The purpose statement claims the report “provides information on the state of language access in the Massachusetts Trial Courts,” and that the researchers’ goal was to “ensure continued improvements to language access for court users.”
Qualitative Research Methods
The authors prioritized collecting qualitative data, stating in their report, “we formulated a research ethos that prioritizes qualitative methods, allowing us to focus on the subjective experiences, attitudes, and feelings of community members who are impacted by language access issues in the courts.”
This perspective informed the three data collection instruments presented in the report: attorney and advocate surveys, community focus groups, and volunteer court watching.
The researchers reported data from 137 survey respondents, including “attorneys and advocates who work with court users who are LEP and D/HH.”
They also report “direct quotes, stories and experiences” collected from 20 total participants in two focus groups. One group was made up of Spanish-speaking court users, and the second was made up of D/HH court users. However, the exact number of participants in each group was not reported.
Finally, the researchers state that they collected data from volunteer court watchers “to build on and clarify our findings from the focus groups and attorney and advocate survey.” Court watchers filled out surveys based on their observations of language access resources employed both in courtrooms and throughout courthouses in general.
While their methodology may not be quantitatively bullet-proof, for example, the report does not indicate the total number of court watchers who participated, the authors did observe a consistent trend of poor language access across all three of their data collection methods.
Primary Findings
Language access issues were identified even before court users enter the courtroom. Despite the presence of some multilingual signage, the report states that “court watchers overwhelmingly pointed out a global lack of signage throughout several courthouses, which led to confusion about how to get to the correct courtroom.”
As well, all three data-collection methods found problems stemming from “limited cultural responsiveness among court staff.”
For example, most participants in the Spanish-speaking focus group reported “feeling discriminated against, afraid, and disillusioned because of their limited English proficiency.”
At the same time, respondents from the attorneys and advocates survey reported some court staff questioning the legitimacy of their clients’ need for interpreters.
Additional hurdles were reported regarding the processes for requesting and scheduling a court interpreter. For example, none of the court users in the D/HH focus group reported knowing who to contact to request an accommodation.
Respondents in the attorney/advocate survey also reported long wait times for access to an interpreter, ranging from an hour to “multiple days or even weeks.” However, the report noted that two to three hours was the “most prevalent response.”
Slator 2025 Language Industry Market Report
The 150-page report offers a comprehensive view of the 2025 global market — with market sizing, AI capability breakdowns, buyer insights, use cases, survey data, and projections through 2030.
This trend appeared to result in many LEP court users going before a judge or participating in a mediation, either in English or using non-professional interpreters. For example, participants in the Spanish-speaking focus group reported recruiting family members to act as informal interpreters.
The authors also report that 38% of court watchers observed court officials “attempting to recruit someone in the courtroom to interpret for an LEP litigant.”
Even when an interpreter was successfully scheduled, the authors found logistical failings in the courts’ ability to effectively use them.
“Court watchers overwhelmingly pointed out a global lack of signage throughout several courthouses, which led to confusion about how to get to the correct courtroom.”
Notably, when asked about outcomes after requesting an interpreter, 62% of the attorney/advocate survey respondents reported “postponements due to a lack of an interpreter,” with 45% reporting that the scheduled interpreter “never showed up.” The report further states that “36% said that cases simply trudged forward without interpretation.”
The Authors’ Recommendations
The report also includes nine recommendations from the researchers for improving language access in Massachusetts courts.
Some of the recommendations are relatively straightforward, such as increasing the amount of multilingual signage in courthouses. However, several recommendations propose larger systemic changes. For example, the authors propose that the courts establish a team of “on call” interpreters who could appear on short notice if a scheduled interpreter is unavailable.
They also recommend that the clerks’ offices establish clear protocols for scheduling interpreters and designate specific staff members “responsible for confirming interpreter attendance.” They note that, currently, “it appears that staff in the clerks’ offices are not clear on who is responsible for managing interpretation and translation requests.”
