TABLE OF CONTENTS 

he Monitoring And Evaluation Team .................................................................................................................................... 2 

Plan Highlights......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 

Introduction And Purpose ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 

General Principles Of Language Access ................................................................................................................................ 10 

Language Needs In Pennsylvania .......................................................................................................................................... 12 

Recommendations / Requirements ...................................................................................................................................... 15 

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................. 20 

 

   

1 

  T

   

 

ohn E. Savoth, Esq.  

Deputy Court Administrator, 
Special Courts 
Montgomery County 

ariana Stolee  

Certified Spanish Interpreter 
(AOPC)  
Certified Translator (ATA) 
Stolee Services, Inc.  
Bucks County 

erry R. Turtzo  

District Court Administrator 
Lehigh County 

eter Zurflieh, Esq. 

Community Justice Project 
Dauphin County 

  J

  M

  K

  P

Gabriela Raful, Esq.  
Partner 
Galfand Berger, LLP 
Philadelphia County 

Amy DeMatt, Esq.  
District Court Administrator 
Westmoreland County 

onorable Donald M. Hahn  

Magisterial District Judge 
Centre County 

ridget G. Hylak 

Certified Spanish Interpreter 
(AOPC)  
Certified Translator (ATA)  
Come Alive Communications, 
Inc. 
Chester County 

  H

  B

  M

arisa Lehr, Esq. 

Court Access Coordinator 
AOPC 
  
Natalia Petrova 
Interpreter Program 
Administrator 
AOPC 
 

THE MONITORING AND EVALUATION TEAM 

Honorable Joseph C. Adams 
Judge  
Court of Common Pleas 
York County 

EMBERS 

  M

Stephen Baldwin, Jr. 
Court Access Analyst 
Special Assistant to the Court 
Administrator 
AOPC 

essica Bentley-Sassaman 

Certified ASL Interpreter (AOPC)  
Associate Professor 
Bloomsburg University 
Perry County 

ileen Bowers, Esq.  

Deputy District Court 
Administrator 
Beaver County 

onorable Priscilla Campos 

Magisterial District Judge 
Berk County 

ark M. Dalton 

District Court Administrator 
Lancaster County 
 

 

FORMER MEMBERS 

HAIR 

  C

  J

  A

  H

  M

  H

 

Tika Dhungana  
Community Advocate 
Dauphin County 

hase Emanuel 

Court Access Analyst  
AOPC 
 

  C

2 

Osvaldo Avilés 
Interpreter Program Administrator (retired) 
AOPC 

onorable David J. Barton 

Magisterial District Judge 
Allegheny County 

Laurie Sacerdote 
Assistant Director of Research & Statistics  
AOPC 

eth Shapiro, Esq. 

Attorney 
Community Legal Services – Language Access 
Project 
Philadelphia County 

ary Vilter, Esq 

Court Access Coordinator (retired) 
AOPC 

onorable Margherita Patti Worthington  

  B

  M

  H

(former Co-Chair) 
President Judge 
Court of Common Pleas  
Monroe County 

Rebecca Thatcher Murcia 
Certified Spanish Interpreter (AOPC) 
Language Access Coordinator 
Dauphin County  

endra Miknis  

Language Access Coordinator (former) 
Centre County 

enluis Olivo 

Certified Spanish Interpreter (AOPC)  
Language Access Coordinator 
York County 

onorable Michael W. Petrucci 

Magisterial District Court 
Bucks County 
 

 

3 

  K

  K

  H

 

 

PLAN HIGHLIGHTS 

•  The majority of deliverables under the Language Access Plan for the Unified Judicial System (UJS-LAP) 

have been completed, including development and dissemination of “I-Speak” cards, Right to 
Interpreter posters, and a multilingual Notice of 
Language Rights. 

 

•  The MET conducted surveys of the effectiveness of 

the UJS-LAP in 2018, 2019, and 2021.  

•  The membership of the Monitoring & Evaluation 
Team (MET) responsible for implementing and 
evaluating the effectiveness of the UJS-LAP was 
increased in 2020 in order to provide additional 
support and expertise to the translation committee 
in its work of prioritizing court forms for translation. 

•  The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts’ 
(AOPC) Interpreter Certification Program (ICP) 
continues to offer four interpreter orientations 
annually and maintains a robust calendar of written 
and oral testing. 

•  As of September 2022, the ICP roster includes 244 
interpreters reflecting 38 languages of expertise. 

4 

 

 

•  AOPC’s language access team collaborated with AOPC/Communications to create an Outreach Plan 
designed to both inform Limited English Proficient-serving agencies of the availability of language 
services in the UJS and increase the number of qualified interpreter candidates attending ICP 
orientation workshops and becoming rostered interpreters. The team has conducted numerous 
outreach events to university language programs and continues to support initiatives in Berks and 
Philadelphia counties aimed at enlarging the pool of qualified interpreter candidates eligible to join 
AOPC’s roster of certified court interpreters. In addition, a member of the language access team serves 
on the board of the Delaware Valley Translators Association.  

•  AOPC’s coordinator for court access has partnered with local language access coordinators (LACs) in 
several judicial districts to provide continuing legal education programs for their bar associations and 
judges. 

•  The language access program created two brochures for outreach purposes: “Become a Court 

Interpreter,” and “Do you need a court interpreter?” 

•  AOPC has held four annual Language Access Coordinator Summits. AOPC staff and judicial district LACs 

have addressed a variety of topics, including Best Practices for Working with and Scheduling 
Interpreters, Conducting Proceedings Using Remote Platforms, What’s New in LADC (Language Access 
Data Collection), Training Staff & Judges on Language Access, Cultural Competence, and more. 

•  AOPC has continued outreach to LEP-serving agencies, including the Pennsylvania Department of Labor 
and Industry’s Office of Deaf & Hard of Hearing, and the Governor’s Commissions on Latino Affairs and 
Asian Pacific American Affairs, respectively.  

•  AOPC/IT developed an application that allows LACs to schedule interpreters via the Language Access 
Data Collection system, thereby eliminating the need for numerous time-consuming telephone calls 
and emails. 

•  AOPC launched a new Language Access & Interpreter Program page, including an explanation of the 
Notice of Language Rights in English and Spanish and the Language Services brochure in English and 
Spanish with a signed, captioned, and voiced video of the brochure. 

•  AOPC secured a grant from the State Justice Institute (SJI) for the prioritization and translation of court 
forms. Under the grant, and with the hard work of the MET’s translation committee, landlord-tenant, 
expungement, juvenile dependency, juvenile delinquency, language access, and magisterial district 
court forms have been translated and posted to the UJS website. 

 

 

 

5 

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 

 

qual access to the courts is fundamental to the legitimacy of our system of justice and the trust and 
confidence of court users. 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 proceedings1 and court 
services, programs, and activities2 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 Proficient3 ("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 

 

1 "Judicial proceeding" means "[a]n action, appeal or proceeding in any court of this Commonwealth.” See 42 Pa.C.S. § 4402, 
definition of “judicial proceeding.” 
2 “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 the Unified Judicial System’s Language Access Plan (“UJS-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 the UJS-
LAP.  
3 "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. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 4402, definition of “Person with limited English proficiency.” 

6 

 

  E

  T

  I

 

individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing4, in part, by providing American Sign Language interpreters at no 
cost to litigants, witnesses and court spectators.  

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”). 

ach 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 in 2015, have been periodically updated 
since then, and can be found on each judicial district’s website. 
 

 

4 The 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. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 4402, definition of “deaf.” 

 

7 

  T

  E

 

LEGAL BASIS FOR UJS LANGUAGE ACCESS PLAN 

 

he 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. 

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 
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.6 

egulations were also enacted pursuant to Act 1727 and Guidelines for the Procurement and Appointment of 

 

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 the UJS-LAP includes these regulations. 
6 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 4401. 
7 See Administrative Regulations Governing Language Access for Persons with Limited English Proficiency and for Persons Who Are Deaf or Hard of 
8 

 

  T

  I

  R

 

Interpreters were promulgated to provide additional information about working with interpreters in the 
courts.8  
 

In 2022, the Supreme Court approved revisions to the Administrative Regulations Governing 

Language Access for Persons with Limited English Proficiency and for Persons Who Are Deaf or Hard of 
Hearing and promulgated Rules 260-263 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration to codify 
certain principles set forth in the Unified Judicial System’s Language Access Plan (UJS-LAP). 
 

 

Hearing, 204 Pa. Code ch. 221 § 101, et seq. (2022). 
 

 

 

9 

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 through its UJS-LAP 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. 

•  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. 

• 

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 the 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. 

•  The courts should neither expect nor allow individuals who are LEP, deaf, or hard of 
hearing to use informal interpreters, such as family members, opposing parties, or their 
counsel. 

10 

 

    I

 

•  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  as  described  in  the  Language 
Access regulations. 

•  Courts  may  use  bilingual  staff  to  provide  in-person  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 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 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 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. 

•  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 172.9 

•  Sign language interpreters must be appointed whenever requested, by either a party or 

non-party to a case. 

 

 

 

 

9 “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 Garcia, 984 A.2d 506, 511 (Pa. Super. 2009), citing, inter alia, 42 Pa.C.S. § 4412 (regarding Appointment of 
Interpreter). See also Commonwealth v. Knox, 142 A.3d 863, 868-69 (Pa. Super. 2016). 

11 

LANGUAGE NEEDS IN PENNSYLVANIA 

ennsylvania ranks 10th in the nation in terms of our population of limited-English proficient (LEP) residents.10 
Statewide, 11%, or 1,380,101 of Pennsylvania’s approximately 12.1 million residents who are 5 years and older 
are LEP.11 These individuals speak more than 100 languages  and reside throughout the Commonwealth. The 
most commonly spoken languages vary both within and among counties, and influxes of new immigrants often 
result in emerging new languages throughout the state. 

he languages for which interpreters were most frequently requested in Pennsylvania's 60 judicial districts in 
calendar year 2021 are listed below.12  

 

 

 

1.  Spanish 
2.  Nepali  
3.  American Sign Language  
4.  Russian 
5.  Chinese (Mandarin & Cantonese) 

 

 

 

6.  Arabic (Modern Standard & Egyptian Colloquial) 
7.  Vietnamese 
8.  Portuguese 
9.  Haitian Creole 
10. French 

 

10 Limited English proficient (LEP) for these purposes refers to individuals who speak English less than very well. See infra footnote 11. 
11 Prepared by AOPC Research and Statistics based upon "Percent of Specified Language Speakers who Speak English less than very well”, Source: 
U.S. Census Bureau; 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Report #S1601 – 2018: ACS 1-year estimates, available at 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=languages%20spoken%20at%20home&g=0400000US42%240500000&tid=ACSST1Y2019.S1601  
12 As reflected in the Language Access Data Collection System (LADC), AOPC’s application into which judicial districts input their interpreter 
encounters. 

12 

 

  P

  T

 

 

Top 10 Foreign Languages Spoken in Pennsylvania13 
(2019 – most recent data available) 
 

The following reflects the top 10 languages spoken, other than English, in the Commonwealth in general, as 
opposed to solely in the courts:  

# of          
People 

% of 
Population 

634,935 

5.2% 

73,540 

0.6% 

41,849 

0.3% 

38,716 

0.3% 

38,055 

0.3% 

35,769 

0.3% 

31,807 

0.3% 

28,190 

0.2% 

28,105 

0.2% 

*Includes Yiddish, Pennsylvania Dutch, and other Germanic languages. 

French (including Cajun) 

Language 

Spanish 

Arabic 

German 

Russian 

Italian 

Korean 

Vietnamese 

   

                                     

Chinese (Mandarin, Cantonese, or other dialects) 

90,890 

0.8% 

Other West Germanic Languages* 

 

 

 

 

  Found at 

13
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=languages%20spoken%20at%20home%20by%20state&g=0400000US42&tid=ACSST5Y2019.S1601,  Report 
#S1601 - 5 year estimates 2013-2019. 

13 

25% 

23% 

19% 

17% 

16% 

14% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

12% 

12% 

12% 

12% 

12% 

12% 

11% 

18% 

11% 

15% 

7% 

9% 

4% 

8% 

9% 

5% 

3% 

3% 

9% 

5% 

2% 

6% 

4% 

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 

   

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; 2014-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates14 

Lehigh 

343,511 

259,088 

75% 

60,223 

24,200 

7% 

84,423 

Percent of Non-English-Speaking Persons by County 

Philadelphia 

1,472,512  1,130,790 

77% 

155,101 

186,621 

13% 

341,722 

Berks 

393,824 

318,999 

81% 

60,481 

14,344 

4% 

74,825 

Lancaster 

505,520 

419,510 

83% 

35,397 

50,613 

10% 

106,491 

Monroe 

160,466 

135,296 

84% 

14,430 

10,740 

7% 

25,170 

Montgomery 

778,260 

671,769 

86% 

27,683 

78,808 

10% 

106,491 

Delaware 

530,820 

465,464 

99% 

14,094 

51,262 

10% 

65,356 

Northampton 

288,098 

249,849 

87% 

22,884 

Lebanon 

131,315 

113,973 

87% 

12,158 

Chester 

490,568 

428,688 

87% 

26,538 

Bucks 

596,512 

525,068 

88% 

20,212 

Luzerne 

301,350 

264,887 

88% 

27,423 

Dauphin 

258,429 

227,550 

88% 

14,150 

Pike 

53,559 

47,353 

88% 

3,111 

Union 

43,026 

38,444 

89% 

1,781 

15,365 

5,184 

35,342 

53,612 

9,040 

16,729 

3,095 

2,801 

5% 

4% 

7% 

9% 

3% 

6% 

6% 

7% 

38,249 

17,342 

61,880 

73,824 

36,463 

30,879 

6,206 

4,582 

Centre 

155,581 

136,719 

88% 

3,178 

15,684 

10% 

18,862 

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.15 This percentage is based on the national deaf 
and  hard  of  hearing  population  figures.  Accordingly,  assuming  a  total  population  in  the  Commonwealth  of 
12,787,209 and applying the 8.6% assumption yields a deaf or hard of hearing figure of 1.1 million people.16 
Other  sources  give  varying  figures  on  the  extent  of  the  deaf  and  hard  of  hearing  population  in  the 
Commonwealth. 

 

14 Id. 
15 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 https://www.dli.pa.gov/Individuals/Disability-Services/odhh/odhh-
resources/Documents/PA%20Demographics%20How%20Many%20Pennsylvanians%20are%20Deaf%20or%20Hard%20of%20Hearing.pdf. Last 
accessed August 16, 2022.  
16 Id. 

14 

  T

   

 

 
RECOMMENDATIONS / REQUIREMENTS 

 

Note:  The  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Team  and  AOPC 
collaborated in 2019 to issue a Bilingual Employee Policy 
to the judicial districts. The policy requires that new and 
existing employees who use their language skills to assist 
LEP  court  users  be  tested to  assess  their  proficiency in 
their  language  of  expertise.  In  addition,  bilingual  staff 
and their supervisors must watch a short training video. 

The  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Team  should 
develop  policies  and  best  practices  related  to 
document translation and identify vital documents 
that  should  be  translated  upon  availability  of 
funding. (UJS-LAP at 14-17.) 

 

 
Note: While the implementation of this recommendation 
has been accomplished, work is ongoing. With assistance 
and  support  from  the  National  Center  for  State  Courts 
and  the  State  Justice 
Institute,  AOPC  created  a 
Translation Policy & Procedures Manual for the UJS and 
distributed it to the judicial districts in 2019. Under an SJI 
grant  awarded  to  AOPC  in  2021,  49  court  forms  were 
the  UJS  website, 
translated 

and  posted  on 

ECOMMENDATION 3.  

  R

RECOMMENDATION 1.  
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. (UJS-
LAP at 10.) 

 
Note:  Language  Access  Training  will  continue  to  be  a 
priority for the UJS.  

ECOMMENDATION 2.  

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. (UJS-LAP at 13-14.) 

 

 

 

15 

 

  R

 

www.pacourts.us.  In  total,  over  70  forms  have  been 
translated.  

court services and activities under the authority of 
the court.  (UJS-LAP 21-25.) 

 

 

 

of 

the 

implementation 

this 
Note:  While 
is 
recommendation  has  been  accomplished,  work 
ongoing.  Through  the  counties,  the  judicial  districts 
contract  with  vendors  who  provide  several  court-
ordered  services,  such  as  DUI  and  anger  management 
classes,  psychological  evaluations,  etc.  The  AOPC 
template for judicial district language access plans calls 
for the districts to work with their vendors to ensure that 
vendor  contracts  for  these  court-ordered  services 
include  provisions  requiring  compliance  with  all  state 
and federal laws. 

Develop and distribute a Notice of Language Rights 
(NLR)  in  English  and  the  five  most  commonly 
spoken languages in each judicial district. The NLR 
would accompany hearing notices and subpoenas. 
In addition, develop and distribute “I Speak” cards 
in  the  five  most  commonly  spoken  languages  in 
each judicial district. (UJS-LAP 25-29.) 

ECOMMENDATION 8.  

  R

 
Note:  The  Notice  of Language  Rights  and I Speak  cards 
were  created  and  disseminated  in  2018.  A  brochure, 
titled  “Do You Need a Court Interpreter,”  was  created, 
distributed, and translated into Spanish to better assist 
LEP  court  users.  A  signed,  voiced,  and  captioned  video 
version of the brochure is also posted to the UJS website, 
www.pacourts.us.  

Develop  a  system  for  receiving  and  processing 
requests  for  language  services  (i.e.,  a  statewide 
automated  multilingual  phone  system  to  request 
an interpreter, a state-wide web-based system or 
application  to  request  an  interpreter,  the  use  of 

ECOMMENDATION 9.  

  R

Program administrator actively participated. The group 
created a VRI resource page on the NCSC website. 

16 

ECOMMENDATION 4.  

Court buildings should develop signage that allow 
all persons needing access to the courts the ability 
to  locate  areas  of  service  or  information  both  in-
person and online. (UJS-LAP 18-19.) 

 

 

 

 
Note: While the implementation of this recommendation 
has been accomplished, work is ongoing. As noted in the 
UJS-LAP, many courthouses are owned and their signage 
controlled  by  the  counties  rather  than  the  courts 
themselves, however AOPC continues to review signage 
for the districts as requested. 

ECOMMENDATION 5.  

All  judicial  districts  are  required  to  secure  the 
services of telephone interpreting providers. (UJS-
LAP at 20.) 

 

RECOMMENDATION 6.  
AOPC will investigate at least two options for the 
provision  of  Video  Remote 
Interpreting:  (1) 
participation 
in  the  pilot  VRI  project  being 
implemented  by  the  National  Center  for  State 
Courts (NCSC);17 and (2) creating its own VRI pilot 
project. (UJS-LAP 20-21.) 

 
Note: While the implementation of this recommendation 
has been accomplished, work is ongoing. AOPC is actively 
researching  options 
remote 
interpreting, contingent upon availability of funding. 

for  providing  video 

ECOMMENDATION 7.  

Judicial districts must ensure that persons who are 
LEP are afforded meaningful language access to all 

 

17 The NCSC VRI pilot project contemplated at the time the 
UJS-LAP was drafted was ultimately abandoned. NCSC later 
developed a VRI study group in which AOPC’s Interpreter 

  R

  R

  R

 

text messaging as an option to communicate their 
need for language services). (UJS-LAP 29-30.) 

and  increase  outreach  to  potential  interpreter 
candidates. (UJS-LAP 33-35.) 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 13.  
Any translation work that is performed should be 
done by someone who is certified by the American 
Translators Association. (UJS-LAP 35.) 

ECOMMENDATION 14.  

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. (UJS-LAP 36-38.) 

ECOMMENDATION 15.  

training 

All  judicial  officers  should  receive  initial  training 
and  refresher  training  periodically  thereafter  on 
should  be 
language  access.  The 
standardized  statewide  but  adapted  to  address 
local procedures. Training should include the legal 
basis 
language  access 
recourses;  ethical  obligations;  best  practices  for 
conducting  a  proceeding  with  an  interpreter,  etc. 
for judges. (UJS-LAP 37-39.) 

language  access; 

for 

 
Note:  Language  Access  Training  will  continue  to  be  a 
priority for the UJS.  

ECOMMENDATION 16.  

To  ensure  continuity  of  knowledge  and  process 
across  the  Commonwealth,  training  for  judicial 
district Language Access Coordinators should be on 
a wide array of topics including the responsibilities 
of  the  Language  Access  Coordinator  to  manage 
protocols,  resources,  and  training  for  the  judicial 
translation  of 
districts,  best  practices 

for 

  R

  R

  R

17 

The implementation of this 
recommendation is ongoing. 

ote:  While  the  AOPC  does  not  believe  an  automated 
multilingual  phone  system  is  feasible  at  this  time,  it  is 
exploring a mechanism that would allow LEP court users 
to request an interpreter online. 

ECOMMENDATION 10.  

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 
who are deaf or hard of hearing, including parties, 
witnesses,  or  other  persons  with  a  significant 
interest,  at  the  earliest  possible  point  of  contact 
with the LEP person or person who is deaf or hard 
of hearing. (UJS-LAP 30-31.) 

 

 

ECOMMENDATION 11.  

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 
"interpreter  needed" 
designation  in  their  case  management  systems 
within  a  year  of  the  approval  of  this  Language 
Access  Plan.  AOPC  IT  will  provide  a  similar 
designation  on  statewide  case  management 
platforms such as CPCMS and MDJS. (UJS-LAP 31-
33.) 

an 

 

RECOMMENDATION 12.  
Interpreter  Certification  Program  should 
The 
continue  to  certify 
interpreters  to  serve  the 
Pennsylvania  courts  and  administrative  hearings 

  N

  R

  R

 

documents,  and  the  process  for  receiving  and 
processing  language  access  complaints.  (UJS-LAP 
39.) 

could supplement what is provided by the AOPC at 
the ICP. (UJS-LAP 42.) 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 20.  
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  CART 
services). (UJS-LAP 43.) 

 
Note: While the implementation of this recommendation 
has  been  accomplished,  work 
is  ongoing.  AOPC’s 
language  access  team  participated  in  several  outreach 
events  with  university  foreign 
language  programs, 
bar/judicial district partnerships, and job fairs, all aimed 
at  increasing  the  pool  of  qualified  interpreters.  In 
addition,  AOPC/Communications  drafted  an  outreach 
plan  which  the  team  has  been  implementing  in  recent 
years, involving outreach to agencies that serve limited 
English proficient and deaf or hard of hearing community 
members. AOPC also did a survey of the effectiveness of 
the UJS-LAP in Spring 2021. The survey was distributed 
to  bar  association  groups  and  LEP  and  deaf  or  hard  of 
hearing-serving agencies. 

 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. (UJS-LAP 43.) 

ECOMMENDATION 21.  

  R

 
Note: While the implementation of this recommendation 
has been accomplished, we continue to do outreach to 
various community organizations.  

     

18 

 

 

 

 
Note:  AOPC has created a protected view  page  so  that 
LACs can access a library of language access resources, 
including previously recorded LAC Summits, in order to 
better  assist  them  in  their  duties.  Language  Access 
Training will continue to be a priority for the UJS.  

ECOMMENDATION 17.  

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.  
(UJS-LAP 40-41.) 

 
Note:  Language  Access  Training  will  continue  to  be  a 
priority for the UJS.  

ECOMMENDATION 18.  

Training  for  attorneys  should  include  the  same 
training  identified  for  judges  (See  #15).  Lawyers 
should  receive  training  about  funds  available  to 
reimburse for sign language and CART interpreters 
to  communicate  with  clients  and  local  judicial 
district language access practices and procedures. 
(UJS-LAP 41-42.) 

 
Note:  Language  Access  Training  will  continue  to  be  a 
priority for the UJS.  

ECOMMENDATION 19.  

Interpreters  should  have  an  orientation-type 
training  on  local  judicial  district  court  processes 
and procedures that includes a handbook on local 
practices;  information  regarding  common  forms 
and procedures used within the courthouse and in 
court  cases;  and  any  additional  information  that 

  R

  R

  R

 

RECOMMENDATION 25.  
A  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Team  (MET)  will  be 
created to review and evaluate implementation of 
the UJS Language Access Plan as well as the judicial 
district  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. (UJS-LAP 45.) 

 

 

ECOMMENDATION 26.  

collect,  maintain,  and 

AOPC  will 
review 
data/statistics relating to the number, nature, and 
disposition of complaints under the UJS-LAP twice 
a  year.  Judicial  districts  will  gather  feedback  on 
provision of language services and are encouraged 
to  share  feedback  with  AOPC.  The  AOPC  will 
develop  a  mechanism  to  facilitate  the  sharing  of 
information  with  the  MET  and  among  judicial 
districts. (UJS-LAP 46-47.) 

  R

 

 
Note: AOPC shares any complaints received with the MET 
to  determine  whether  any  adjustments  to  training  or 
outreach is required.  
 

 

19 

RECOMMENDATION 22.  
Language Access Coordinators at the local judicial 
district level should contact agencies and provide 
information on how to access services and how to 
effectively  utilize  the  language  services  provided. 
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. (UJS-LAP 43.) 

 
Note: While the implementation of this recommendation 
has been accomplished, work is ongoing.  

ECOMMENDATION 23.  

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 
interpreters,  and  how 
effectively. (UJS-LAP 44.) 

to  use 

 
Note: While the implementation of this recommendation 
has been accomplished, work is ongoing.  

ECOMMENDATION 24.  

The  AOPC  and  individual  judicial  districts  should 
develop  and  implement  a  plan  to  recruit  more 
professional  interpreters  to  work  in  the  courts. 
(UJS-LAP 44.) 

 

 

 

ote: While the implementation of this recommendation 

has been accomplished, work is ongoing.  

  R

  R

  N

     

 

CONCLUSION 

he Monitoring and Evaluation Team (MET) is proud of the progress that has been made over the last five years. 
With the help of the members of the MET and the staff at AOPC, we have been able to accomplish the vast 
majority  of  the deliverables  in the  UJS-LAP.  Going  forward  we  will  continue to  monitor the  language  access 
landscape within the Pennsylvania courts and provide guidance to the judicial districts when needed.  

Thank  you  again  to  all  of  those  who  have  served  on  the  MET  since  its  inception  in  2017  and  to  those  who 
volunteered their time to develop the UJS-LAP over the last 10 years. A special thank you to all the AOPC staff 
who  supported  our work  throughout  the  implementation  of this  plan: Carla  Antonucci,  Darren Breslin,  Esq., 
Matt Creelman, Abbie Hitz, Janine Haughton, Geri St. Joseph, Esq., and Kaitlyn Richards. Your work has helped 
countless LEP individuals gain better access to Pennsylvania’s courts. 

- 

Judge Joseph C. Adams (Chair)  

20 

 

  T