593,904 

529,337 

89.1% 

18,272 

3.1% 

46,295 

7.8% 

64,567 

10.9% 

Dauphin 

253,181 

225,667 

89.1% 

12,293 

4.9% 

15,221 

6.0% 

27,514 

10.9% 

Lebanon 

126,697 

113,351 

89.5% 

8,879 

7.0% 

4,467 

3.5% 

13,346 

10.5% 

149,665 

134,771 

90.0% 

2,469 

1.6% 

12,425 

8.3% 

14,894 

10.0% 

42,870 

38,772 

90.4% 

1,703 

4.0% 

2,395 

5.6% 

4,098 

9.6% 

Pike 

Bucks 

Centre 

Union 

                                                
13 Prepared by AOPC Research and Statistics based upon "Languages Spoken at Home by Ability to Speak English for the 
Population 5 Years and Over", Table B16001, U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 
available at 
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_B16001&prodType=table. 

8 

 

 

           

  

he following  reflects  the  top 10  non-English  languages  spoken  in the  Commonwealth  in 
general, as opposed to solely in the courts: 
 

Top 10 Foreign Languages Spoken in Pennsylvania14 
 

Language: 

15
Languages  

Spanish 
Chinese (Mandarin, Cantonese, or 
other dialects) 
Other West Germanic 
German 
Italian 
French 
Vietnamese 
Russian 
Other Asian 
Korean 

16
languages  

# of 
People: 
541,221  
78,148 

% of 
Population 
4.4% 
0.6% 

61,423  
48,433  
43,948  
39,453  
37,423  
36,081  
36,343  
29,222  
 

0.5% 
0.4% 
0.4% 
0.3% 
0.3% 
0.3% 
0.3% 
0.2% 

he Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry’s Office for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing 
estimates that 8.6% of Pennsylvania’s population is deaf or hard of hearing.17 This percentage is 
based on the national deaf and hard of hearing population figures. Accordingly, assuming a 
total population in the Commonwealth of 12,308,788 and applying the 8.6% assumption yields 
a deaf or hard of hearing figure of 1.1 million people.18 Other sources give varying figures on 
the extent of the deaf and hard of hearing population in the Commonwealth. American Sign 
Language is second only to Spanish in terms of the frequency with which interpreters are 
requested in Pennsylvania's courts. 

he AOPC will review updated figures on the LEP, deaf, and hard of hearing populations utilizing 
Pennsylvania's courts’ annual data gleaned from the Language Access Data Collection (“LADC”) 
tool created by the AOPC Information Technology department and utilized by the judicial 
districts to track the provision of interpreters. The AOPC will also review figures on these 

                                                 
14Id.  
15 "Other West Germanic Languages" is a designation of the PSDC, and includes Dutch, Pennsylvania Dutch, Afrikaans and 
Frisian. 
16 "Other Asian languages," likewise a designation of PSDC, include Dravidian languages (Malayalam, Telugu, Tamil), and Turkic 
languages (Turkish, Turkmen, Tungus). 
17 See Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, Office for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, "How Many People in 
Pennsylvania are Deaf or Hard of Hearing?," available at http://www.dli.pa.gov/Individuals/Disability-Services/odhh/odhh-
resources/Documents/PA%20Demographics%20How%20Many%20Pennsylvanians%20are%20Deaf%20or%20Hard%20of%20He
aring.pdf. 
18 Id. 

9 

 

    T

  T

  T

 

ualified in-person interpreters provide the best communication experience for judicial 

proceedings involving court users who are LEP or who communicate using sign 
language. The Interpreter Certification Program ("ICP") orients, tests, and certifies 
interpreters to work in Pennsylvania courts. District Court Administrators and Language 
Access Coordinators should be familiar with the ICP's Interpreter Roster, should utilize it 
as their first resource for securing interpreting services, and should be aware that the 
ICP can assist them with locating interpreters in rare languages and can answer the full 
range of questions relating to working with interpreters. 

 

Current Status 
While the AOPC ICP orients, tests, and certifies interpreters to work in our courts, it is the 
language access coordinators for the individual judicial districts who arrange for and 
schedule those interpreters to provide services for specific court events.19  

The UJS provides interpreters for all courtroom hearings in compliance with Title VI; the 
rules and policies set forth in the Pennsylvania Interpreter Act;20 the regulations under 
the Act;21 and the Guidelines for the Procurement and Appointment of Interpreters 
issued by the AOPC.22 Interpreter request and waiver forms are available on the 
Interpreter Certification Program page of the UJS website.23   
 
The ICP maintains a statewide roster of certified and otherwise qualified interpreters 
who may work in the courts. The roster is available to court staff and the public online.24 
The geographic and time availability of each interpreter is included in the roster, along 
with the interpreter's language or languages of expertise. Judicial officers and the judicial 

                                                 
19 As noted in the template created by the AOPC and utilized by the judicial districts to create their own language access plans, 
"[t]he language access coordinator for this judicial district ensures this plan is followed, advises the court on potential updates 
to this plan, and coordinates provision of language access services for the judicial district as they arise." 
20 See Act 172 of 2006, 42 Pa.C.S. § 4401, et seq. 
21 See 204 Pa. Code ch. 221 §101, et seq. 
22 See Guidelines for the Procurement and Appointment of Interpreters, available at 
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-410/file-229.pdf#search=%22procurement appointment of interpreters%22 . 
23 See Interpreter Program, The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania (Mar. 2003), available at 
http://www.pacourts.us/judicial-administration/court-programs/interpreter-program. 
24 See Interpreter Roster, The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, available at http://www.pacourts.us/judicial-
administration/court-programs/interpreter-program/interpreter-roster. 

 

10 

.  Language Services and How to Use Them 

A. Oral Language Services 

.  Interpreters 

  1

  Q

populations as they become available through the U.S. Census Bureau and the Pennsylvania 
Office for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and take them into account in future planning for 
language access services. 

 

  V

 

 

 

districts must give preference to the appointment of a certified interpreter for language 
access issues in all judicial proceedings, unless a certified interpreter is not available.   

therwise qualified interpreters should also be selected from the statewide roster. 
Where the judicial district cannot locate an interpreter in the needed language on the 
interpreter roster, the Interpreter Guidelines dictate that districts should request 
assistance from the ICP by completing the interpreter request form available on the 
Interpreter Program page of the UJS website. In addition, for all questions and 
complaints regarding the role of an interpreter, payment, ethical and performance 
issues, etc., districts should contact the Interpreter Certification Program 
Administrator.25 

The Guidelines for the Procurement and Appointment of Interpreters, referenced as 
"Interpreter Guidelines" on the Interpreter Certification Program's website, are an 
additional resource for language access coordinators. The Guidelines include standard 
rates for compensating interpreters, as well as a chart designating the different 
proficiency levels of interpreter who should be appointed for different types of cases.26 
For example, a "master" level (e.g., highest level of achievement on the proficiency exam 
taken by interpreters) interpreter should be used for a capital case, as the consequences 
of inadequate interpretation are more significant than they would be for a less serious 
matter. 
 
Finally, in conjunction with 2014 policy guidance issued by the AOPC, the regulations 
under the Interpreter Act do the following:   
 

●  provide a system for the procurement and appointment of interpreters;27  
●  require that in-person, certified interpreters be given preference over otherwise 

qualified and/or telephonic interpreters;28  
●  establish a compensation fee schedule;29  
●  establish requirements for interpreter certification;30  
●  adopt rules of professional conduct and a disciplinary policy for judiciary 

  O

   

interpreters;31  
                                                 
25 The ICP at the AOPC can be reached via email or phone at 215.560.6300 or interpreterprogram@pacourts.us.  The 
Interpreter Program's webpage provides a wealth of information, including interpreter request forms, an interpreter waiver 
form, and a variety of resources for present and potential court interpreters, including the annual program calendar for the 
Interpreter Program (including dates of the ICP orientation, held multiple times per year in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and 
Philadelphia), information about the written and oral parts of the certification exam and the dates when it is given, continuing 
education resources, and resources to assist working interpreters. 
26 See Guidelines for the Procurement and Appointment of Interpreters, The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, available at 
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-410/file-229.pdf#search=%22procurement appointment of interpreters%22. 
27 See 204 Pa.Code ch. 221 § 201, et seq.; see also Interpreter Certification Program, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania 
Courts, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Guidelines for the Procurement and Appointment of Interpreters (2013), available at 
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-1700/file-229.pdf?cb=942e36. 
28 See 204 Pa. Code ch. 221 § 203. 
29 204 Pa. Code ch. 221 Schedule E. 
30 204 Pa. Code ch. 221 §§ 301-311. 
31  204 Pa Code ch. 221 §§ 401-407. 

11 

 

 

●  provide an oath32 to be administered to both in-person interpreters and remote 
interpreters (i.e., when video remote or telephonic interpretation is utilized);  
●  set the conditions for remote interpretation33 (can only be used (1) when efforts 
to secure a live interpreter have been exhausted, and (2) for non-evidentiary 
hearings expected to last 30 minutes or less and for which only one interpreter is 
being used); 

●  require the use of a voir dire (and provide a sample voir dire) for qualifying 

otherwise qualified and remote interpreters;34  

●  define how waivers are to be conducted;35  
●  require that interpreters be provided free of charge to all LEP individuals who 
are "principal parties in interest," which includes a plaintiff or defendant in a 
protection from abuse case, a defendant, parent of a defendant, or direct victim 
in a juvenile matter, a defendant or direct victim in a criminal proceeding, a 
named party in any other judicial proceeding, or a person who brings an action 
on behalf of a minor or incompetent person36; and  

●  require that interpreters be provided free of charge to all deaf or hard of hearing 

court users, whether parties to a case, witnesses, family members, or 
spectators.37 

The judicial districts, in particular the Language Access Coordinators, should continue to 
be trained regarding the availability of the Interpreter Certification Program (“ICP”) as a 
resource, how to utilize the ICP roster, and how to utilize effective management and 
cost-saving practices for delivery of quality interpreting services in their courts, such as  
calling interpreter cases promptly so that the interpreter can move on to other 
courtrooms, and scheduling interpreter cases in the same courtroom on specific days of 
the week or at specific times of the day. See also Section IX Training and Continuing 
Education, regarding training of interpreters.  

Projected Timeframe 
Starting within one month of the approval of the UJS Language Access Plan and ongoing. 

equired Action 

  R

 

   

                                                 
32 Id. § 106. 
33Id. § 104. 
34 Id. 
35Id. § 105. 
36Id. §§ 102(o), 107(b). 
37 Id. § 108. In this regard, the regulations under the Pennsylvania Interpreter Act mirror the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
which provides a greater scope of coverage in two ways: (1) a public entity such as a court need not be a recipient of federal 
funds in order to be bound by the ADA, and (2) deaf individuals, whether a principal party in interest to a case or not, have a 
right to a free sign language interpreter upon request. See https://www.ada.gov/briefs/prakel_soi.pdf for a discussion of these 
issues.   

12 

 

 

 

 

ourt staff who are demonstrably proficient in languages other than English can serve 

as a valuable resource for communication with LEP and deaf or hard of hearing court 
users outside the courtroom, but courts need guidance regarding assessment of 
language skills, a policy governing use of staff to facilitate communication, and 
training.  

Current Status   
Staff use their bilingual skills at their discretion, or at the direction of their district court 
administrator. Staff who can communicate in a language other than English, including 
sign language, do not undergo any statewide assessment of their proficiency in that 
language unless they complete the requirements for the Pennsylvania ICP. There is no 
policy or statewide training on how bilingual staff should use their language skills for 
communication outside the courtroom. 

equired Action  

●  When vacancies occur, and acknowledging that demographics can change 

periodically, courts should strive to recruit demonstrably proficient bilingual staff 
in the language that is most common in that county, especially in situations 
where a court's usage of telephonic interpreting for a particular language 
becomes a significant expense.  

●  A policy, language assessment process, and specific training should be created to 
ensure that court staff who identify as bilingual are able to provide accurate 
service in both English and another language. Training should include legal 
terminology and ethical limitations. The policy should also prohibit unauthorized 
staff from providing service in another language and bar bilingual staff without 
an interpreting credential from interpreting.   
 

How This Can Be Accomplished 
The AOPC should, in concert with stakeholders, develop a policy for the use of 
designated bilingual court staff in providing court services in languages other than 
English in places of court contact with the public, excluding judicial proceedings for 
which the ICP has already been established. Places of court contact with the public 
include, but are not limited to, clerks' offices, filing desks, information desks, security 
stations, and offices for payment of court fees and fines.38   
 

  C

  R

Responsible Staff 
The AOPC Coordinator for Court Access and Interpreter Certification Program 
Administrator and Judicial District Language Access Coordinators. 
  
2.  Bilingual Staff 

                                                 
38 We encourage employees at these locations to implement the practices set forth in this Plan, while acknowledging that some 
may not be employees of the UJS and are therefore not subject to its authority and control. 

13 

 

 

 

To the extent bilingual media are available in a given county, courts should make an 
effort to utilize the media - newspapers, radio, and websites - to advertise for bilingual 
employees. In addition, courts should conduct outreach to high schools, community 
colleges and universities as a possible source of bilingual employees to assist LEP 
individuals, where appropriate, outside the courtroom.39 

rojected Timeframe    

  P

Policies should be developed within twelve months of approval of the statewide Plan. A 
language assessment process and training program should be created within eighteen 
months of approval of the statewide Plan. Implementation should begin immediately 
thereafter. 

Responsible Staff 
The AOPC should provide leadership and work with judicial court staff, the proposed 
Monitoring and Evaluation Team, (see Section XI), and other stakeholders.  

The translation of vital forms and documents so that LEP individuals have equal access 
to needed information and court services is a critical aspect of meaningful access to 
the courts. 

urrent Status 

  C

 
Some court forms have been translated and appear on the UJS website. A package of 11
Protection from Abuse (“PFA”) forms has been translated into 11 languages commonly 
spoken by LEP court users in Pennsylvania.40 As required by the underlying statute, the 
Protection from Sexual Violence and Intimidation ("PSVI") forms were translated into 
Spanish and posted on the UJS website on the effective date of the enabling legislation, 
July 1, 2015.41 Finally, a package of bilingual criminal protective orders has been 
translated into five top non-English languages (Mandarin Chinese, Khmer/Cambodian, 
Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese), and also appears on the UJS website.42  

                                                 
39 When testing bilingual candidates for positions within the courts, courts should keep in mind the following considerations: (1) 
all candidates for bilingual positions should be tested consistently, (2) a qualified person or vendor should perform the 
assessment of candidates, (3) a determination will need to be made about the required level of skill for the bilingual position, as 
a threshold matter, and (4) pay differentials or bonuses, if offered, must be given in a consistent fashion. When considering 
issues such as whether to develop bilingual positions or job titles, AOPC Legal is available as a resource to discuss and advise on 
relevant employment laws. 
40 These appear on the "Forms/For the Judiciary" page of the UJS website, at http://www.pacourts.us/forms/for-the-judiciary/ 
(scroll down to "Bilingual Forms").  
41 The PSVI forms are split, with some appearing on the "Forms/For the Judiciary" page, http://www.pacourts.us/forms/for-the-
judiciary/ (scroll down to "Order of Relief from Sexual Violence or Intimidation") and some on the "Forms/For the Public" page, 
http://www.pacourts.us/forms/for-the-public/ (scroll down to "Protection of Victims of Sexual Violence and/or Intimidation").  
42 These are available at http://www.pacourts.us/forms/for-the-judiciary/ (scroll down to "Bilingual Criminal Protective 
Orders").  

14 

B. Written Language Services 

 

1.  Court Forms and Documents 

 

 

       

 

t this time, no state standards exist for the use of certified translators or high-quality 

written translation services. Each county manages its own documents and forms 
translation process without any particular criteria or quality control. Some counties even 
use machine translation software with no human oversight. This may result in low 
quality translation and incomplete or even erroneous information for our LEP 
populations.43 

Required Action 
Due to the complexity of high-quality translation, the Supreme Court should assign to a 
Monitoring and Evaluation Team44 the task of developing policies and best practices 
related to document translation. In addition to translation, the Monitoring and 
Evaluation Team should also be tasked with identifying vital documents and prioritizing 
them to be translated upon availability of funding.  

he Monitoring and Evaluation Team should work with courts to provide samples and 
templates of multilingual information for court users that are applicable on a statewide 
basis and adaptable for local use. The Monitoring and Evaluation Team should 
collaborate with interpreter and translator organizations and courts to develop a legal 
translation glossary, taking into account regional differences, to maintain consistency in 
the translation of legal terms and adopt an appropriate style manual guide.   

he prioritization process should consider which vital documents are used most, the 
gravity of consequences for not having that information or document in one’s own 
language, and the documents most often sight-translated by interpreters in courts.45,46  
   
Ultimately, the prioritization process must be consistent with the Department of Justice 
("DOJ") guidance on vital documents, as well as on how to determine for which 
language groups vital documents must be translated. 

  A

  T

  T

For the purpose of this Language Access Plan, vital documents include documents 1) 
containing or soliciting information critical for obtaining access to court and court 
services, 2) advising of rights or responsibilities including the consequences of violating a 

                                                 
43 It is also important to recognize, however, that not all languages have a written component, and some LEP persons may also 
have literacy challenges in their native language.  Any strategies to provide translated materials should consider the manner of 
delivery of these materials to account for these factors, such as creating video and/or audio of the information otherwise 
available in writing. 
44 See Section XI Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation.  
45 For example, Minnesota has developed a matrix to determine and prioritize which documents need to be translated. The 
matrix looks at the "frequency of use and the direct effect the form may have on the court user's access to justice, loss of 
liberty and other vitally important factors." See Minnesota Judicial Branch Policy/Procedures: Translation of Court Forms, 
Section VII.B. Procedures- Prioritizing Requests for Translation, available at 
http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/scao_library/LAP/MN_LAP-FINAL-July-2016.pdf.  
46 See also resources regarding best practices in procurement of translation services at 
https://www.lep.gov/interp_translation/trans_interpret.html.  

15 

 

 

 

 

 

court order, or 3) required by law. Documents for consideration should include not only 
court documents but informational handouts, as well. 

Regarding the language groups for which vital documents must be translated, DOJ 
guidance states that:  
 

The following actions will be considered strong evidence of compliance with the               
recipient’s written-translation obligations: 

(a)  The DOJ recipient provides written translations of vital documents for each 

eligible LEP language group that constitutes five percent or 1,000, whichever 
is less, of the population of persons eligible to be served or likely to be 
affected or encountered. Translation of other documents, if needed, can be 
provided orally; or 

(b) If there are fewer than 50 persons in a language group that reaches the five 
percent trigger in (a), the recipient does not translate vital written materials 
but provides written notice in the primary language of the LEP language 
group of the right to receive competent oral interpretation of those written 
materials, free of cost.47 

The process for translation should consider available resources such as the National 
Center for State Courts' Guide to Translation of Legal Materials prepared by the 
Professional Issues Committee of the Consortium.48 The translation process should 
involve the selection of professional certified translators to translate the vital 
documents. To ensure that translated materials are (1) accurate and (2) understandable 
by the widest range of speakers of that language, the recommended process entails 
three layers: translation, editing, and reviewing by a subject matter expert. The primary 
translator would consult with an editor who should also be a certified translator, as long 
as certification exists for that language, to edit the work product for accuracy and 
completeness. An additional reviewer, who is a subject matter expert, should also 
review or proofread the work product after it has been edited. A subject matter expert 
should always be used when translating legal documents, orders and forms. A subject 
matter expert is recommended, though not required, when translating informational 
documents. Concerns about accuracy and completeness should be communicated back 
to the translator.  Adjustments should be incorporated and reviewed again.   

The translations of local court website information should use similarly qualified 
translators.  

                                                
47Department of Justice Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National 
Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 67 Fed. Reg. 41455, 41464 (June 18, 2002).   
48 Guide to Translation of Legal Materials, Prepared by the Professional Issues Committee, National Center for State Courts 
(April 2011), available at http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/accessfair/id/232. 

16 

 

 

 

     

 

How This Can Be Accomplished 
In order to ensure that translation of court forms and documents on the state and local 
levels proceeds in a coordinated and timely manner and addresses the range of 
document translation implementation concerns, the Monitoring and Evaluation Team 
should be charged with developing a translation plan addressing the following: 

●  Determination of which documents will be translated at the state level, so that 
judicial districts will know what documents they must translate themselves. 
●  Working with the AOPC to develop translation-related provisions in the template 

for local language access plans requiring judicial districts to determine and 
explain: 
 

●  The criteria and process they will use to identify vital documents; 
●  The process they will use for translation of documents 

determined to be vital, including the name and qualifications of 
the entity that will be doing the translation; and 

●  The languages in which translation will be done, based upon data 
reflecting the numbers of foreign language speakers in the judicial 
district. 

●  Determination of appropriate timeframes for completion of the work outlined 

above. 

●  Assisting judicial districts with methods for integrating translated documents 

into current and future case management systems and overseeing this process. 
(This will help to ensure that translated vital documents are readily available to 
judges and court personnel via court case management systems.) These 
documents will also be integrated into state-controlled case management 
systems such as the CPCMS and the MDJS, and will continue to be posted on the 
UJS website.49 

Establish and operate the Monitoring and Evaluation Team no later than 60 days after 
approval of the statewide Language Access Plan. 

Responsible Staff 
The AOPC is working with District Court Administrators and Language Access 
Coordinators.  

rojected Timeframe 

  P

                                                 
49 In addition, court forms already translated by various judicial districts are posted at the "Documents" tab of Language Access 
Data Collection, (“LADC”), the computer application developed by AOPC IT for gathering data on the provision of language 
access services. See Section VII Keeping Data on the Need for and Use of Language Access Services. 

17 

 

 

 

 

       

 

ignage in the courthouse, magisterial district courts, and other court buildings and 
departments must allow all persons needing access to the courts the ability to locate 
areas of service or information. 

Current Status 
Most signs are in English only.  Court buildings are generally owned by, and therefore 
under the control of, the counties rather than the courts. Signage in these buildings is 
likewise purchased and controlled by the counties.    
  
Required Action 
Given the current status, the following considerations should be taken into account, by 
the courts and county executive alike: 
 

There are three general types or areas of signage: 

1) Informational: a walk-in court user needing to know where to find someone 
to provide language access services. For example, "Do You Need a Court 
Interpreter," or the AOPC-provided Right to Interpreter signs - these should be 
placed near the entrance to the facility; 
(2) Directional: a walk-in court user needing to know where to find an office or 
other court location, such as the Self-Help Center. Building signs and way finding 
information would need to be translated; and 
(3) Online: a court user trying to find out about language access services might 
do so by checking the court's website, where that court's language access plan 
should be posted. 
 

  (

1)  Treat courthouse signage as though it is in a public facility (such as an airport), and 
use international symbols. Some local and very specific signs may still need to be 
translated. 

2)  Use digital signs, which are easier to update and, in most cases, can handle foreign 

language characters. 

3)  Consider creating a video and/or audio of the information. Not all languages have a 
written component, and some LEP or deaf persons may have literacy challenges.  
4)  Translate pages and improve visibility of translated content on local court websites. 
Websites provide important information and therefore could be considered vital 
documents. At the very least, there should be an easily identified webpage that has 
been translated in that court’s top languages that could provide necessary alerts and 
website directions.50 

2.  Signage 

  S

          

   How This Can be Accomplished 

                                                 
50 It should be noted that when translations are provided through such services as Google Translate, quality is often 
inconsistent, and translation errors can render such translated information legally incorrect and unusable. 

18 

 

 

 

 

 

5)  Use clear and intuitive visual navigational cues for "way finding” to minimize 

confusion. Common important public spaces include information desks, elevators, 
stairs, and restrooms. 

6)  Use of a Courthouse Signage Self-Evaluation may be helpful.51 
7)  Consider key locations for bilingual signs, including: clerks' offices, main hallways, 

holding cells, bulletin boards, and law libraries. 
 

Projected Timeframe 
Depending on financial resources and the desired level of permanency and professional 
appearance, it might take several months (paper signs and webpages) to several years 
(digital screens) to gain approval for and production of bi- or multilingual signage. 

esponsible Staff  

District Court Administrators, Language Access Coordinators, in concert with their 
County Commissioners.52 

C.   Use of Remote Technology 

When used in compliance with the regulations under the Interpreter Act, the 
appropriate use of remote technology - video remote interpreting, video conferencing, 
or telephone interpreting - can be a valuable additional language access resource, 
where in-person interpreters and bilingual staff are not available. 

Current Status 
Many but not all of the judicial districts have contracts with telephone interpreting 
services. Some districts take advantage of video conferencing equipment for 
interpreting purposes. No districts currently utilize true video remote interpreting.53 

he Interpreter Act regulations specify that "interpretation in person is strongly 
preferred" 54 and set forth significant limitations on the permissible use of telephone 
interpreting in court proceedings. In brief, the order of preference for language access 

                                                 
51 See Language Access Planning and Technical Assistance Tool for Courts, p.14, no. 6-13, available at 
https://www.lep.gov/resources/courts/022814_Planning_Tool/February_2014_Language_Access_Planning_and_Technical_Ass
istance_Tool_for_Courts_508_Version.pdf. 
52 Acknowledging that each judicial district must individually seek funding from its county commissioners for signage, the 
Monitoring and Evaluation Team will consider developing and then disbursing to the districts templates for signage and web 
content, to promote best practices and uniformity of design throughout the Unified Judicial System. 
53 Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) uses video conferencing technology behind a firewall over dedicated lines offering a high-
speed, wide-bandwidth video connection that delivers high-quality video images that allow for sign and spoken language 
interpreting services. The LEP person and English speakers are located together at one location, typically in a courtroom with a 
web camera (or other video technology), while the interpreter works from a remote location. VRI allows for simultaneous and 
consecutive interpretation and private communication between the LEP and his or her attorney. The parties can see each other 
and the interpreter via individual monitors or large screen.  The interpreter controls where his or her voice goes and who hears 
his or her interpretations. The entire proceeding can be recorded for the record, including the interpreter's renditions. 
54 See Comment to 204 Pa. Code ch. 221 § 104. 

19 

  R

 

  T

 

 

 

 

 

services in the courtroom is (1) an in-person interpreter, (2) interpretation via video 
conferencing or video remote interpreting, and (3) telephone interpreting.  

he regulations specify that telephone interpreting in court proceedings is only 
permissible where a good faith effort to obtain an in-person interpreter has been made 
and was unsuccessful; interpreting via "remote technology allowing for two-way 
simultaneous communication of image and sound," i.e., videoconferencing or VRI, is 
unavailable; and the proceeding is expected to be no more than 30 minutes in duration, 
is non-evidentiary, and does not involve more than one interpreter.55 The exceptions to 
these requirements are preliminary arraignments, emergency PFA proceedings, or 
emergency proceedings under the Older Adult Protective Services Act.56  

here telephone interpreting is used, the court must conduct a voir dire to assess the 
qualifications of the interpreter, unless the court has previously utilized this particular 
interpreter.57 The interpreter must be sworn in, just as in-person interpreters are sworn 
in.58 Although preferred over telephone interpreting, the Interpreter Act regulations set 
forth identical restrictions on the permissible use of interpreting via "simultaneous 
audiovisual technology": the proceeding must be non-evidentiary, must be expected to 
last no more than 30 minutes, and must not involve more than one interpreter.59 

equired Action  

As to telephone interpreting: all judicial districts will be required to secure the services 
of telephone interpreting providers.60  

he AOPC will provide the districts with information about the cost, contact 
information, and number of languages provided by the different vendors of telephonic 
interpreting services for their use in selecting the best vendor for their needs.  

istricts will provide the AOPC with the name of the telephonic interpreting vendor with 
whom they have contracted as soon as they complete the contract process. As noted in 
Section IX Training and Continuing Education, judges, Language Access Coordinators and 
court employees should continue to receive training on the appropriate use of 
telephone interpreting. 

s to Video Remote Interpreting: the AOPC will investigate at least two options: (1) 

participating in the pilot VRI project being implemented by the National Center for State 

  T

  W

  R

  T

  D

  A

                                                 
55 See 204 Pa. Code ch. 221 § 104(b). 
56 See Id. § 104(c). 
57 See Id. § 104(b). 
58 See Id. § 106. 
59 Id. § 104(a). 
60 The Monitoring and Evaluation Team will consider developing standards regarding the appropriate equipment to be utilized 
for telephone interpreting. The districts will continue to receive training as to the permissible scope of telephone interpreting, 
and the fact that telephone interpreters are not certified through the ICP and must therefore be voir dired to ascertain their 
qualifications, then sworn in using the oath provided under the regulations.  See 204 Pa. Code ch. 221 § 106. 

20 

 

 

Courts depending solely on the National Center's national interpreter database to 
provide interpreting services; and (2) creating its own VRI pilot project, including a c
center using interpreters certified through the Interpreter Certification Program and
using the National Center's database to supplement resources for languages not 
represented on the ICP roster.61 

all 
 

Projected Timeframe 
Judicial districts will be required to secure contracts with telephone interpreting 
providers within six months of the approval of this Language Access Plan. 

he AOPC will complete an investigation of options for creating a VRI program within 
two years of the approval of this Plan. 

Responsible Staff 
The AOPC, working with District Court Administrators and Language Access 
Coordinators.  

D.  Language Access to Services, Programs, and Activities Outside the Courtroom 

Language access requirements apply not only to judicial proceedings, but also to a 
wide range of services, programs, and activities outside the courtroom that are 
administered under the authority of the court, i.e., provided by or contracted for by 
the court.  

eaningful access to services outside the courtroom is a vital component of equal 

justice for LEP and deaf or hard of hearing persons.  This was recognized by the 
American Bar Association in Standard 6 of its Standards for Language Access to the 
Courts: 
 

An LEP person denied participation in such programs due to lack of language 
 
access may suffer extended jail time, the delayed return of a child, loss of 
access to driving and professional licenses or simply a less expedient resolution 
of the case.62 
 

In this context, examples of court services outside the courtroom include the following 
if administered under the authority of the court: services of the domestic relations 
office, the juvenile and adult probation offices, pro se clinics, some Alternative Dispute 

                                                 
61 In recognition of the need for a high-quality, clear, consistent image for purposes of conveying information via sign language, 
the regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act set forth very specific technical requirements for VRI. See 28 C.F.R. § 
35.160(d). The regulation also requires that staff be provided with training in the use of VRI. 
62 See ABA Standards of Language Access to the Courts, p. 69, available at 
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/ls_sclaid_standards_for_langua
ge_access_proposal.authcheckdam.pdf.  

21 

  T

  M

 

 

 

   

 

Resolution programs (ADR),63 family court custody education and mediation 
programs, drug and alcohol evaluation and treatment, mental health evaluation and 
treatment, anger management classes, domestic violence programs, safe driving 
classes, and other diversionary and educational programs.64 

he means by which the court is able to enforce language access requirements to 
services outside the courtroom varies depending upon who provides the service.  Some 
court services, such as domestic relations and probation, are court departments, 
staffed by court personnel and directly provided by the court.  Other services, such as 
drug and alcohol evaluation and treatment, may be provided by the court through 
contract with outside vendors. There are also some services that, while ordered by the 
court, may be provided by entities that are not administered by the court directly nor 
administered by the court through contract with a vendor.65  Examples of such services 
might include competency examinations or assessments mandated by the legislature. 

Current language access practices with regard to court services, programs, and activities 
are highly variable from one judicial district to another. 

urrent Status  

equired Action 

Judicial districts must ensure that persons who are LEP66 are afforded meaningful 
language access to all court services and activities under the authority of the court.  

ervices provided by the court: 

udicial districts are required to provide language access to services, programs, and 
activities that are provided by the court.   

nder Pennsylvania law, in-person interpretation is clearly the preferred method of 

providing language access to persons who are LEP and/or deaf or hard of hearing during 
judicial proceedings. However, in-person interpretation is not necessarily required for all 

  T

  C

  R

  S

  J

  U

                                                 
63 Some ADR programs such as mandatory arbitration are proceedings for which interpreters are provided as in any other 
proceeding.  
64 Note that there are some services that, although related to a court case, are voluntary and are not provided by the court.  An 
example of such a voluntary court-related program is private arbitration or mediation of a dispute. (This does not include 
compulsory judicial arbitration of civil claims less than $50,000, which, although the dollar threshold amounts may differ among 
judicial districts, is nonetheless mandatory in most judicial districts. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 7361.)  Judicial districts and the AOPC are 
not obligated to provide language access to voluntary programs unless they are administered under the authority of the court. 
65 The Monitoring and Evaluation Team, in its discretion, may consider whether these categories should be redefined to require 
that the court provide language assistance in programs under its management or control that are not provided by staff or 
contractors. 
66 The Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act require courts to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services, 
including qualified sign language interpreters to allow deaf or hard of hearing court users to have equally effective 
communication to all court services, programs, and activities. 

22 

 

 

 

court services outside the courtroom, where other means of language access may be 
appropriate.   

udicial districts must review their services, programs, and activities, and develop 
protocols for how best to provide meaningful language access for their LEP court users.  
Each judicial district should consider the language needs of its service area and the 
reasonable steps that the judicial district will take to ensure meaningful access for all 
LEP persons to court-managed programs and services. Judicial districts may use an array 
of language services, including, but not limited to, demonstrably proficient bilingual 
staff, bilingual staff who are appropriately credentialed to interpret, staff interpreters, 
contracted in-person, telephone, and video remote interpreters, translated written 
materials, and webinars or other activities conducted in languages other than English. 

s part of the overall analysis of how judicial districts will provide meaningful access, the 

need for written translation of documents used outside judicial proceedings should be 
evaluated in accordance with the DOJ guidance, which directs courts to consider “the 
importance of the program, information, encounter, or service involved, and the 
consequence to the LEP person if the information in question is not provided accurately 
or in a timely manner.”67 When information solicited or communicated via written 
documents is necessary for participation in court services, programs, or activities but 
the documents are not available in a translated form, the information must be solicited 
or communicated in the primary language, spoken or signed, of the person who is LEP or 
deaf or hard of hearing.68 

Services contracted for by the court: 

In many judicial districts, certain court programs and services are provided by private, 
third party vendors under contract with or paid by the court. Judicial districts are 
responsible to ensure that meaningful access is provided to LEP persons by vendors of 
these services and should review and seek adjustment of contract terms 
accordingly. Many, but not all, of these vendors receive federal funds and therefore 
have their own independent obligation under Title VI and the Rehabilitation Act to take 
reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to LEP and deaf and hard of hearing 
persons. 

udges should consider how an LEP person or a person who is deaf or hard of hearing 
can effectively receive services from or participate in a program run by a vendor 

                                                 
67 Department of Justice Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National 
Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 67 Fed. Reg. 41455, 41463 (June 18, 2002).  
68 This required action to solicit or communicate the information in a written document via the spoken or signed language of 
the LEP, deaf or hard of hearing user applies when a vital document is not available in a court user’s language, whether the 
reason is that the language does not meet the Department of Justice’s threshold of 5% or 1000 persons, the court has not 
finished translating all vital documents that do meet the threshold, or for some other reason.  

23 

  J

  A

 

  J

 

   

 

contracted for by the court before ordering individuals to attend, participate, or receive 
such programs or services. 

hile the court itself is not ordinarily the branch of government that contracts with 
providers, the court should be mindful to engage the executive branch and suggest 
contract language that requires compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other applicable laws and regulations. 

ourt-ordered services which are neither provided by nor contracted for by the court: 

Court-ordered programs or activities are those which a litigant is ordered to 
complete. In some cases, completion is a precondition to access to the courts, as when a 
family court litigant is required to attend a child custody education seminar. In other 
cases, it may be part of a criminal sentence, or a diversionary program to seek a more 
favorable outcome in a criminal case, such as drug and alcohol evaluation and 
treatment, or mental health evaluation and treatment. Some court-ordered activities, 
such as probation supervision, may continue for a number of years after a court 
proceeding. In some cases the services ordered by a court are either provided by the 
court or contracted for by the court. 

n other cases, however, an LEP, deaf, or hard of hearing person may be ordered or 
permitted to participate in a service, program, or activity provided by an entity not 
under the authority of the court which fails to provide appropriate language assistance, 
auxiliary aids, or services. Judicial officials and staff should avoid requiring a party to 
participate in a program, service, or activity in which a party is unable to participate or 
from which a party is unable to benefit on account of language or disability. Courts 
should consider whether alternatives may be made available, and, if not, whether a 
waiver of the requirement may be permitted.69  

  W

    C

 

  I

  I

n such situations, as noted above, it is important to be mindful of the leadership role 
that courts play in the community and the ability this gives them to influence the 
practices of organizations upon which LEP persons depend for services. As stated by the 
ABA:   
 

Courts play pivotal roles in leadership, education, and resource development to 
ensure that language access services are accessible to LEP communities, not just 
because of the courts’ knowledge of the number and type of services needed, 
but also because of their authority to order, require, and contract for those 
services. Courts are well situated to identify the appropriate providers for 
referrals of individual litigants, to coordinate with community providers to 

                                                 
69 See ABA Standards of Language Access to the Courts, pp. 69-76, available at 
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/ls_sclaid_standards_for_langua
ge_access_proposal.authcheckdam.pdf. 

24 

 

 

develop programs, to exercise leadership in assessing current needs and services 
and to help develop future resources. Courts are also in the best position to 
identify providers who have failed to deliver language access services and 
encourage them to develop adequate services or discontinue referrals to those 
organizations. Where courts currently have limited contact with provider 
organizations, they should develop outreach and community contacts to ensure 
that the LEP individuals they refer are adequately served. 70 

rojected Timeframe 

Within the first twelve months following approval of the Language Access Plan, a policy 
for addressing the various services provided or managed by the court must be in place 
(i.e., documents identified and prioritized for translation; hiring and training of bilingual 
employees, etc.). Within 24 months of approval, the judicial district must make 
reasonable efforts to ensure vendors contracted or otherwise subject to control by the 
court are complying with Title VI, the Rehabilitation Act, and the ADA. 

esponsible Staff 

Judicial districts with guidance and support from the AOPC and the Monitoring and 
Evaluation Team.   

  P

  R

I. Early Identification of the Need for Language Services  

 

Pennsylvania regulations governing the procurement of court interpreters emphasize the 
importance of notifying the court “of the need for an interpreter as soon as is practicable 
after learning of the need.”71 Effective methods for providing for early identification of the 
need for language services and notification of the court are critical. 

arly identification and notice to the court that an LEP or deaf or hard of hearing person 
requires language assistance is vital in order to ensure that arrangements for a qualified 
interpreter can be made.  Not only does this protect the rights of the LEP person or the person 
with a disability, it also helps to ensure efficient operation of the court by avoiding the need 
to continue cases because no interpreter is available on short notice.  Early identification and 
notice also helps avoid reliance on phone interpretation as a fall back because there was 
insufficient time to arrange for in-person interpretation.72 The need for early notice is 
heightened with regard to Magisterial District Court hearings, where the majority of litigants 
are unrepresented and, without some form of notice of their right to language services in 
advance of the hearing, likely will not know they can ask for an interpreter until they arrive at 
court and are informed by court staff or by notice posted in the court office. 
                                                 
70 Id. at 70. 
71 See 204 Pa. Code ch. 221 §§ 201(a)(1) and (2). 
72 Phone interpretation for court hearings poses risks to due process because of the variable quality of phone technology, the 
variable competency of phone interpreters to interpret legal matters, the inability of the interpreter to see the action and 
communication in the courtroom, and the limitations on the ability of the interpreter, parties, judge, and court staff to hear 
each other. Video remote interpreting has similar limitations. 

25 

 

    V

  E

 

ther states have also recognized the importance of early identification of the need for 

language services. For example, California's Strategic Plan for Language Access emphasizes 
that: 

F]ailure to identify the language needs of LEP court users early enough in the court 
process causes ripple effects throughout the system. When the need for a court 
interpreter is not identified in advance of a court appearance, courts and litigants may 
be forced to rely on untrained interpreters, … to provide language services. … [T]he use 
of untrained interpreters can have serious and potentially dangerous consequences. … 
Early identification makes it possible for courts to schedule qualified interpreters 
efficiently when calendaring cases in the various courtrooms where they are needed. It 
similarly allows courts to assign bilingual staff more efficiently to appropriate areas 
within the courthouse, and to share court interpreters across counties through the 
cross-assignment process when staff interpreters are not available in one court but 
free in another.73 

While the importance of early identification of the need for language services is clear, judicial 
 
districts currently lack sufficient guidance and essential tools, such as an advance notice of the
right to such services, needed to accomplish early identification.    

urrent Status 

equired Action  

Below is a comprehensive set of policies and procedures designed to assist courts in identifying 
the need for language assistance at the earliest possible point in time.   

1.  Advance Notice of the Right to Language Services 

Judicial districts will inform individuals of their right to a sign language interpreter and 
language services using the following forms of notice. To ensure uniformity these 
notices will be produced and translated by the AOPC. 

  A Notice of the Right to Language Services (hereafter “Notice of Language Rights”) in 

English and the five most commonly spoken languages in the judicial district, 
providing a phone number to call as well as an email address where a request for an 
interpreter may be sent. The content of the Notice will be substantially as follows:    

  [

  ●

                                                 
73 See Strategic Plan for Language Access in the California Courts at 29 (January 6, 2015), attachment 1 to Report to the Judicial 
Council for Business Meeting on January 22, 2015, available at http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20150122-itemK.pdf. 

 

26 

 

  O

  C

  R

   

 

You have the right to an interpreter at no cost to you. To request an interpreter, 
please inform court staff at [location], call (800)-xxx-xxxx or email the Court at 
xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.74 

●  The Notice of Language Rights poster, which has already been produced and 

distributed by the AOPC. The poster provides notice of the right to an interpreter in 
dozens of languages spoken across the state. It states: 
 

You have the right to an interpreter at no cost to you. Please point to your 

language. An interpreter will be called. Please wait. 

 

●  "I Speak" cards in the five most common languages spoken in the judicial district, as 

well as a card in English for deaf or hard of hearing persons. Each card will be printed 
in English and the second language. The non-English version should inform the 
reader as to the use of the card, while the English version should include instructions 
to staff as to the procedures to follow to assist the card holder.    

 

Using Russian as an example, the card, in Russian will read substantially as follows: 

 
My name is ________________.  The language I speak is Russian. Please find 

someone who is qualified to provide language assistance so that we can talk to each 
other.  Thank you.  

 

The card for those who are deaf or hard of hearing will read substantially as follows: 

 
My name is ______________________.  I am deaf or hard of hearing. My language 
is ________________________.  To talk with me, please use: □  Interpreter    
□  CART75  □  Assistive Listening Device  □  Writing  □  Speechreading. 
(Please check off or point to the method you would like to use.) 

2.  Multiple Mechanisms for Providing Notice 
A key strategy for ensuring early identification of the need for language services is to 
provide notice early on and continuously throughout a case, in multiple locations using 
multiple methods. The following methods will be used by judicial districts to accomplish 
this.76  
 

                                                 
74 As appropriate, districts may amend the Notice of Language Rights to include a statement to the effect of: “This is an 
important notice. If you do not understand what it says, you should take it to the Court for translation as soon as possible.” 
75 See Communication Access Realtime Translation, available at http://www.acscaptions.com/subpages/CART.asp.   
76 This is in addition to the obligation of lawyers, court staff, and justice partners under 204 Pa. Code ch. 221 §201(a) to provide 
notice to the court as soon as practicable upon learning that an LEP or deaf or hard of hearing party, witness, or victim requires 
language services.               

27 

 

 

   

 

Notice of Right to Language Services 

The Notice of Language Rights will be sent with every hearing notice and subpoena, 
whether the case is civil or criminal, including hearings in Magisterial District Courts.  
See Appendix, Example 1. 

Posters in the Courthouse and Offices in the Court System 
 

The Notice of Language Rights Posters77 shall be placed prominently and in close 
proximity to court or office staff in: 

●  All court or court office reception/information desks or kiosks. 
●  Other locations such as court offices, court office halls and lobbies, bulletin boards, 

and law libraries. 
 

I Speak Cards 
 
The “I Speak” cards will be displayed in all court or court office reception/information 
desks or kiosks and any other locations where posters are displayed, so that LEP or deaf 
or hard of hearing persons can simply show the card to court or other staff to 
communicate their need for an interpreter.   

OTE:  The Notice of Language Rights Poster and the “I Speak” cards serve 

complementary functions. The advantage of the Poster is that it includes the right to an 
interpreter message in many different languages, which is necessary to ensure that LEP 
persons who do not speak one of the five languages most commonly spoken in the 
judicial district are informed of their right to an interpreter and, by pointing to their 
language on the poster, can inform court staff of their need for assistance in their 
language. The disadvantage of the poster is that it is not portable. LEP persons who can 
communicate in one of the five most common languages can pick up an “I Speak” card 
in their language and carry it with them.  This would be useful, for example, when the 
court staff they initially encounter send them to another office in the courthouse. In this 
case, the LEP person can simply take the card with them to the next office and show it 
there. 
See Appendix, Example 2. 

Other Forms of Notice 
 
Court brochures.  Notice of Language Rights and the appropriate contact information 
for requesting an interpreter will be included on all court brochures and informational 
materials.  

 

  N

                                                 
77 These are the “Right to Interpreter” posters referenced above, which were produced by the AOPC and distributed to the 
judicial districts in the spring of 2015.  

28 

 

 

 

 

 
Websites.  Notice of Language Rights and the appropriate contact information for 
requesting an interpreter shall be posted on the court’s website.78  

Oral notice.  Judges and court staff are encouraged to announce the availability of 
interpreters at the beginning of court sessions where appropriate. For the benefit of LEP 
persons who are illiterate in their own language and speakers of languages that do not 
have a written component, judicial districts might consider developing a video recording 
with captions informing LEP persons of their right to language services and: 

●  Playing the video in waiting rooms or other areas outside the courtroom where 

persons wait before appearing in court. 
 

language services for LEP persons. 

●  Making use of the video to inform the public generally about the availability of 

Public Notice. Judicial districts will provide information about language rights and 
availability of a sign language interpreter: 

●  To the public, justice partners,79 legal aid agencies, community-based organizations, 
groups working with LEP populations, and any consulates or embassies located in 
the county.  
 

●  At court-community events and in public service announcements in the media, 

including bilingual media.  
See Appendix, Example 3.  

   

3.  System for Receiving and Processing Requests for Language Services  
Even the most effective process for providing notice of the right to language services 
will only work if the LEP person, the person with a disability and court staff can 
understand each other when a person contacts the court to request an interpreter.  
Recognizing this, the AOPC will investigate possible approaches for efficiently and 
effectively receiving and processing requests for language services. This includes 
researching: 

 

  Use of a statewide automated multilingual phone system to request an interpreter. 

(A multilingual phone system for requesting interpreter services could be 

                                                 
78 Judicial districts should work with counties to encourage website improvements to make non-English content, such as 
translated court forms, more visible. 
79 Justice partners could include law enforcement agencies, public defenders, district attorneys, local bar associations, county 
and city jails, child protective services, domestic violence shelters, and others. See also Section X Outreach to Court Users and 
Communities. 

29 

 

 

 

 

implemented either locally or statewide where the LEP person would call a toll-free 
number (at the county or state level) and through a series of prompts identify the 
language he or she speaks. The call would go to the appropriate court office where 
staff will access a telephonic interpreter to assist the caller and court staff via a 
three-way call.) 
See Appendix, Example 4. 

 
●  Use of a statewide web-based system or application to request an interpreter.   
 
●  Use of text messaging as an option for LEP persons or persons who are deaf or hard 
of hearing to communicate their need for language services.80 This could be done as 
part of a statewide system or locally.  The AOPC will consider piloting a text 
messaging option with one or more judicial districts.  

 
In the interim, judicial districts must ensure that they are able to respond to requests for 
language services and other communication from persons who are LEP or deaf or hard 
of hearing. To that end, judicial districts must have in place language services to respond 
to LEP persons who contact court staff to inform them of their need for language 
services, whether the court is contacted in person or via phone, TDD, email, website 
portal, or mail.   

. Methods for Early Identification of the Need for Language Services in Addition to 
Self-identification.    
While self-identification is an important means of identifying the need for language 
services, other methods are also needed. While courts should encourage individuals to 
identify themselves as in need of language services, courts should not rely on that 
entirely. Some LEP persons or persons with disabilities may decline to request language 
services because they misjudge the level of English proficiency necessary to 
communicate effectively in a court setting, or they may be afraid of discrimination or 
bias. The obligation of lawyers, court staff, and justice partners to provide notice to the 
court of a person’s need for language services is established by regulation;81 however, 
more steps need to be taken to ensure compliance. 

●  Judicial districts will reinforce to lawyers, court staff, and justice partners, whenever 
appropriate, of their duty to notify the court of the language services needs of LEP 
court users or individuals with disabilities, including parties, witnesses, or other 
persons with a significant interest,82 at the earliest possible point of contact with the 

    4

 

                                                 
80 The technology exists to set up phone numbers through which texts can be received.  Texts received are forwarded 
automatically to an email account.   
81 See 204 Pa. Code ch. 221 § 201(a). 
82 Persons with a significant interest includes:  victims; legal guardians or custodians of a minor involved in a case as a party, 
witness, or victim; and legal guardians or custodians of adults involved in a case as a party, witness, or victim.  

30 

 

 

LEP person or person with a disability. This information should be included, for 
example, in CLE programs for attorneys. See Section IX(E) Training Attorneys. 

  Judicial districts shall establish protocols by which justice partners, in particular, can 

indicate to the court that an individual requires a sign language interpreter or 
language services at the earliest point of contact with the court system.83 

5.  Documentation of Language Needs.     
Once the need for language services has been identified, it should be recorded in the 
court’s case file and/or case management system, so that arrangements for 
interpretation and translation of documents, such as notices, for upcoming judicial 
proceedings or court services, programs, and activities outside the courtroom can be 
made ahead of time. 84 Judicial districts will clearly and consistently document language 
needs in the case management system and/or any other case record or file, as 
appropriate given a court’s existing case information record system, and include this 
capability in any future system upgrades or system development. 

rojected Timeframe 

Within six months of approval of the UJS Language Access Plan, the AOPC will translate and 
produce a Notice of Language Services and I Speak cards for the judicial districts after 
considering suggestions regarding content and design of the notices from the Monitoring and 
Evaluation Team. For example, a different notice that advises the reader that the content of the 
court notice is important and the court can provide translation assistance can be devised to be 
part of important documents even if they do not involve a court appearance. Judicial districts 
will begin using these notices, as outlined in Subsection 2 above, within three months of 
receiving them from the AOPC. 

ithin nine months of the approval of the UJS Language Access Plan, judicial districts will: 

●  Begin using other forms of notice, as outlined in Subsection 2 above; 

●  Develop and implement a system to ensure that court staff are able to respond to 

requests for language services and other communications from persons who are LEP or 
deaf or hard of hearing, as outlined in Subsection 3 above; 

                                                
83 For example, state police might consider including a one-sentence notice on their citations, asking litigants to notify the court 
if they need an interpreter. See footnote 79, above, for a listing of justice partners. 
84 As noted at footnote 76, above, there is an ongoing responsibility of the parties to a case to notify the court of the need for 
language access services.  Due to cases being continued, communication between attorneys, parties, and judicial and court 
staff, including the Language Access Coordinator, is critical. This will ensure that resources are not wasted, and interpreter 
services are available when necessary. As the Language Access Coordinator will require advance notice to schedule or 
reschedule an interpreter, judicial districts should make every effort to note the need for interpreter services in case files and 
other case records, and include the capability to do so in future case management system development or upgrades. 
 

31 

  ●

 

 

   

   

 

  P

  W

 

●  Establish and implement protocols for identifying language access needs of LEP court 
users and individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as protocols by which 
justice partners may indicate to the court an LEP or person with a disability’s need for 
language services, as outlined in Subsection 4 above; establish protocols for staff to 
record language needs of parties with whom they have contact; and 
 

●  Develop and implement a system for recording the language needs of LEP persons or 

persons who are deaf or hard of hearing in the court’s case file and/or case 
management system, or other language services management system utilized by the 
judicial district, as outlined in Subsection 5 above.  
 

Within nine months of the approval of the UJS Language Access Plan, the AOPC will complete 
an investigation of possible approaches for efficiently and effectively processing requests for 
language services, including those approaches listed in Subsection 3 above.   

esponsible Staff 

Judicial districts will have primary responsibility for implementing the policies and procedures 
in this Section, except for those tasks specifically assigned to the AOPC. The AOPC will provide 
leadership and work with the judicial district Language Access Coordinators, the Monitoring and 
Evaluation Team, and other stakeholders.   

II. Keeping Data on the Need for and Use of Language Access Services 

For purposes of monitoring the effectiveness of its language access program, tracking 
changes in language needs, and supporting funding requests at both the state and local level, 
the UJS has developed a computer application called Language Access Data Collection 
("LADC"). 

urrent Status 

Until recently, there was no standardized procedure throughout the UJS for gathering data on 
the provision of language access. Practices were district-specific, and varied greatly from district 
to district. Cumberland County and the First Judicial District (Philadelphia) have fairly 
sophisticated systems. Lehigh County generates a statistical report on "Interpreting and 
Translation Assignments." In contrast, in many judicial districts, especially those with lower 
percentages of LEP court users, language access data gathering has been more limited. 
  
The judicial districts have been notified via the instructions in a Language Access Plan template 
(provided to them in the fall of 2014 and used as the basis for their language access plans, 
which became effective in March, 2015) that they would be asked to maintain data on requests 
for and the provision of language access services in judicial proceedings and throughout the 
courthouse. This information will be gathered and reported for the purpose of making decisions 
as to allocation of resources and to determine needed improvements and changes to the 
Language Access Plans. The AOPC convened a focus group composed of district court 

32 

 

  R

    V

  C

 

administrators who have provided feedback on the usability of the form and computer 
function.  

 

LADC was piloted in the nine judicial districts that comprised the data gathering focus group in 
the fall of 2015. AOPC IT provided a training webinar on three different dates to all of the 
districts in the fall of 2015. As of the writing of this Plan, all but three judicial districts are 
inputting interpreter request data into LADC.  

Required Action 
All 60 judicial districts will input their language access data into LADC. In addition, all judicial 
districts will be required to have developed a system of marking case files and scheduling 
documents with an "interpreter needed" designation in their case management systems within 
a year of the approval of this Language Access Plan. Finally, AOPC IT will provide a similar 
designation on statewide case management platforms such as CPCMS and MDJS. 

rojected Timeframe 

This will be an ongoing effort by the AOPC and Language Access Coordinators in the judicial 
districts. Consideration will be given to rolling out a data collection mechanism for the provision 
of language access services at the counter - by Clerks and Prothonotaries - within 24 months 
after approval of this Plan. Within six months of the approval of this Language Access Plan, the 
AOPC will create annual reports reflecting the above-cited data. 

esponsible Staff 

The AOPC and judicial district Language Access Coordinators. 

VIII. Qualification Requirements for Interpreters and Translators 

The AOPC's Interpreter Certification Program manages the orientation, testing, certification, 
and ongoing monitoring of interpreters for both Pennsylvania's courts and administrative 
(executive) agencies.85 
 

1.  Interpreters 

Current Status   
The AOPC ICP has jurisdiction over and certifies both foreign language interpreters and 
interpreters for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. All interpreters currently 
working and those who would like to work with the Pennsylvania courts and in 
administrative hearings held by state and local executive agencies must register and 
become qualified through the certification program.  
 

                                                 
85 42 Pa.C.S.§ 4411. 

33 

 

  P

  R

 

Interpreters who wish to become certified by the AOPC ICP must complete a number of 
requirements, including registration, orientation, and written and oral testing.86  

The ICP-issued Guidelines for the Procurement and Appointment of Interpreters are 
referenced as "Interpreter Guidelines" on the Interpreter Certification Program's 
website. The Guidelines include standard rates for compensating interpreters, as well as 
a chart designating the different proficiency levels of interpreter who should be 
appointed for different types of cases.87   

 

 

Under the Interpreter Act regulations, the judicial districts and appellate courts must 
give preference to the appointment of a certified interpreter in all judicial proceedings, 
unless a certified interpreter is not available. The court may appoint otherwise qualified 
interpreters when certified interpreters are unavailable. Both certified and otherwise 
qualified interpreters must be selected from the statewide roster.88 If the judicial district 
or appellate court is unable to locate a certified, otherwise qualified, or registered 
interpreter on the statewide roster, the judicial district should contact the AOPC ICP for 
guidance.89     
 

Required Action   
The AOPC ICP will continue to provide the functions described above. In addition, efforts 
will be made to increase outreach to potential interpreter candidates. See Section X(E) 
Outreach to Court Users and Communities. Also, where applicable, interpreters will be 
provided with district-specific information on the workings of the particular 
courthouse(s) in which they work. See Section IX(F) on Training Interpreters. 

The AOPC ICP will continue to orient, test, and certify interpreters to work in 
Pennsylvania's courts, will continue to provide resources for interpreters for rare 
languages, and will continue to provide expertise on the full range of questions that 
arise concerning the role of interpreters in the courts.  

ow This Can Be Accomplished 

  H

Projected Timeframe 
Ongoing. 

                                                
86 See Interpreter Certification, The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, available at http://www.pacourts.us/judicial-
administration/court-programs/interpreter-program/interpreter-certification.  
87 See Guidelines for the Procurement and Appointment of Interpreters, The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, available at 
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-1700/file-229.pdf?cb=942e36. 
88 See Interpreter Roster, The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, available at http://www.pacourts.us/judicial-
administration/court-programs/interpreter-program/interpreter-roster.  
89 The AOPC ICP can be reached via email or phone at 215.560.6300 or interpreterprogram@pacourts.us.  The Interpreter 
Program's website provides a wealth of information, including interpreter request forms, an interpreter waiver form, and a 
variety of resources for present and potential court interpreters, including the annual program calendar for the Interpreter 
Program (including dates of the ICP orientation, held multiple times per year in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia), 
information about the written and oral parts of the certification exam and the dates when it is given, continuing education 
resources, and resources to assist working interpreters. 

34 

 

 

   

 

Current Status  
As referenced in Section V(B)(1), above, the language access plan template provided to 
 
the judicial districts for the development of their own, district-specific language access
plans requires that translation of any district court forms be done in compliance with 
the Guide to Translation of Legal Materials prepared by the National Center for State 
Courts.90 The AOPC will likewise consider the National Center's Guide in its own 
translation of statewide court forms.  

Required Action 
Translators of court materials should be certified by the American Translators 
Association.91 For languages for which no certification examination is available in the 
language for which translation is sought, the best qualified, available translator should 
be used for the project. Where a certified interpreter generally utilized by the judicial 
district for interpreting duties also provides translation services, the work of that 
interpreter should be reviewed by an ATA-certified translator, provided certification 
exists in the relevant language. See also Section V(B)(1) Written Language Services – 
Court Forms and Documents, which states that a Monitoring and Evaluation Team 
should develop policies and best practices for document translation. 

How This Can Be Accomplished  
Information about the American Translators Association and its search tool for qualified 
translators will be provided to Language Access Coordinators at training sessions. See 
Section IX Training and Continuing Education. 

The Monitoring and Evaluation Team recommended at Section V(B)(1) will also function 
as a clearinghouse for this type of information. 

Projected Timeframe 
Ongoing. 

Responsible Staff 
The AOPC Interpreter Certification Program Administrator. 

.  Translators 

  2

Responsible Staff 
AOPC's Coordinator for Court Access, in consultation with the Interpreter Certification 
Program Administrator, will assist the districts in locating qualified translators. 

                                                 
90 See Guide to Translation of Legal Materials, National Center for State Courts, available at 
http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/accessfair/id/232. 
91 The American Translators Association website includes a search tool for locating ATA-certified translators for different 
language pairs, e.g., English to Spanish available at http://www.atanet.org/onlinedirectories/individuals_tabs.php#tabs-2. 
 

35 

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

Regularly scheduled mandatory training on a number of topics related to language access is 
critical to the effective implementation of this Plan and the day-to-day provision of language 
access in the judicial districts.  Judges, appointive judicial officers, Language Access 
Coordinators, and other court staff must be involved in and receive training.  

The AOPC has presented a number of trainings on language access and the ADA in the past two 
years, including the following: 

  Presentation at the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges in July, 2013. 

●  Four trainings for all District Court Administrators and designated UJS staff 

throughout the Commonwealth during the month of April, 2014. 

●  Presentation at the President Judges/Pennsylvania Association of Court 

Management conference in June, 2014. 

●  Trainings for Traffic Court staff in Philadelphia in May, 2014. 
●  Trainings for all Magisterial District Judges as part of the annual continuing 

education presented by the Minor Judiciary Education Board (Note:  as a handout at 
these trainings, the AOPC provided laminated cards to each magistrate district 
judge, with "Tips for Working with Interpreters" on one side, and the oath to be 
administered to all interpreters on the other. These cards could ideally be used as 
bench cards). 

●  Presentation at the County Commissioners' Association of Pennsylvania conference, 

●  Annual presentations at new judge school and new District Court Administrator 

fall of 2014. 

school. 
 

In addition, in the spring of 2015, the AOPC purchased and made available to all 60 judicial 
districts the Language Access Basic Training ("LABT") developed by the New Mexico 
Administrative Office of the Courts in conjunction with the National Center for State Courts.  
One hundred and twenty training "slots" were made available, so that the language access 
coordinator for each judicial district could take the training him- or herself, and also designate 
one additional district employee (ideally one with regular contact with LEP court users) to take 
the training.   
 

The AOPC supplemented the New Mexico LABT with a one-hour, Pennsylvania-specific webinar 
on language access issues, including coverage of the regulations pursuant to the Pennsylvania 
Interpreter Act, an informal "protocol" for handling language access issues at the counter, and 
tips on working with  interpreters. Attendance at this webinar was mandatory for all language 
access coordinators, and optional for as many additional employees, ideally those with 
frequent contact with the public, as possible.   

urrent Status  

  ●

IX. Training and Continuing Education 

36 

 

  C

   

 

 

 

 

A. Training Judges 

Required Action   

●  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the AOPC should create and convey a policy 

that requires the judiciary at all levels to receive training on language access for LEP 
users and the provision of auxiliary aids and services for people who are deaf or hard 
of hearing.   
 

●  Training content should be standardized and available in a training manual 

accessible to all judicial districts.  See Subsection C. 

●  Judicial Officers should be educated on the following aspects of Language Access:  

 

o  How to conduct a proceeding using an interpreter (for both language and 

o  Legal basis for the use of interpreters and translation services for court 

o  Judicial District and UJS language access resources, including the ICP 

o  Number of interpreters needed for a proceeding and best practices on 

disability issues); 

proceedings; 

coordinated by the AOPC; 

how to use interpreters; 

o  How to determine if a party has limited English proficiency and how to 

request an interpreter for a proceeding; 

o  Ethical obligations of judicial interpreters and ethical issues that apply to 

the use of interpreters, both inside and outside of the courtroom; 
requirements regarding the use of interpreters; certification of 
interpreters; different levels of interpreter certification and the 
proceedings in which they can be used; limits on the use of people who 
are bilingual but are not qualified to interpret; and in-person versus 
remote interpreting;  

o  Special issues involving interpreters (e.g., when interpreters do not 
understand a term or concept; challenges to interpretation; use of 
interpreters for settlement conferences); 

o  Cultural competency training: understanding cultural norms and 

differences (e.g., words, actions, gestures) that might not be understood 
or might be offensive to someone of another culture; 
o  The special circumstances when video remote or telephone 

o  The appropriate procedure for conducting a waiver of interpreter by the 

interpretation may be used; 

LEP litigant; and 

o  Procedures to follow when considering whether to order a LEP or deaf or 
hard of hearing litigant to participate in a program or activity not run by 
the court. 
 

37 

●  Training will be conducted at: the Philadelphia Trial Judge Education Program and 
the training program targeted to Magisterial District Judges who are not lawyers;   
New Judge School; Magisterial District Judge (“MDJ”) School; the Pennsylvania 
Conference of State Trial Judges; and continuing education programs for MDJs as 
well as at the annual President Judge/Pennsylvania Association of Court 
Management (“PJ/PACM”) Conference and other appropriate venues where both 
specific training and routine updates on policy and practice can be provided.  
 

●  Court Administrators should speak with their President Judge to convene a Board of 
Judges meeting for language access training and to provide training to other judges.   

●  The AOPC will develop a bench card for judges that covers the following topics:  

o  Sample questions to assess the limited English proficiency of a party or 

 

witness;  

o  The interpreter waiver;  
o  Voir dire questions for an interpreter who is not certified;  
o  The interpreter oath;  
o  An explanation of the role of an interpreter for the judge to give to the 
LEP party/witness with the assistance of the sign language or spoken 
language interpreter; and  
Instructions to read to the jury prior to the start of the proceeding.  

o 

rojected Timeframe 

Language Access Plan. 

●  A Training Manual will be developed within twelve months of approval of the 

●  Training will begin within twelve months of approval of the Language Access Plan. As 
an initial goal, the AOPC should develop training for the Pennsylvania Conference of 
State Trial Judges in July, 2017. 

●  Bench cards within three months of approval of the Language Access Plan. 
●  Webinar and conference training within one year of approval of the Plan. 

 

Responsible Staff  
The AOPC Coordinator for Court Access, in consultation with judicial district Language Access 
Coordinators. 

. Training Appointive Judicial Officers 

Required Action  
All appointive judicial officers should receive initial training, whether current staff or when 
newly hired, and refresher training periodically thereafter. The training should be standardized 
statewide but adapted to address local procedures. Training should include all of the topics for 
judges.   
 

38 

 

  P

    B

 

Projected Timeframe 
New employee information packets will be created within three months of the approval of the 
UJS Language Access Plan and a webinar training session will be created within one year 
thereof.    

esponsible Staff   

The AOPC will work in conjunction with District Court Administrators and Language Access 
Coordinators to coordinate training.   

. Training Language Access Coordinators 

  
Required Action 
To ensure continuity of knowledge and process across the Commonwealth, training for judicial 
district Language Access Coordinators will include all of the topics for judges and appointive 
officers, plus:    

o  The responsibilities of the Language Access Coordinator to manage 

protocols, resources, and training for the judicial district; 

o  The UJS and judicial district's language access plans and the importance of 
local procedures and quick reference tools for presiding judicial officers; 
quasi-judicial officers, and court staff; 

o  Court document translation policy and procedure, including how to identify 

vital documents that should be translated; 

o  Use of the Language Access Data Collection (“LADC”) tool and the 

importance of data collection; 

o  How to conduct training for new hires and other court personnel so they 
receive information about language access policies, procedures, and 
resources as soon as possible;  

o  Where to find and how to use the UJS interpreter roster, bilingual staff, 
telephone interpreter services, and document translation services; 

o  The appropriate procedure for conducting a waiver of interpreter by the LEP 

o  The process for accepting and recording complaints and other feedback 

about language access services; and   

o  The requirements and timeframes for "Required Actions" under this 

litigant;  

document. 
 

The AOPC will create an email listserv for Language Access Coordinators so they can share 
information and consult each other on questions or issues that arise in their judicial districts.  
The AOPC will also explore whether the LADC tool can serve as a forum for Language Access 
Coordinators to post information and consult each other.   

 

The AOPC will create an online compendium of training resources easily accessible to Language 
Access Coordinators and court staff via the LADC website. The compendium will address 

39 

 

  R

  C

 

resources for working with persons who are LEP, deaf, or hard of hearing. Among many other 
materials, it will contain glossaries of court terms and complaint forms in multiple languages. 
Judicial districts should be able to contribute to the compendium.      

 

The AOPC will create a training manual with a section for each type of court participant (e.g., 
judge, appointive judicial officer, Language Access Coordinator, court staff) that can be used to 
train all who have the potential to encounter a person who is LEP, deaf, or hard of hearing.  
While the information may overlap, each section could contain specific information for the 
person fulfilling a specific job within the courthouse and at other locations where court services 
and programs are provided. The training manual will assist Language Access Coordinators in 
developing and providing training.  

rojected Timeframe 

The email listserv, online compendium of training resources, and training manual will be 
completed within twelve months of the approval of the Plan. The status of training for 
Language Access Coordinators, which has already begun, should be reviewed at least six 
months from the date of the approval of the Plan.   

Training should be conducted regularly and using a variety of methods, including a training 
manual, videos, online training modules, and other materials. Any previously developed 
training, such as the New Mexico Language Access Center's training modules, could be used 
for part of court staff's training, but that training needs to be augmented to address gaps 
such as communicating with people who are deaf or hard of hearing and local language 
access resources and procedures. Ongoing training should take place via updates at the 
Pennsylvania Association of Court Management conferences during the year and in other 
manners for all court staff. 

equired Action 

  R

●  All court staff should receive initial training, whether current staff or when newly 

hired, and refresher training periodically thereafter. The training should be 
standardized statewide but should include information about local procedures.  
Training should include all of the topics for judges, plus 

o 

issues such as stress and frustration with being unable to communicate with 
someone who is LEP or deaf or hard of hearing; 

o  procedures for receiving both informal feedback and formal complaints 
regarding failure to provide or inadequate language access services. See 
Section XII. 

40 

esponsible Staff  

The AOPC. 

D. Training Court Staff  

 

  P

  R

 

●  Bilingual staff should also receive training on the parameters of their role (see also 
Section V(A)(2) regarding Language Services and How to Use Them - Oral Language 
Services – Bilingual Staff.) 

Training materials will be developed and all court staff should receive initial training within 
twelve months of the approval of the Plan.  

rojected Timeframe 

 

Responsible Staff 
The AOPC will work in conjunction with District Court Administrators and Language Access 
Coordinators to coordinate with the various court divisions to coordinate training of this group.  

. Training Attorneys  

 
Required Action 

●  As with the court personnel, training for attorneys should include the same training 

identified for judges. In addition, lawyers should receive training about: 

o  Funds available via state and local bar associations to reimburse for sign 
language and CART interpreters used to communicate with clients or 
potential clients who are deaf or hard of hearing. 

o  Local judicial district language access procedures and practices.  

●  Training for attorneys should occur in a variety of ways: 

o  A continuing legal education (“CLE”) course curriculum should be developed 

with the Pennsylvania Bar Institute; 

o  Language access policies, practices, and issues should be integrated routinely 
into Pennsylvania Bar Institute and other CLE programs, especially those 
regarding court procedure and practice.  
Judicial districts, working with local bar associations, could present a 
standardized CLE curriculum that could incorporate local policies and 
procedures, including the role of and contact information for the judicial 
district Language Access Coordinators.   

o 

o  Training could be conducted during the county's Bench-Bar meetings, as well 

as Lunch and Learn meetings with local bar associations.   

o  The County Conference of Bar Leaders, attended by local bar association 

leaders, offers another opportunity for training and updates, as do in-house 
CLEs offered by and for local government attorneys, e.g., district attorneys 
and county solicitors.  

o  Meetings involving the local judicial district language access coordinator.  

 

●  A "best practices" curriculum for attorneys should be created to ensure consistent 

training across the Commonwealth. 

41 

 

  P

    E

   

 

Projected Timeframe 
The coordination with PBI and a curriculum will be completed within one year of the approval 
of the statewide language access plan.  Training will begin during year two of the UJS Language 
Access Plan. 

The AOPC in conjunction with the Monitoring and Evaluation Team will work to develop a 
standard curriculum and initiate contact with the Pennsylvania Bar Institute.  Language Access 
Coordinators could organize local CLEs. 

esponsible Staff 

 

F. Training Interpreters 

Required Action 

●  Training for this group should be conducted as an "orientation" to local judicial 

district court processes and procedures and should include: 
 

o  Handbook on local practices; 
o  Information regarding common forms and procedures used within the 

courthouse and in court cases; and 

o  Any additional information that could supplement what is provided by the 

AOPC at the ICP. 

manual.  

judicial districts.  

 

▪  Training could consist of a local orientation session and a handbook or 

▪  Once developed, training materials could be widely shared among 

How This Can Be Accomplished 
This will be accomplished at the county level by the District Court Administrators and Language 
Access Coordinators in cooperation with the AOPC.   

A program will be put in place within six to twelve months of the approval of the statewide 
language access plan. 

rojected Timeframe 

esponsible Staff 

District Court Administrators and Language Access Coordinators with assistance from the AOPC 
as needed.   

42 

 

  R

  P

  R

       

 

X.   Outreach to Court Users and Communities 

utreach to the LEP and deaf or hard of hearing communities, organizations who serve these 
communities, court system partners, and potential professional court interpreters is critical to 
raise awareness of language access services offered by the courts and to ensure meaningful 
access to the courts. 

equired Action and Current Status  

A.  Judicial districts should conduct outreach to the LEP and deaf or hard of hearing 

communities regarding the right to language access services (or other appropriate 
auxiliary aids and services for deaf or hard of hearing persons), how to access these 
services, and how to effectively utilize the services (e.g., working with interpreters or 
CART92 services). 

Currently, the AOPC posts information on the UJS website (www.pacourts.us) listing 
Language Access Coordinators for each judicial district. Each judicial district should 
individually post information on language access and the Americans with Disabilities Act 
on their local websites. The AOPC should add conspicuous, multilingual website notices 
regarding the availability of language assistance and encourage the districts to do so 
when feasible. Judicial districts should also conduct outreach via the media (including 
multilingual media), websites where people who are deaf or hard of hearing routinely 
seek information, and advocacy groups that work with the LEP and deaf or hard of 
hearing communities. Information on language access services should also be routinely 
available in an accessible manner at courthouses and court offices.   

B.  The AOPC and judicial districts should inform community organizations who serve LEP 

and the deaf or hard of hearing populations about the courts' legal obligation to provide 
sign language interpreters or language services, how to obtain these services, and how 
to use interpreters effectively.  Community organizations include: social services 
agencies, local foundations, and local and state agencies such as the Pennsylvania 
Department of Labor and Industry’s Office for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. 
 

C.  Language Access Coordinators at the local judicial district level should contact agencies 
and provide information on the above-mentioned topics. The AOPC Coordinator for 
Court Access should also reach out to statewide organizations that advocate for, or 
serve, these communities, such as the Governor’s Advisory Commission on Asian Pacific 
American Affairs, the Governor’s Advisory Commission on Latino Affairs, the 
Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, the state and local Children’s Roundtables, 
and county criminal justice advisory boards. Judicial districts should encourage feedback 
on the provision of language access services. Faith, civic and community associations, 
and school districts should be included. 

                                                 
92 CART, or Communication Access Realtime Translation, is a process through which a provider types what is being said in a 
meeting or hearing into a stenotype machine, and the captioning is then displayed on a small or large screen, depending on the 
setting or number of hard of hearing participants. 

43 

 

  O

  R

 

 

 

D.  Judicial districts should inform justice partners about the courts' legal obligation to 
provide language services and sign language interpreters, how to obtain language 
services and sign language interpreters, and how to use interpreters effectively.   

he UJS, in concert with the Pennsylvania Bar Association, should develop Continuing 
Legal Education seminars for attorneys, and distribute information and/or meet with 
other system partners.  
 

E.  The AOPC and individual judicial districts should develop and implement a plan to 

recruit more professional interpreters to work in the courts. 

 

  T

Currently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court/AOPC Interpreter Certification Program 
information is available on the Supreme Court’s website (http://www.pacourts.us/).  
Information about this program, and other interpreter training opportunities, should be 
distributed to organizations and agencies that work with or communicate with 
individuals who may be interested in becoming court certified interpreters.  Information 
should also be distributed via the media and local judicial district websites. 
 

How This Can Be Accomplished 
The AOPC, judicial districts, and a Monitoring and Evaluation Team should develop standard 
information for widespread outreach, such as a handout or brochure and a training module 
that can be incorporated into local and statewide continuing legal education programs. 93 

Outreach should begin within the first year of approval of the Plan and should be ongoing.  

rojected Timeframe 

esponsible Staff 

The AOPC Coordinator for Court Access, in consultation with judicial district Language Access 
Coordinators. 

I. Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation 

The statewide language access plan must be evaluated regularly to track implementation, 
assess progress, identify gaps, and update the plan, policies and procedures.   

                                                
93 There are many possible methods for recruiting people to work as court interpreters, including participating in local job fairs, 
especially those geared toward immigrants, communicating with local universities, developing recruitment brochures or 
pamphlets, offering opportunities for prospective court interpreters to shadow current court interpreters to see how they 
function in the courtroom, creating a list of interpreter training and certification programs and conducting focused outreach to 
them, contacting professional organizations such as the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators, and 
informing local universities and community organizations about court interpretation as an employment option.    
 

44 

 

 

  P

  R

  X

     

 

Current Status   
There is no designated entity or process for evaluating both progress toward implementation 
and the effectiveness of the UJS Language Access Plan.  

equired Action  

A Monitoring and Evaluation Team will be created to review and evaluate implementation of 
the UJS Language Access Plan as well as the county plans to ensure meaningful access to the 
courts. This team should include internal and external stakeholders in the provision of language 
access services in the courts, including members of the current Language Access Advisory 
Group. Stakeholders should include a judicial officer, a court administrator, a court interpreter, 
a legal services provider, an attorney who routinely works with LEP court users, representatives 
of LEP and deaf or hard of hearing communities, and AOPC staff. The team should: 
 

o  prioritize and track implementation, assess progress, identify gaps, and 

update the plan;  

o  coordinate with relevant stakeholders; 
o  advise on or recommend additions and changes to policies, procedures, and 

regulations that affect implementation of the Plan; 

o  review complaint information and feedback received by the AOPC and courts;  
o  recommend best practices as to training, making sure that new employees are 
receiving proper guidance and that other employees are receiving regular 
updates on changes in practice or procedure, as well as refresher training on 
important and/or challenging aspects of language access compliance; 

o  review data from LADC; 
o  discuss changes in the UJS interpreter roster with the Interpreter Certification 
Administrator, to evaluate the effect of increases or decreases in the number 
of certified, qualified, and registered interpreters;  

o  provide feedback to the AOPC Coordinator for Court Access in determining 

when county language access plans should be updated and what issues should 
be addressed, and assist the AOPC in the development of templates for 
updated county plans;  and 

o  oversee the performance of the tasks related to translation of court forms and 

documents described in Section V(B). 

ow This Can Be Accomplished 

The Supreme Court should create a Monitoring and Evaluation Team for the Plan, assigning the 
AOPC responsibility for recommending the membership and providing staffing.  

rojected Timeframe   

The Monitoring and Evaluation Team will be appointed immediately upon approval of the Plan.   
Plan implementation will be monitored on an ongoing basis and the Plan should go through an 
annual formal evaluation.  

45 

 

  R

  H

  P

   

 

Responsible Staff 
The AOPC Coordinator for Court Access. 

II.   Monitoring and Evaluation of the Language Access Plan: Complaint/Feedback Procedure 

eveloping methods to monitor and evaluate language services offered and provided by the 
courts is critical to maintaining timely, effective, and appropriate language assistance and to 
ensuring meaningful access to the courts. 

urrent Status 

Currently, local judicial districts have complaint procedures and forms written in English and 
Spanish that are to be posted on their websites, along with their language access plans.  It is 
important for the AOPC to collect complaint information and feedback statewide on a routine 
basis to monitor the provision of language services, to address judicial district-specific issues, 
and to incorporate feedback into statewide planning and implementation. 

equired Action 

A.  Complaints 

Complaints are information provided formally, generally in writing, with the 
expectation of a formal review and response from the court. As part of the 
development of individual judicial district language access plans, each district has a 
Language Access Plan Complaint Procedure and Form. 
 

●  The AOPC will collect, maintain, and review data/statistics relating to the 

number, nature, and disposition of complaints under this Plan twice a year.  

●  Each judicial district will record all complaints received regarding language 

access that are submitted either in writing or orally.  

●  The complaint procedures from each district's language access plan will be 
posted on the local judicial district’s website and in court materials in other 
commonly used languages, in addition to English and Spanish.   

●  The AOPC will also post information about complaint procedures in formats 
accessible to LEP persons and persons who are deaf or hard of hearing and 
offer a way to submit feedback about language services and 
accommodations via the Unified Judicial System website. 
 

B.  Feedback 

Feedback is information - either positive or negative - informally provided to the 
court concerning the provision of language access services, with no expectation of a 
formal review and response. Feedback is important in evaluating an individual 
judicial district’s language access plan, policies and procedures, as well as the UJS 
Plan, and will be used to determine if services are being provided as required and 
whether the services are effective. 

46 

 

    X

  D

  C

  R

 

●  Feedback could also be gathered by the judicial districts in whatever ways 

are deemed appropriate by individual judicial districts. 

●  Judicial districts are encouraged to share feedback with the AOPC for the 

purpose of monitoring, evaluating, and improving language access policies, 
procedures, and services.  The AOPC will develop a mechanism to facilitate 
the sharing of information with the AOPC and among judicial districts. 

 

Responsible Staff 
The AOPC will work with each judicial district to oversee these Plan provisions. 

rojected Timeframe 

These mechanisms will be implemented within one year after approval of the Plan, prior to 
completion of the first annual evaluation of the Plan.  Evaluating complaints and feedback will 
be an ongoing process. 
 

               

47 

 

 

  P

         

   

 

APPENDIX 

Appendix to Section VI, Early Identification of the Need for Language Services 

The following scenarios illustrate the problems faced by LEP persons trying to do business in the 
courthouse and how the different types of notice proposed in Section VI address these 
problems. 

XAMPLE 1:     
Maritza Santiago is a LEP tenant and single parent of two children. Her Landlord is seeking to 
evict her, alleging that she is behind in her rent. The Landlord has filed an action for possession 
and back rent with a Magisterial District Justice (“MDJ”). Ms. Santiago would like to present her 
side of the story, but knows she is not capable of doing this in English. Her children speak 
English, but she does not want to get them involved by asking them to interpret.  

hen Ms. Santiago receives the notice of the hearing before the MDJ, it includes a Notice of 

Language Rights, explaining in Spanish, and in other languages, that she has the right to an 
interpreter. She is very relieved and immediately calls the 800 number listed on the Notice to 
request a Spanish interpreter. When she arrives at the hearing, the MDJ’s office, because it had 
sufficient advance notice from Ms. Santiago of her need for an interpreter, has arranged to 
have a certified Spanish interpreter present in person. Through the interpreter Ms. Santiago is 
able to understand what the Landlord and the MDJ are saying at the hearing and she is able to 
tell her side of the story.     

 

XAMPLE 2:  
Maria Silva has been harassed and stalked by a man she once dated. She was told by the police 
that she should go the courthouse and apply for a Protection from Abuse order. Ms. Silva’s 
native language is Portuguese and she is not fluent in English.   

s. Silva goes to the courthouse and approaches the information kiosk. Posted next to the 
kiosk is the Notice of Language Rights poster. She gets the attention of the court staff person 
and points to Portuguese on the poster. The court staff person, using a telephone interpreter 
service, gets a Portuguese interpreter on the line. Through the interpreter the court staff 
person explains to Ms. Silva that she should go to Family Court, where they can help her 
complete a Petition for a Protection from Abuse Order. Also next to the kiosk are “I Speak” 
cards. There is one in Portuguese, as this is one of the five most commonly spoken languages in 
the county, and the court staff person hands one to Ms. Silva and explains, through the 
interpreter, that she can show it whenever she needs language assistance. 

s. Silva takes the “I Speak” card and shows it to the PFA coordinator at Family Court. The PFA 

coordinator gets the interpreter service on the phone and, with the help of the interpreter, 
assists Ms. Silva in completing the PFA petition (writing verbatim what Ms. Silva says as 

48 

 

  E

  W

  E

  M

  M

 

interpreted by the interpreter). Through the interpreter, she instructs Ms. Silva how to file the 
petition and how the PFA process works.  

 

XAMPLE 3:  
Jane and John Wong are the parents of Evan Wong, who is in the juvenile justice system. Mr. 
and Mrs. Wong speak only Mandarin. Evan has a lawyer, but the court must be notified that his 
parents, who wish to participate in the proceeding involving their son, will need an interpreter.  
As a result of effective outreach to justice partners, Evan’s lawyer knows that he can either 
submit an interpreter request form himself for Mr. and Mrs. Wong or he can give them the 800 
number on the Notice of Language Rights form and they can request an interpreter on their 
own.  
 

 

EXAMPLE 4:  
Sergei and Natasha Petrov are being sued by a collection agency and have a hearing in 
Magisterial District Court. They speak Russian and are not proficient in English. With the 
hearing notice they received was Notice of Language Rights informing them that they have the 
right to an interpreter. They call the 800 number listed on the Notice of Language Rights and 
hear a series of prompts in several different languages. One is a prompt in Russian that says “If 
you speak Russian, press 3.”  They do so and their call is routed to court staff who, based upon 
the prompt selected, is able to identify Russian as the language spoken by the Petrovs. Court 
staff then contacts the court’s telephone interpreter service and is connected with a Russian 
interpreter for what is now a three-way call.       

ourt staff is able to ask the Petrovs through the interpreter for the docket number and the 
time and date of their hearing. She tells the Petrovs that a Russian interpreter will be at the 
hearing in person to interpret for them. The Petrovs are relieved and grateful that language 
services will be provided to them.   

49 

 

  E

  C