serving clients with limited english - mass legal services · serving clients with limited english...

276 Clearinghouse REVIEW Journal of Poverty Law and Policy ■ September–October 2004

Serving Clients with Limited EnglishProficiency: Resources and Responses

By Patricia Hanrahan

In the summer of 2003 the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) convened a group ofindividuals from the national legal services community. Each had experience withclients of limited English proficiency in a legal services environment. For six

months, the group met regularly via conference calls to discuss approaches to reach-ing and representing people who spoke English not at all or with only limited ability.The goal was to gather in one place ideas and approaches that LSC grantees might finduseful. The results are contained in a draft program letter that is currently posted onthe Legal Resource Initiative page of LSC’s website, www.lri.lsc.gov, while the letterundergoes further refinement before being sent to LSC-funded programs.1 The draftnotes that “[i]f a program has undertaken all the activities described below, the pro-gram is most likely providing equal avenues of access to justice for eligible [limited-English-proficient] residents in its service area.” In this article I report on the con-versations and resources that emerged from the group’s discussions.2

The steady influx of immigrants into the United States over the past few decades hasbeen one of the most significant influences on the operation of poverty law programsin recent times. Perhaps no organization has been untouched by the profoundchanges in client communities that new non-English-speaking immigrants havebrought.

More than 31 million people in our country are foreign born, in addition to the 3.5million Puerto Ricans who live in the United States. Almost 47 million people in ournation speak a language other than English at home, and of these almost half (over 21million) speak English “less than very well.”3 Many are U.S. citizens or legal resi-dents; many are quite poor; often they are children. Current demographic patternsindicate that immigrants are settling in parts of the United States where traditional-ly they did not locate. For example, almost 129,000 Asians and Pacific Islanders nowlive in Nevada; the foreign-born population of Oklahoma rose from 65,489 to131,747; and the number of foreign-born people in Utah almost tripled in the decadebetween the 1990 and 2000 census.4

Patricia HanrahanSenior Communications Specialist

Office of Governmental Relations andPublic AffairsLegal Services Corporation3333 K St. NW, Washington, DC 20007 202.295.1632 [email protected]

1The draft program letter is at www.lri.lsc.gov/pdf/other/011204_drftlepprogltr.pdf.

2In addition to the author, group members from programs funded by the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) were NealDudovitz and Kate Meiss of Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, Lillian Moy of Legal Aid Society ofNortheastern New York, and Irene Morales of Inland Counties Legal Services. Participants from non-LSC-funded programswere Larry Lavin and Doreena Wong of the National Health Law Program, Keith Talbot of Legal Services of New Jersey,and Paul M. Uyehara of Community Legal Services of Philadelphia. Christine Stoneman, limited-English-proficiency coor-dinator at the U.S. Department of Justice, and Linda Perle of the Center for Law and Social Policy also contributed.

3U.S. Census Reports, Language Use and Speaking Ability: 2000 1-5, available at www.uscensus.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf.

4Migration Policy Institute, Migration Information Source, State Data on Foreign Born, at www.migrationinformation.org/usfo-cus/ranktable.1.html; ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER, EXPANDING LEGAL SERVICES: SERVING LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT ASIANS AND

PACIFIC ISLANDERS 11–12 (2003), available at www.apalc.org and www.lri.lsc.gov/abstracts/abstract.asp?level1=Diversity&level2=LEP&abstractid=040002&ImageId=2.

277Clearinghouse REVIEW Journal of Poverty Law and Policy ■ September–October 2004

Serving Clients with Limited English Proficiency

5The National Health Law Program has proposed one useful approach; see NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM, ENSURING

LINGUISTIC ACCESS IN HEALTH CARE SETTINGS: LEGAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1.3–1.4 (2d ed. 2003). See also 67 Fed. Reg. 4969(Feb. 1 2002) (“The National Health Law Program views the 21 million people who speak English less than ‘very well’ asLEP persons in the health care context. This is because medical terminology is difficult to understand, so the level ofEnglish comprehension needs to be high. This view of limited English proficiency finds support from the United StatesDepartment of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which defines LEP persons as those who ‘cannotspeak, read, write or understand the English language at a level that permits them to interact effectively with health careproviders and social service agencies.’”).

6The efforts of one program, Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, to make its services more available to limited-English-proficient clients are recounted in Paul M. Uyehara, Opening Our Doors to Language-Minority Clients, 36CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW 544 (March–April 2003).

Communication is central to legal repre-sentation. How can advocates increasethe flow of meaningful informationbetween their programs and impover-ished non-English-speaking communi-ties? How do we bridge the cultural gapthat is often a greater barrier to access tojustice than language? In organizationsthat operate on a shoestring, the cost ofacquiring necessary language and staffresources can be prohibitive. For thisreason, programs will want to collaborateon service strategies with communitypartners, use local and low-costresources developed by other groups oravailable over the Internet, and plan toimplement a response over time. Thisarticle and related postings on the LSCLegal Resource Initiative website mayalso be helpful to advocates who repre-sent clients for whom English is not aprimary language.

Responses Determined by Language Needs

Advocates should assess the languageneeds of the limited-English-proficien-cy poverty population groups in theircommunities—people who do not speakEnglish proficiently and are eligible orlikely to become eligible for a program’sservices.5

A client who has limited English profi-ciency is one who does not speak Englishat all or who speaks English less well thanthe client’s “primary language” andtherefore elects to speak or have docu-ments translated into that language orboth. Using the language preferred by theclient for a particular purpose is essen-tial. Clients may wish to communicateorally in one language and have docu-ments translated into another. For exam-ple, a client may want to speak Spanish

with her advocate but prefer that corre-spondence be in English. Such a clientmay be illiterate in both languages buthave bilingual family members whospeak both English and Spanish fluentlybut have been educated in the UnitedStates and read English but not Spanish.

A would-be client seeking representa-tion or advice should be assessed forEnglish proficiency; the assessmentshould not be influenced by the Englishlanguage proficiency of a friend or familymember who accompanies the client,unless the client is a minor child or anincapacitated adult. In that case commu-nication is with those who decide for thechild or incapacitated adult.

Finding the Limited-English-Proficient Community

Since census data on limited-English-proficient population groups are inexactat best, consider seeking informationfrom state and local government entities,including planning agencies, depart-ments of health, education and socialservices, universities, hospitals, immi-gration and refugee advocacy organiza-tions, and public schools. Several ques-tions will likely guide your quest todetermine the size and needs of yourlimited-English-proficient community.How many limited-English-proficientpersons are likely to be encountered byyour program? How frequently do theycome in contact with your organization?What kind of legal services do you pro-vide? What resources are available to you,and what is the cost of obtaining them?6

Consider how often in the past membersof the limited-English-proficient com-munity asked for help, what services theyneeded, and in what languages you werecalled upon to respond. For programs



with culturally competent staff andrecords of clients’ primary languages,this may be a relatively straightforwardinternal survey. Other organizations mayhave to rely on more anecdotal informa-tion from staff.

Look at the degree to which your office’sservices have been or are inaccessible topeople with limited English proficiency.While those with whom you have had themost contact may desperately need yourprogram’s services, other groups may beequally needy but smaller or more isolated.

Critical Legal Needs

Civil legal aid programs protect vulnera-ble people from violence, homelessness,illegal discrimination, and denial of crit-ical benefits. For some, legal servicestruly can be the difference between lifeand death. Advocates should weigh theextent to which limited-English-profi-cient individuals and families do withoutdesperately needed legal assistance whenit is not available in their primary lan-guage and alert clients to the availabilityof legal services while educating theclients on legal rights and responsibili-ties. What is the place of outreach andclient education in your organization’sservice agenda? If you provide theseservices for English-speaking clients,they should be available also to those whodo not speak English.

Resource Examination

Review policies, practices, and languagebarriers that could interfere with clientaccess to your program:

■ Are bilingual advocates available, or arearrangements in place for trainedinterpreters and translators for lan-guages that you are likely to encounter?

■ How does your organization identify aclient’s primary language and providelanguage services for that client?

■ Are staff members aware of, and dothey actually follow, these policies andpractices?

Institute a way to determine at the initialencounter whether a client has limitedproficiency in English, and if so includethat fact in all of the client’s records sothat the client’s language can be accom-modated throughout the client’s contactwith the program. To help clients identi-fy their language abilities, you may wantto use the “I speak cards,” available atwww.lep.gov.7 Posting multilingualannouncements on the availability of freeinterpreters, even in languages that youdo not think are spoken in the servicearea, will help determine limited-English-proficiency needs.8 Sinceclients may be illiterate in both their pri-mary language and English, staff shouldmake oral inquiries. Programs that use “Ispeak” cards and posters can have theclient point to their preferred language.

Policy Considerations

To serve limited-English-proficientclients appropriately your program maywant to create a comprehensive, pro-gramwide policy that reflects the organi-zation’s resources and the clients’ needs.The policy should reflect input from staffwhose work is affected by limited-English-proficient communities and thevarious functions of the organization.Base the policy on your program’sstrengths and mission and the limited-English-proficient community’s cultureand legal needs. Inform those chargedwith implementation about the policyand about the importance of meaningfulaccess for all potential clients.

Bilingual Resources

Clients should be informed in their pre-ferred language that free interpreters areavailable to enable them to communicatewith their advocate at the program’s

7Small “I speak” cards identify in English the language of the bearer (e.g., “I speak Spanish” or “I speak Tagalog”).Programs may also want to provide wallet-size “I speak” cards for clients to use in obtaining services in addition to legalservices and for other purposes.

8A useful sign is available from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services at www.hhs.gov/region10/ocr/pdf/interp2.pdf.



9Advocates and clients must be able to communicate during hearings and at breaks in hearings, and the program’s inter-preter is critical in these situations. A court interpreter’s role is to enable client-court communication; this is quite differ-ent from that of the program’s interpreter, who facilitates client-advocate conversations.

10The National Association of Judiciary Interpreters provides resources in this area. See www.najit.org. For additionalinformation on the organization and its standards for interpreters, see Molly McDonough, Lost in Translation, 89 AMERICAN

BAR ASSOCIATION JOURNAL 22–23 (2003).

11Bilingual fluency is a permissible job requirement.

12Programs that are members of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) may have an additionalresource if they take advantage of a contractual agreement between NLADA and Language Line; the agreement offersthe following benefits to NLADA members: waiver of the enrollment fee; reduced monthly minimum; and aggregate dis-counts for per-minute charges based on usage by all participating programs.

13See www.ncsconline.org/wc/publications/Res_CtInte_ModelGuideChapter6Pub.pdf.

14Angela McCaffrey, Don’t Get Lost in Translation: Teaching Law Students to Work with Language Interpreters, 6 CLINICAL LAW

REVIEW 347, 376–77 (2000), available at www.lri.lsc.gov. Legal aid programs may find this article a very useful resource in address-ing the many issues that can arise when clients need interpreters in order to be understood by English speakers.

offices as well as at court and administra-tive hearings.9 Clients with a sufficientgrasp of English to give basic intakeinformation may still require an inter-preter for a complex discussion of legalremedies. Complications increase whenpeople who can communicate on a rudi-mentary level in English are illiterate inboth English and their first language. Aninterpreter may be needed to help themunderstand legal documents requiringtheir assent and signature.

Assessing who is competent to interpret(spoken language) and translate (writtenlanguage) is part of any effort to serve lim-ited-English-proficient clients effectively.Bilingual staff, translators, and interpretersshould be fluent in two languages (Englishand that of the limited-English-proficientclient) and understand legal terms andconcepts that are involved in the servicesrendered. Staff who work directly withclients should know when to obtain aninterpreter, what documents must betranslated, and the program’s competencystandards for translators and interpreters.

Interpreters and translators must beinformed about rules governing confi-dentiality and impartiality in interpreta-tion, and understand their obligationunder the interpreters’ professional codeof ethics. Programs should consideroffering training and professional devel-opment opportunities for their bilingualstaff and include interpretation ethics.10

All efforts to increase bilingual resourceswill increase a program’s ability to reach

its limited-English-proficient commu-nity. Bilingual staff is likely the mosteffective resource for serving limited-English-proficient clients, as staff mem-bers’ familiarity with program servicescan facilitate the creation of long-termstrategies for serving such clients.11

Finding bilingual employees is notalways possible even if an organizationhas the resources available to hire them.Contract and voluntary translators andtelephone language services are criticalto filling gaps in an organization’s bilin-gual resources and enhancing the useful-ness of bilingual staff.12 When usingthese resources, as with other volunteersand experts, assure yourself that thetranslator meets your organization’sinternal standards of fluency, ethicalbehavior, and comprehension of the legalterms and concepts required in a partic-ular situation.

A model voir dire to help judges ascertainwhether an interpreter is qualified isavailable through the National Center forState Courts.13 The National Code ofResponsibility for Interpreters (andsome state variations) may help you con-vey to interpreters and clients the obliga-tions of that role. The code addresses theimportance of accurate and completeinterpretations, of impartiality and con-fidentiality, and of reporting any imped-iments that the interpreter knows of andcould interfere with the interpreter’sperformance.14

Although not unusually programs (andclients) rely on family and friends, this is



15None of the sample policies on LSC’s Legal Resource Initiative website permits relatives, friends, or children to translatefor clients. See policies from Legal Aid Society of Mid-New York, Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Legal Services ofNorthwest Ohio, and Pine Tree Legal Assistance (Maine) at www.lri.lsc.gov.

16For a firsthand account of one teen’s experience as the family translator, see Paul M. Uyehara, A Teenager as a FamilyTranslator 36 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW 552 (March–April 2003), also available at www.lri.lsc.gov.

17Programs serving large limited-English-proficient population groups who are illiterate may also want to consider hav-ing recorded material(e.g., on video, digital video disk, or cassette tape)including essential and often repeated informa-tion. In these situations, too, oral presentations are far more effective than even brochures and flyers written in the clients’primary languages.

the least preferred approach. Far too fre-quently family and friends are nottrained interpreters—they may not beproficient in English and may not under-stand legal terminology or situations.Interpretation by family members car-ries the risk of bias in translation,whether inadvertently through choice ofword or emphasis or through intentionalomission of facts. When nonprofession-als such as family members are involved,the client’s privacy diminishes alongwith, perhaps, the client’s willingness tobe candid. For these reasons, programsmust strongly encourage the use of bilin-gual staff or qualified interpretersinstead of family and friends.15

When a client insists that a family mem-ber or friend acts as interpreter, you maywant to document that decision and evenconsider having on hand a waiver for theclient to sign, in the client’s language andin English, acknowledging the risk andclarifying that free professional inter-preter services were offered and rejected.To protect staff from later effects of lin-guistic or cultural miscommunication,seriously weigh the benefits of includinga program-sponsored interpreter in theclient interview and subsequent meet-ings.

Using minor children as interpreters isan even greater concern. In addition tothe problems set forth above, relying onchildren exposes them to informationthat they may be too young or too imma-ture to handle. Rely on minor children asinterpreters only in extreme emergen-cies and if there is no other resource, andthen only until you are able to obtain theservices of a bilingual interpreter.16

Translating Documents

Written material and materials based onwriting (such as “how to” videos) must betranslated accurately. Documents thatrequire translation include those that theclient must understand and sign, such asretainers. When clients are illiterate intheir primary language, interpreters maybe necessary to help them comprehendtranslated documents.

Although community outreach materialis also critically important to service arearesidents, some documents may not needto be translated completely to be useful topotential clients as long as essentialinformation about access to the programand the availability of free interpreters isincluded in the target community’s pri-mary language.17 Programs will have tomake difficult decisions about translat-ing documents even if they serve a largepopulation of that language group.

Language Protocols

Despite their best efforts, programs orbranch offices may not always have inter-preters on hand or vital documents trans-lated. Do not allow the lack of available lan-guage services to result in denial of effectiveservices or impose an undue burden on theclient. If no in-person interpreter is avail-able, the limited-English-proficient clientshould have to wait no more than the time ittakes to obtain a telephone interpreter.Understandably one may not be able tosecure an interpreter’s services immedi-ately. In those instances, conduct an initialassessment of the urgency of the client’sproblem by using telephone services orsimilar resources that can be obtained



18For a vivid delineation of the importance of helping staff understand the cultural background of their limited-English-proficient clients, see Trang Nguyen, Working with Linguistically and Culturally Isolated Communities: The CambodianOutreach Project of Merrimack Valley Legal Services, 37 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW 79 (May–June 2003). An additional usefulresource is Sue Bryant & Jean Koh Peters, Five Habits for Cross-Cultural Lawyering, available at www.cleaweb.org/multi-culture/multiculture.pdf. Staffing and other issues along with proven models are discussed in ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL

CENTER, supra note 4.

quickly, and schedule more thoroughclient interviews and other meetings fora later date, when interpreters are avail-able. This approach is reasonable if theclient’s legal needs are not urgent and theclient’s rights will not be compromised.

Staff Considerations

Staff members should be trained on lim-ited-English-proficiency proceduresregularly, and the topic should be part ofnew staff orientation. The staff need tounderstand the cultural and languagebarriers faced by limited-English-profi-cient clients and to be sensitive to thosebarriers.18 Advocates and other employ-ees who must rely on interpreters duringclient meetings will often need addition-al training on how to work with inter-preters. Staff who are asked to provideinterpretation and translation services,particularly if they are not trained inthose areas, should be given opportuni-ties for improving techniques, obtainingor maintaining certification, andrefreshing language skills.

To facilitate limited-English-proficiencyactivities, programs may want to appointat least one staff person as coordinator tomake sure that translations occur, trans-lated documents are current, and ongo-ing program work is responsive tochanges in the limited-English-profi-cient community.

As with any client-based activity, servic-es to limited-English-proficient clientsshould be evaluated as part of staff per-formance appraisals. Supervisors should

take into account the “multitasking” thatcan come to be expected of staff who arehired for certain positions but become adhoc interpreters because of their profi-ciency in a second language. If such indi-viduals are expected to be available forinterpreting and translating, theirresponsibilities in other areas should bereduced to reflect this additional charge.Similarly supervisors should be aware ofthe time required for client interviews inwhich an interpreter is used. Anyone whohas ever questioned a witness or deposedan individual through an interpreterknows that the process easily can taketwice as long, as everything must be saidtwice. Staff functioning in tandem withinterpreters will, of necessity, havelonger meetings and other oral interac-tions with their limited-English-profi-cient clients. Caseload distributionshould reflect this added time require-ment.

■ ■ ■

America is a land of immigrants, andmost of us trace our ancestors back to for-eign shores. We are once again in themidst of a significant wave of immigra-tion, with its cultural complexities andriches. We recognize that this phenome-non poses great challenges to providersof civil legal services for the poor. Thepromise of liberty and justice for all hascaptured immigrants’ hearts and pro-pelled them to our shores. But meaning-ful translation of those words, with theirpassionate commitment to equality,requires our resolute action.