Priorities Proposals

Further explanation for the intent of the motion is available upon request from the mover of the motion.

(2) establish a clear and public timeline for updating and restoring sign language interpreting certification programs, including the NIC, Ed K-12, SC:L, and CDI; and

(3) developing a position statement on the minimum standards for Federal, state, local and institution-wide regulations and policies.

Before the next NAD Board meeting in January, the NAD shall reach out to the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) and share their intent to address the aforementioned issues, and invite a collaborative process.

By the next National Leadership Training Conference (NLTC), the NAD shall:

(1) identify community organizational partners and individuals to collaborate with in pursuing this priority; and

(2) create and widely distribute an ASL video and written white paper describing the reasons for pursuing this priority.

(3) create and widely distribute a timeline implementing strategies to achieve this priority.

Before the next NAD Conference, the NAD shall:

(1) pursue changes to an updated NAD-RID CPC and develop educational material for the Deaf community in ASL distributed via social media channels; and

(2) create and disseminate collateral that explains how to best collaborate with sign language interpreters in a positive and productive manner; and

(3) report on its progress in advocating for the restoration and updates of RID credentials that were offered prior to the moratorium; and

(4) publish its position statement on minimum standards for sign language interpreting on the NAD website along with supplemental information for state associations, non-profits, and other advocacy entities on the best strategies to support and implement these standards.

As examples of the importance of this multipronged priority, over the last several years, due to ambiguity regarding the status of the National Interpreting Certification (NIC), insufficient interpreters have become eligible to work in several states in which the only sign language interpreting credential recognized is the NIC.

The moratorium which currently persists with the SC:L and the CDI also means that there are no new interpreters entering the field who are certified in legal interpreting or Deaf interpreting. If these moratoriums are not addressed and these credentials restored, the Deaf community will suffer increasing harm.

With educational interpreters serving as language models for mainstreamed Deaf students throughout the United States, there is a fundamental need to address the challenges in defining a professional sign language interpreter in this setting. The prior credential created a number of problems that went unaddressed for years. We need to agree upon the need to continue the ED K-12 credential with sign language interpreters and determine the best way to assess the qualifications of these interpreters.

Finally, cases in which hearing sign language interpreters have provided testimony in court that has had the ultimate result of harming a Deaf individual, or in some cases, the Deaf community as a whole, bring attention to the need to revise the CPC to cover actions taken outside of interpreting work.

2) Taking the survey results into account, analyze the United States Access Board’s existing guidelines and standards; and

3) Determine a plan of action which could include working with the United States Access Board to determine whether or not the existing guidelines and standards need to be revised, developing and executing outreach materials to educate the Deaf community on how they can hold entities and organizations accountable and taking on legal cases that will create a legal precedent in holding entities and/or organizations accountable in implementing accessible communication and alerting devices in their facilities.

Further, data from a survey of college students at Rochester Institute of Technology indicates that Deaf and hard of hearing individuals are 1.5 times more likely to be victims of relationship violence including sexual harassment, sexual assault, psychological abuse and physical abuse in their lifetime.

Deaf victims of domestic violence often face unique circumstances:

• Information can travel quickly within a Deaf, DeafBlind or hard of hearing community, compromising confidentiality and the victim’s safety.
• Law enforcement and shelters are often not skilled at communicating with Deaf, DeafBlind or hard of hearing individuals and often don’t have interpreters.
• Their abusive partners may take away their communication devices.
• Their abusive partners may give false information to the victim to make them believe they have fewer options.
• The victim may be isolated from family, friends, services, resources and options.

According to DeafHope these are some examples of what victims face and the tactics abusive partners use to abuse the Deaf:

• Intimidation through gestures, facial expressions, or exaggerated signs, floor stomping and pounding on the table or door
• Signing very close to a victim’s face when angry
• Criticizing the victim’s American sign language (ASL) skills or communication style
• Not informing the victim when people try to call on the phone or try to catch their attention
• Excluding the victim from important conversations
• Leaving the victim out in social situations with hearing people
• Talking negatively about the Deaf community
• Wrongly interpreting to manipulate the situation if the police are called Not allowing children to use ASL to talk with the victim
• Not allowing children to be proud of Deaf culture
• Criticizing the victim’s speech and English skills.

” “According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 30 percent of adults 65-74 years old and 47 percent of adults 75 years old or older, have hearing loss. A significant percentage of those subsets are Deaf. ” ”

The establishment of retirement communities exclusively for the American Deaf senior community will enable residents access to accessible and specialized retirement and medical facilities, staff who are fluent in American Sign Language and continued, full participation in the American Deaf community.

” “However, the Federal government has asserted that senior citizen facilities built specifically for Deaf communities violate federal housing discrimination rules. ” ”

Ideally, the Deaf senior citizen community will benefit from a Congressional authorization that establishes Federally-funded retirement communities for the Deaf and in the same manner and spirit as the Education of the Deaf Act (Public Law 99-371, as amended) which authorized the creation and continued funding of Gallaudet University and the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID).

Further, data from a survey of college students at Rochester Institute of Technology indicates that Deaf and hard of hearing individuals are 1.5 times more likely to be victims of relationship violence including sexual harassment, sexual assault, psychological abuse and physical abuse in their lifetime.

Deaf victims of domestic violence often face unique circumstances:

• Information can travel quickly within a Deaf, DeafBlind or hard of hearing community, compromising confidentiality and the victim’s safety.
• Law enforcement and shelters are often not skilled at communicating with Deaf, DeafBlind or hard of hearing individuals and often don’t have interpreters.
• Their abusive partners may take away their communication devices.
• Their abusive partners may give false information to the victim to make them believe they have fewer options.
• The victim may be isolated from family, friends, services, resources and options.

According to DeafHope these are some examples of what victims face and the tactics abusive partners use to abuse the Deaf:

• Intimidation through gestures, facial expressions, or exaggerated signs, floor stomping and pounding on the table or door
• Signing very close to a victim’s face when angry
• Criticizing the victim’s American sign language (ASL) skills or communication style
• Not informing the victim when people try to call on the phone or try to catch their attention
• Excluding the victim from important conversations
• Leaving the victim out in social situations with hearing people
• Talking negatively about the Deaf community
• Wrongly interpreting to manipulate the situation if the police are called
• Not allowing children to use ASL to talk with the victim
• Not allowing children to be proud of Deaf culture
• Criticizing the victim’s speech and English skills

Consumers of sign language interpreting services will be able to use this site to quickly research and review the rating(s) of interpreters and interpreting agencies across the United States. Within the system, consumers (both deaf and hearing) can not only review the past and current rating of the interpreter and/or interpreting agency, but also provide comments and a rating. That allows the consumer to make a fully informed decision in choosing the most qualified interpreter for his/her communication/language needs.

An example of rating would include the following criteria:

Interpreter/Interpreting Agency Classifications:

• Qualified
• Professional
• Reliable
• Reasonably Priced
• Certified

This online site is to design to collect data to track the outcomes – this data is necessary to provide justification for further research, future legislation and requirements.

Measurable (meaningful, motivational)
The interpreting users are able to use this site for quickly researching and rating interpreters and interpreting agencies across the United States.

Data Collection: We can measure interpreter’s overall performances including the code of professional conduct and other principles following these criteria:

• Adhere to standards of confidential communication
• Possess the professional skills and knowledge required for the specific interpreting situation
• Conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to the specific interpreting situation -Demonstrate respect for consumers
• Demonstrate respect for colleagues, interns, and students of the profession
• Maintain ethical business practices
• Engage in professional development

(RID. 2018. Code of Professional Conduct. retrieved from https://www.rid.org/ethics/code- of-professional-conduct/)

Achievable (agreed, attainable)
Those interpreting users can comment on and rate the interpreter and/or interpreting agency to ensure by helping the others by choosing the best quality of interpreter and/or interpreting agency.

Relevant (reasonable, realistic, and resourced, results-based)
Also, this rate site can help clients to checking in to figure out who’s a great interpreter and/or interpreting agency and who’s one you might want to avoid.

Time bound (time-based, time limited, time/cost limited, timely, time-sensitive)
There is no time limited; however, it may cost from $0 to $1,000 a year, it depends on which website we use. We may need to hire a website designer to develop the website or have an internship to work on this project.

Most ALA members, libraries and library friends already acknowledge that deafness does not discriminate; that children (from cradle to grave) should be exposed to the deaf from deafhood to literary to technology to political cultures. And that Deaf Grassroots have been struggling to find the solution for CEJ (Communication, Education and Jobs) and the deaf need to become resourceful about the NAD and other organizations serving the American Deaf Community (OSDeaf) for shared resources and networking.

To support members of ALA and its 11 Divisions on their work progress on Deaf Guidelines and share what they will be learning about the library of the future with the NAD and American Deaf Community back home. (like Alice and her library colleagues have been doing for many years as volunteers). NAD already has a history with ALA since 1976 and FOLDA.

(1) create awareness about the lack of communication access in interactions with police officers and throughout the justice system the United States and the adverse impact such lack of communication access has on the Deaf community; and

(2) create awareness about the lack of communication access in state and federal correctional facilities across the United States and the adverse impact such lack of communication access has on the Deaf community; and

(2) spotlight current, ongoing efforts to promote equal access to the justice system for the Deaf and hard of hearing; and

(3) take actions to combat the perception that the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act do not apply to Deaf people who are serving a prison sentence; and

(4) create a national training for law enforcement on working with Deaf, Deaf Person of Color, and underprivileged Deaf Citizens

Within six months of the conclusion of the NAD’s Biennial Conference in Hartford (“Hartford”), the NAD shall identify community organizational partners and individuals to collaborate with in pursuing this priority, and shall begin developing the campaign.

Within one year of Hartford, the NAD and its collaborating community organizational partners and individuals shall launch the campaign to spotlight the oppression of Deaf people in the justice system.

Robert Rapa, after being robbed, flagged down a police officer and tried to explain with gestures that he had been robbed and showed the police officer where the robber went. The police officer did not call for a sign language interpreter, but pursued the robber. After catching the robber, the police officer spoke with her; the robber claimed that Robert assaulted her. Without calling for a sign language interpreter or trying to communicate with Robert, the police officer arrested Robert and brought him to jail. Robert, who was 65 years old at the time, and has Parkinson’s disease, could not communicate with the police officer or jail staff that he needed to take Parkinson’s medication every three hours. His shaking from Parkinson’s got so bad, the police officers brought him to the hospital, but did not get him an interpreter there or upon his return to jail. He was so traumatized by the incident that he sued both the police department and the hospital.

Joseph Heard was in St. Elizabeth’s Hospital when he was found not competent to stand trial for a unlawfully entering a law school building. A judge ordered him to be released from the hospital. However, he was brought to jail by U.S. marshals. Jail officials determined that he should not be in jail and that he should be released. Joseph spent another 669 days in jail because no one communicated with him that he was free to go, in an accessible manner.

Stephen Brodie was arrested by police for stealing quarters from a soda machine when the police questioned him about the abduction and sexual assault of a child. Stephen was interrogated by the police, at times without a sign language interpreter present, for 18 hours over eight days. Stephen confessed to committing the crime, plus other crimes made up by the police, because he felt intimidated and coerced to do so. Faced with a possible 99-year sentence, Stephen pled guilty and received a 5-year sentence. After serving his term, he remained in prison because he refused to register as a sex offender. It was later discovered that the police had hair and fingerprint evidence from the crime scene that matched a different man who had assaulted other victims in the area. In 2010, a Texas District Court judge vacated Stephen’s conviction on the grounds of actual innocence and he became the very first deaf exoneree in the United States.

Stories like Robert’s, Joseph’s, Stephen’s, and others, including the beating of Pearl Pearson, the killings of Magdiel Sanchez and Daniel Harris, and countless others, highlight a grave injustice in the American justice system, where people with disabilities, including Deaf and hard of hearing people, are massively overrepresented. A special report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that 50% of women in jail, and 40% of men, have a disability. Many of these are Deaf people, but jails and prisons do not count, or do not care to count, how many Deaf people are incarcerated.

Jails and prisons are required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, but often do not. Contrary to popular misconceptions, Deaf individuals do not lose their rights to reasonable accommodations and equal access to programs, services, and activities once they are incarcerated.

Despite progress made through successful lawsuits against state and federal correctional facilities, some of which were brought about by NAD, Deaf individuals who are imprisoned continue to be denied access to hearing aids, sign language interpreters, captioning, education, prison programs, and videophones. They are also disproportionately punished with solitary confinement, often under the guise of protecting them from harm by other inmates.

By creating a collaborative relationship with other organizations to raise awareness about this issue, the campaign has the potential to reach a greater number of people, spark discussion, and motivate the public and the Deaf community to spotlight the oppression of Deaf people in the justice system and drive change towards achieving equal access to the justice system.