Requirements for the Federal Courts In 1978 the federal government passed the Court Interpreters Act (see Appen dix 1), subsequently modified by Amendments in 1988 (see Appendix 3). The law basically said that certified people would work in the federal courts, and that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts was to set up certification procedures. That Office has created an examination for Spanish that has been given since 1980, and now offers examinations for the Haitian Creole and Navajo languages. As of 1995, full federal certification will also be offered for Cantonese, Mandarin, and Korean. There is also a procedure to determine what is called "otherwise qualified status" for the federal courts for Arabic, Polish, Italian, Russian, Mien, and Hebrew. Information about federal certifi cation and otherwise qualified status may be obtained from the Federal Court Interpreter Certification Project, at the University of Arizona (14). A federal court may have one or more staff interpreters who are federally certified for Spanish. A court with many cases might have a permanent staff of interpreters, as well as a supervisory interpreter, who does interpreting and assigns free-lance work to other certified people, or to other competent interpreters for languages that are not Spanish. A small federal court may have only one interpreter on permanent staff. When a federal court does not have a staff interpreter, the office of the clerk may have a coordinator of interpreters who may be approached for work. For Spanish, the federal courts are generally required to use federally certified interpreters. They hire permanent staff and free-lance interpreters from the list of certified interpreters published by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. That office, in Washington, D.C., has contracted the certification process to the University of Arizona. The first part of the Spanish exam is written, and if one passes it, one may take the oral part. An excellent study aid for the written English is the sample exam for the Graduate Record Exam (GRE), English Aptitude part, available in most university bookstores. For Spanish, look for the Spanish GRE, although that exam has parts that deal with substantive knowledge of Spanish literature, which is not at issue in the federal exam. The advantage of federal certification is that once certified, an interpreter may then seek work in any federal court in the U.S. Another advantage is that once one is on the list, one receives all announcements of permanent Spanish interpreter positions for the various federal courts as they open, nationwide. As of 1994, there were 558 interpreters federally certified for Spanish. Many federally certified people prefer to work as independent interpreters because they enjoy the variety and flexibility that independent work offers. To quote Jack Leeth, formerly with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the exam tells the courts that the certified person is capable of doing the work of a court interpreter. While federal certification suggests a certain level of ability or potential, it is only a beginning. The interpreter who wishes to distinguish herself needs constant study to stay abreast of current terms and events. To be respected, one also needs integrity. We discuss interpreter ethics in Chapter IV; it is ethics that regulate our conduct in and out of the courtroom. State Certifications California has a certification program, Washington has one of more recent vintage, and New Jersey is phasing one in. The District of Columbia uses federally certified people for Spanish, or interpreters who have passed one of simultaneous interpreting exams given by the U.S. Department of State. Other states, counties, and municipalities are beginning to recognize the need for quality interpretation in their courts. The National Center for State Courts in Williamsburg, Virginia, is currently studying the use of interpreters in the state courts. Quality interpretation depends on certification examinations, use of certified people once those people have been selected, in-service training, good working conditions, and proper remuneration. Finding and using quali fied people costs money; financially-squeezed state administrators may not wish to take the steps necessary to guarantee quality. Those agencies and courts that do things properly attract the best, most serious people, and of course have a right to demand excellent work, which they do receive. Courts that ignore proper standards choose shoddy work.
