My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016/11/30 Council Agenda Packet
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2016
>
2016/11/30 Council Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2016 12:01:02 PM
Creation date
12/16/2016 11:59:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Agenda Packet
Date
11/30/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
301
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Exhibit B <br /> Interpreter Reimbursement Program <br /> WASHINGTON <br /> COURTS Court Report Template <br /> This information is to help evaluate the effectiveness of the court interpreter <br /> reimbursement program. <br /> • The report should cover the period July 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2017. <br /> • The report should include and answer the following, and can be supplemented by <br /> other materials such as charts, spreadsheets, etc. <br /> • The report should be returned no later than July 31, 2017 to Robert Lichtenberg <br /> at Robert.lichtenberqcourts.wa.qov. <br /> • The report should be no longer than three (3) pages. <br /> 1. Name of Court <br /> 2. Contract Number <br /> 3. Name of Person Completing Report <br /> 4. Provide a general description of interpreter services provided by your court. The <br /> report should provide information other than that provided on the quarterly <br /> Interpreter Services Funding Data (ISF) reports. For example, include information <br /> on charging litigants, types of hearings interpreters were provided for, use of staff <br /> interpreters, interpreter scheduling practices, pool of interpreters, etc. <br /> 5. Describe any collaborative efforts with other courts including, why the collaboration <br /> was sought, the impact of these efforts, challenges, and why the efforts were <br /> initiated. For example, sometimes neighboring courts work with one another to <br /> improve interpreting services including combined scheduling, implementation of <br /> consistent payment policies, shared staff interpreters, or coordination of interpreter <br /> calendars. <br /> 6. Identify two or three improvements made or promising practices realized by your <br /> court to improve interpreter services and/or to reduce expenses. <br /> 7. Identify any changes or improvements your court plans to implement in the future <br /> to improve interpreter services and/or to reduce expenses. <br /> 8. Identify any challenges or trends your court is experiencing with providing <br /> interpreter services. <br /> Exhibit B Page 1 of 2 <br /> 103 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.