Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Interpreters topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LaSalle County courts brace for higher costs after state caps interpreter reimbursements
Summary
The Illinois Supreme Court’s July 1 reimbursement caps for interpreters will likely reduce near-100% reimbursements for certified interpreters, LaSalle County trial court administrator Lori said, prompting plans to pursue remote interpreting, a possible circuitwide interpreter, grant searches and other cost-saving technology.
Lori, representing the chief judge’s office, warned the Law & Justice Committee that an Illinois Supreme Court policy taking effect July 1 will cap reimbursements for court interpreters and materially increase county costs.
“We’ve been getting almost 100% reimbursement because we’ve been using certified interpreters,” Lori said. “Effective July 1 [the Supreme Court] has put some caps on the reimbursement rates.” She said the change will reduce the county’s prior reimbursement level and could force the county to absorb interpreter costs the state previously covered.
Why it matters: LaSalle County has relied on state reimbursements for most interpreting costs. Lori told the committee she is compiling a year-and-a-half of expense data to quantify the county’s exposure under the new caps and will bring options to the judges and the interpreter coordinator. Without additional reimbursement, the county could face higher ongoing expenses for interpreters and ADA accommodations, including transcript requests.
What the county is considering: Lori outlined a set of responses she is exploring — remote interpreting billed directly to the state when possible, pursuing grant funding to offset county expense, and the long-term option of hiring a circuitwide, full-time Spanish interpreter who could be shared across counties. She said two new state-paid positions in her office create capacity to pursue administrative solutions but that immediate costs (computers, furniture) will need funding.
“If we’re not getting full reimbursement, then the county’s on the hook for whatever we don’t get reimbursed,” Lori said, describing how civil cases (where fines are not a revenue source) and rising interpreter costs can leave the county responsible for gaps.
Committee members discussed technology alternatives and remote services as partial mitigations — ranging from certified remote interpreters to consumer translation devices — but members and Lori cautioned that technology can complement but not fully replace certified human interpreters for many court proceedings.
Next steps: Lori will continue to gather expense data, consult judges and the circuit’s interpreter coordinator, explore grant opportunities, and return to the committee with options; she noted the change is a statewide problem requiring coordinated solutions.
