BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
SB 597 (Lara) - Legal aid: court interpreters.
Amended: April 30, 2013 Policy Vote: Judiciary 6-1
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: May 23, 2013 Consultant: Jolie Onodera
SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
Bill Summary: SB 597 would create a pilot project to provide for
court interpreters in civil proceedings in up to five courts, as
specified. This bill would require the Judicial Council to
establish a working group, as specified, by June 1, 2014, and
report to the Legislature by January 1, 2019, its findings and
recommendations on the pilot program.
Fiscal Impact:
Annual costs potentially in excess of $3 million to $5
million (General Fund*) to provide interpreters in civil
proceedings in up to five pilot counties. Costs would be
dependent on the size and diversity of counties selected and
interpreter needs specific to the pilot counties.
Annual costs of $50,000 to $100,000 (General Fund*) through
January 1, 2019, for the Judicial Council to establish and
facilitate operations and activities of the working group.
One-time cost to the Judicial Council to complete and
submit the report evaluating the pilot project to the
Legislature by January 1, 2019.
*Trial Court Trust Fund
Background: Existing law requires a court interpreter in civil
cases for parties who are deaf or have a hearing impairment that
prevents them from speaking or understanding English. However,
current law does not provide a court interpreter for other
parties in civil matters who are not proficient in English, such
as for those who primarily speak Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, or a
variety of other languages. Likewise, existing law does require
an interpreter for witnesses who speak a language other than
English, but not for the parties in the case.
Although existing law authorizes courts to assign interpreters
already employed for criminal and juvenile cases to civil cases
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 1
for a fee when their services are not otherwise required in
criminal or juvenile cases, court interpreters in civil cases
are not routinely provided, as a matter of right. This bill
seeks to address the need for interpreters in civil matters.
Proposed Law: This bill would require the Judicial Council to
establish a pilot program to provide certified and registered
court interpreters in civil proceedings in up to five courts, as
specified, starting July 1, 2014. Specifically, this bill:
Requires the Judicial Council to establish a working group
on or before June 1, 2014, to review, identify, and develop
best practices to provide interpreters in civil actions and
proceedings. The best practices, which are to include
training guidelines to be utilized by participating courts,
are to be used in carrying out the pilot project.
Provides that the working group shall include court
executive officers, presiding judges, interpreter
coordinators, interpreters, as specified, representatives of
legal services organizations and organizations representing
individuals with limited English proficiency, representative
from a rural community, and others that the Judicial Council
determines necessary.
Requires the Judicial Council to select up to five courts
to participate in a pilot project to commence on July 1,
2014, to provide interpreters in civil proceedings. The
pilot courts must be selected from among those participating
in the newly established working group.
Requires the initial pilot courts to participate in the
project until June 30, 2016. The Judicial Council in
consultation with the pilot courts, shall consider whether a
pilot court shall continue participating in the project and
whether to select another court or additional courts to join
the project. Courts selected to join the project shall
participate for three years, or another duration determined
by the Judicial Council, in consultation with the pilot
courts.
Requires the pilot courts to provide interpreters first, to
parties appearing in forma pauperis (a phrase indicating the
permission given by a court to an indigent person to
initiate a legal action without having to pay for court fees
or costs due to his or her lack of financial resources) who
do not proficiently speak or understand the English language
in specified actions or proceedings.
Provides that if sufficient funding and interpreter
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 2
resources are available in other actions or proceedings or
in matters in which the party is not appearing in forma
pauperis, the pilot courts shall provide interpreters.
Requires the pilot courts to develop a methodology for
deploying available interpreter resources, including but not
limited to funds allocated specifically for interpreters.
Requires interpreters in the pilot counties to be certified
or registered, as specified.
Requires Judicial Council to report to the Legislature its
findings and recommendations based on the experiences of the
pilot courts on or before January 1, 2019.
Sunsets the bill's provisions on January 1, 2020.
Includes numerous uncodified legislative findings and
declarations.
Related Legislation: AB 1127 (Chau) 2013 would, on or before
March 1, 2014, require the Judicial Council to establish the
California Language Access Task Force, which would be
responsible for developing a comprehensive statewide Language
Access Plan for use by courts to address the needs of
limited-English-proficient individuals, as specified. The bill
is currently pending hearing in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
AB 663 (Jones) 2009 was similar to this measure and would have
required the Judicial Council to establish a five-county pilot
program to provide court interpreters in civil proceedings, as
specified. This bill was held on the Suspense File of this
committee.
AB 3050 (Jones) 2008 was substantially similar to AB 663 noted
above. This bill was vetoed with the following message:
I am returning Assembly Bill 3050 without my signature. The
historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 State Budget has forced
me to prioritize the bills sent to my desk at the end of the
year's legislative session. Given the delay, I am only signing
bills that are the highest priority for California. This bill
does not meet that standard and I cannot sign it at this time.
Staff Comments: Costs for the Judicial Council to establish a
working group on or before June 1, 2014, to review, identify,
and develop best practices to provide interpreters in civil
proceedings are estimated at $50,000 to $100,000 (General Fund).
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 3
Because the best practices are to include training guidelines to
be utilized by participating courts, staff notes the pilot
project start date of July 1, 2014, may be premature to the
extent the working group is established only one month prior to
pilot commencement.
This bill would require the Judicial Council to select up to
five courts to participate in the pilot project, from July 1,
2014 until June 30, 2016, to provide certified and registered
court interpreters in civil proceedings. Pilot courts would
provide interpreters to any party proceeding in forma pauperis
who is present and who does not proficiently speak or understand
the English language for the purpose of interpreting the
proceedings in a language that the party understands and
assisting communications between that party, his or her
attorney, and the court in specified actions and proceedings. In
addition, this bill provides that if sufficient funding and
interpreter resources are available in other actions or
proceedings or in matters in which the party is not appearing in
forma pauperis, the pilot courts shall provide interpreters.
As currently drafted, the bill does not identify a funding
source for the pilot, and therefore, expenditures for the pilot
are assumed to be funded from the Trial Court Trust Fund. Costs
would be dependent on the size and diversity of the counties
selected, as well as the interpreter needs specific to the pilot
counties. Due to the uncertainty regarding the existing demand
for interpreters in civil proceedings, the potential costs are
unknown but could exceed $3 million to $5 million annually. In
addition, the Judicial Council is authorized to select
additional courts to "join the project," which could result in
significant additional costs.
In order for pilot counties to have the flexibility to allocate
resources in a manner best suited to meet their needs, it may be
beneficial to set funding levels to a maximum amount, especially
given the uncertain demand for these services.
Staff notes the Judicial Branch annual budget includes an
appropriation specifically for court interpreters. The annual
report submitted by the Judicial Council to the Legislature,
Trial Court Interpreters Program Expenditure Report for Fiscal
Year 2011-12, reported the appropriation of $92.8 million for
court interpreter services in FY 2011-12. The amount
SB 597 (Lara)
Page 4
appropriated has remained unchanged since FY 2009-10. The FY
2013-14 Governor's Budget similarly reflects an appropriation of
$92.8 million. Court reimbursements for eligible court
interpreter expenditures totaled $89.2 million in FY 2011-12.
The report noted the Judicial Council approved using $3 million
of the remaining expenditure authority from FY 2009-10 to offset
a portion of statewide trial court budget reductions. At the
time of this analysis, the amount of authorized but unexpended
funds previously allocated for trial court interpreters was
pending. Utilizing unexpended funds from budgeted trial court
interpreter program funds from prior fiscal years would appear
to be consistent with the intent of the use of these funds.
Recommended Amendments: The Judicial Council is required to
establish a working group by June 1, 2014, to develop best
practices to be used in carrying out the pilot project. These
best practices are to include training guidelines to be utilized
by the courts participating in the pilot to ensure that court
interpreters receiving training necessary to comply with the
provisions of this measure. In order to enable adequate time to
develop these guidelines for pilot counties to utilize, staff
recommends an amendment to delay implementation of the pilot
from July 1, 2014 (which would only provide one month for the
working group to establish best practices), to January 1, 2015.
Author amendments:
Add to the working group the following: experts in
training and best practices in the field of court
interpreting and organizations representing court
interpreters.
Specify the costs of the pilot, including the
administration and preparation of the report, shall be
funded by the amounts appropriated for court interpreters
by the annual Budget Act.
Delete the provisions authorizing additional courts to
join the pilot project.