VR Needs Assessment and Implications

1. VR Needs Assessment and Implications June 6, 2011

2. Presenter Dennis Cokely National Interpreter Education Center

3. Grants Information The National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers (NCIEC) is authorized and funded through a five year grant by the U.S. Department of Education, RSA CFDA #84.160A and B, Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind NCIEC is comprised of a National Interpreter Education Center and five Regional Interpreter Education Centers

4. NCIEC Needs Assessments Last grant cycle (2005 — 2010), several assessments were conducted to identify the needs of: • Interpreter practitioners • Interpreter education programs • Interpreter educators and students • Interpreter referral agencies • Consumers, including VR consumers • State VR agencies

5. Overview of the VR Needs Assessment Activities In-depth interviews conducted with over 20 VR stakeholders, including: Department of Education professionals, State VR agency leadership and staff, SCDs, RCDs, interpreters that work in VR, and VR consumers Information gathered through the interviews was used to design an electronic survey for dissemination to SCDs nationwide (June - July 2009) 34 completed surveys collected and analyzed VR Needs Assessment Final Report published (October 2009) Highlights of Final Report shared with OSERS/RSA and CSAVR

6. VR Needs Assessment Final Report: Review of Highlights and Key Findings For a copy of the full report, please go to: http://www.nciec.org/projects/na.html

7. Respondent Agency Characteristics • Surveys were completed by SCDs representing 34 State VR agencies • 23 respondents work for General and/or Combined State VR agencies; 11 respondents work for State VR agencies serving the Blind • 18 respondents reported their State VR agency was under an Order of Selection; 16 respondents reported their agency was not under an Order of Selection Data derived from VR Needs Assessment Final Report (VR Final Report) Tables 1-2

8. Consumer Characteristic Information • Survey designed to capture a number of data elements related to deaf, hoh, deaf-blind and late-deafened consumer sub-groups served by respondent agencies • Many respondents unable to provide approximate percentages related to numbers of consumers served in each of these sub-groups • Analysis of percentages reported indicate higher numbers of deaf, hoh and late-deafened VR consumers than might be expected, particularly deaf or hard of hearing (hoh) consumers identified as low-functioning Data derived from VR Final Report Tables 4-7a

9. Utilization of Full-time Vs. Part-time Interpreters • 3% of respondents reported their State VR agency utilizes ONLY full-time staff interpreters • 72% of respondents reported their State VR agency utilizes ONLY part-time contract interpreters • 25% of respondents reported their State VR agency utilizes BOTH full-time and part-time interpreters Data derived from VR Final Report Table 15

10. Interpreter Availability • 44% of respondents reported their State VR agency is unable to fill full-time staff interpreter positions • 39% of respondents reported their State VR agency is unable to find sufficient part-time contract interpreters • Overall, 82% of survey respondents reported interpreters have become less available to their State VR agency in the past five years Derived from VR Final Report Tables 22-24

11. Factors Affecting Availability • 70% of respondents believe an ‘increase in interpreters working for VRS centers’ has affected interpreter availability • 62% of respondents identified an overall ‘shortage of interpreters in their State’ as a perceived factor • 53% of respondents identified the ‘unpredictability related to VR consumer needs for interpreter services’ as a factor • 21% of respondents reported their State VR agency is ‘unable to offer competitive compensation’ as a factor Data derived from VR Final Report Table25

12. Interpreter Qualification Requirements • 51% of respondents reported their State does not require interpreter licensure • 12% of respondents reported their State VR agency does not require either local credentials or national certification; another 6% reported their State VR agency only requires local credentials • 56% of respondents reported their State VR agency has no minimum educational requirement for interpreters • Only 4% of respondents reported their State VR agency requires a BA/BS degree or higher of its interpreters Data derived from VR Final Report Tables 26, 27 and 30

13. Full-time Staff Interpreter Pay Only 28% of survey respondents reported their State VR agency utilizes full-time staff interpreters. Of just those respondents: • 45% reported their State VR agency offer an annual starting salary of $21-30K ($10-14.50 per hour plus benefits) • 27% reported an annual starting salary of $31-40K ($15-19 per hour plus benefits) • 18% reported an annual starting salary of $41-50K ($20-24 per hour plus benefits) Data derived from VR Final Report Table 31

14. Part-time Interpreter Pay 97% of survey respondents reported their State VR agency utilizes part-time contract interpreters. Of those respondents: • 31% reported their State VR agency offers its part-time interpreters a starting wage of $31-40 per hour • 21% reported a starting wage of $41-50 per hour • 15% reported a starting wage of $51-60 per hour Data derived from VR Final Report Table 32

15. Need for Interpreter Services by VR Consumer Sub-group Three sets of data were collected regarding the interpreting needs of VR consumer sub-groups: • The first ranks consumer need for interpreting services by consumer sub-group • The second ranks the extent to which the State VR agency has been able to provide an interpreter in response to each sub-group’s need • The third ranks the extent to which the interpreter service was provided by a qualified (credentialed at the state or national level) interpreter

16. Need for Interpreting Services Ranks consumer sub-groups based on survey responses regarding level of need (both met and unmet) for interpreter services: • Deaf consumers • Deaf/hoh consumers in rural locations • Low functioning deaf/hoh consumers • Deaf/hoh consumers with no work history • Deaf-blind consumers • Deaf/hoh consumers with limited English • Transition age deaf/hoh consumers • Racial/ethnic minority deaf/hoh consumers • Deaf/hoh consumers using assistive technology • Deaf/hoh consumers w/cochlear implants • Hoh consumers • Deaf/hoh returning veterans Data derived from VR Final Report Table 9

17. Extent of Need by Consumer Sub-group: Deaf consumers Deaf/hoh consumers in rural locations Low-functioning deaf/hoh consumers Deaf/hoh consumers with little or no work history Deaf-blind consumers Deaf/hoh consumers with limited English Most Commonly Served by Deaf Interpreters: Monolingual Deaf ASL user with limited English proficiency Individuals who are Deaf-Blind Deaf consumers who have little or no language Comparison of VR & DI Data

18. Need for Interpreting Service in Specific VR Sub-settings Three sets of data were collected regarding interpreting needs in specific VR sub-settings: • The first ranks the extent of need (both unmet and met) for interpreter services across an array of VR sub-settings • The second ranks the extent to which State VR agencies have been able to provide interpreting services in specific VR sub-settings

19. Need for Services by VR Sub-setting Ranking of the extent of need (both unmet and met) for interpreter services in specific VR settings: • Postsecondary/vocational settings • Medical settings • Employment placement settings • Legal settings • Mental health settings • Employment preparation settings • Career assessment • Intake and eligibility determination • Independent living settings • K-12 transition-related settings Data derived from VR Final Report Table 12

20. Extent Interpreter Service Provided in Specific VR Sub-settings Ranking of the extent State VR agencies have been able to provide interpreter services in specific VR settings: • Career assessment • Employment placement settings • Intake and eligibility determination • Employment preparation settings • Postsecondary/vocational settings • Medical settings • Mental health settings • K-12 transition-related settings • Independent living settings • Legal settings Data derived from VR Final Report Table 13

21. Respondent Interesting in Mentoring 73% of the respondent agencies that employ full-time staff interpreters reported their State VR agency would be interested in providing mentoring opportunities for their full-time staff interpreters Only 27% of those agencies currently offer mentoring for their full-time interpreters 42% of respondents reported their State VR agency would be interested in providing mentoring opportunities for their part-time interpreters 70% of respondents that utilize part-time contract interpreters reported their State VR agency does not offer mentoring opportunities for those interpreters

22. Data Related to VR Collected from the NCIEC Phase II Practitioner Survey • The second Practitioner Survey collected information from more than 2,900 interpreter practitioners (analysis of data in process) • In that survey, interpreter practitioners were asked to assign a percentage range that would most accurately reflect the amount of time they interpret in VR settings • 59% of the Phase II practitioner respondents reported they spend “0” time interpreting in VR settings; another 30% reported they spend between “1-10%” of their time interpreting in VR settings • Of that 89% of respondents, 46% reported the reason they don’t work in VR is that they are “rarely asked”

23. Data Related to VR Collected from the NCIEC Phase II Practitioner Survey • The second Practitioner survey respondents were asked whether the consumers they work with are consumers of VR services; 58% of respondents reported they “do not know” • Respondents were also asked to select one setting they would most like to specialize in; only 1% of respondents selected VR • Another question in the same survey asked respondents to rate which type of training would be most effective in preparing them to work in VR; the highest percentage of respondents selected mentoring

24. Comparison Between VR Survey and Phase II Practitioner Pay Data VR respondents: • 6% reported their State VR agency offers part-time interpreters a starting wage of $21-30 per hour • 31% reported a starting wage of $31-40 per hour • 21% reported a starting wage of $41-50 per hour • 15% reported a starting wage of $51-60 per hour Practitioner respondents: • 20% practitioner survey respondents reported being paid $21-30 per hour • 34% reported being paid $31-40 per hour • 26% reported being paid $41-50 per hour • 10% reported being paid $51-60 per hour

25. 2010 – 2015 Cycle • Preparing Interpreters Initiative • Identify competencies associated with interpreting in VR settings • Develop a series of training modules to prepare interpreters • NIEC Outcomes Circle Initiative • VR instruction/information module • Curriculum infusion • Trilingual Interpreters Initiative • Identification of competencies • Develop training modules

26. 2010 – 2015 Cycle • Deaf Interpreter Initiative • Enhance existing training effort (RDI) • Develop training modules • Interpreting in Healthcare Settings Initiative • Robust resource website • Professional Development opportunities • Needs Assessment Initiative • Same population sets as in the 2000 – 2005 cycle • Shorter, targeted

27. Topics for discussion… • Expanding the current pool • 46% “rarely asked” • New Needs Assessments • current PT and FT VR interpreters • information needed? • Local strategies • identifying interpreters • maintaining a pool • Other Topics? Questions? Concerns?

28. Dennis Cokely, PhD,  is a Professor of American Sign Language at Northeastern University. He is currently the Director of the ASL Program and the Chair of the Department of Languages, Literature and Cultures. He also serves as Director of the World Languages Center. Dr. Cokely is internationally known as a consultant and lecturer. For 15 years he worked in various positions at Gallaudet University (as a teacher of elementary and high school students, an administrator, an Assistant Professor in the Graduate School, and as a Research Associate in the Linguistics Research Lab where he worked with William Stokoe). From 1983 through 1987 he served as the president of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) and was instrumental in revising the RID's certification and testing program and overseeing RID’s by-Laws reform. Dennis is co-PI on the National Interpreter Education Center grant

29. For more information contact: The National Interpreter Education Center http://www.northeastern.edu/niec/