VRS Interpreted from Home?
12 06 2007All..
This alert is really an ongoing issue that crops up from time to time since Day 1 (1995). Recently, I was asked by an interpreter who was doing research on VRS regulations. One question was whether a video interpreter for VRS is allowed to interpret from his/her home or not.
Here are my thoughts (my interpretation of the federal relay regulations), and the I will follow up on one conversation I had with a VRS provider, LifeLink, regarding this issue.
I believe that the Video Interpreters from VRS should NOT be permitted to interpret from one’s home is based on TRS rule on Confidentiality and Conversation Content. Meaning that the VRS provider MUST be able to prove the confidentiality of VI; the logical question follows is how? Work environment has to be controlled, monitored, and be within an enclosed location with security tools in place. Only way to do that is from within an enclosed system such as a VRS center where all VIs congregate and work in with controlled and monitored system where there is a supervisor and, possibly, security guard in place to ensure that confidentiality rule is followed; i.e. not allow anyone enter VI’s working environments.
A possible scenario of abuse if done from home is that if from home, maybe a husband or wife or a good friend will watch the VI doing interpreting. It is not enough to say VI has highest code of ethics that they won’t do that. Maybe an abusive husband insist on watching wife do the work and wife (VI) is powerless to stop that. Many possible problems if done from home.
Additionally, we deafies want to be assured that VI is not being viewed by someone off the monitor viewing. Only in a controlled environment, are we assured of that. I would go on record, any VRS providers that allow VI be interpreted from home, I will not use that VRS. Most deaf that I know if they know VRS is from home environment, will not use the service, either.
Keep in mind that there is no rule from the federal relay regulations that actually says "Video Interpreter cannot work from home". It is based on the context of the rule that defines what is allowable and not allowable (as interpreted by the decision makers or VRS providers or lawyers). (Note: perhaps that is where the FCC should do a clarification on this.)
A few of VRI (video remote interpreting) do work from home. VRI is not subsidized by the federal funds thus not obliged to follow federal relay regulations. This is different and usually the deaf person knows with full knowledge that this was from interpreter’s home. VRI is paid by the deaf or the called party.
To my knowledge, I think that only one VRS provider allows its VIs to work from home; I believe that is LifeLink. Best way to get facts is to call direct and pop the question. So an interpreter coordinator from LifeLink and I video chatted. I explained that this conversation will be summarized and posted in edsalert.
And so I popped the question. Answer was something like that: the HQ is in NY and that there are different office locations (not in HQ) that VI use to provide VRS work. I asked and repeatedly asked are these office locations at home, she never responded that they were from home – instead said they are from "office locations". That the offices are adequately protected and that highest possible confidentiality safeguards are in place. She could have said, "No, they were not from home" and she didn’t. It also became apparent without her telling me so that there is only one VI per office. Assumptions are dangerous, but it seems to be that this evasive action seem to indicate that the company knew that many deaf will not use VRS if they do it from home.
Why do the company do that? Saves oodles of $$$ which is understandable.
If any info posted here is not right, please feel free to say so. I will not block comments regarding that. I would love to hear from LifeLinks on this issue and the company can clarify the issue. I could be completely be wrong and would not mind being wrong if the company has more factual info to share with us all to prove that VRS calls are indeed at highest possible confidentiality level. Just say so won’t be as convincingly persuasive as additional details.
Finally, Gentle Alert Readers who use VRS, I would love to hear from you. Would you object to using VRS if VI did it from home? I know a few deaf would not mind and I also know a few who would mind. Let me hear from you…
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Ed, I totally agree with you — for all the reasons you listed.
I would not use a VRS interpreter working at home for the reasons you have given, Ed. In addition, there would also be no backup if the interpreter is having difficulty understanding or being understood by the consumer. Also, there would be no team interpreter in the event of long conference calls.
I wouldn’t use VRS if the interpreter was working at home for the same reasons given by Judy in addition to the assurance I need that interpreters will be free from home-related distractions (dog, someone at the door, etc). I say this as a highly professional individual who occasionally works at home and contends with these distractions (I love the dog but he distracts me like hell). Also, I agree with Ed’s scenarios (controlling spouse demanding to eavesdrop, etc) , each of them leads to a reasonable doubt as to the confidentiality of home offices.
I would not use a VRS interpreter at home for the same reasons stated above by Judy and G.L.
Well, I don’t want to reveal my name because I want to protect my reputation in this state.
I already spoke to an interpreter (LifeLinks VI) who *LOVES* the VRS job because she always does the job from home.
I ain’t in support or opposed. Think there are pros and cons to it.
Working from home would help solve the interpreter shortage problem. Could then tap into the skills of many interpreters who can not come to a center. Those living in remote areas or those who have kids to care for (who could do VRS for a couple of hours while kids are at school, etc.)
Ed, I’m so happy that you posted this site. It helps us to become more and more aware and informed about the VRS industry, along with the FCC regulations.
This is indeed a sticky situation! First reaction was : hey, no! I don’t want to use VRS services from the VI’s home!
The more I think about what Henry Vlug’s comment – and it does make sense that it helps to overcome the shortage problem, but it didn’t ensure the confidentiality issues as Ed might come up with scenarios. Its very hard to regulate this way.
I know that interpreters are professionals and its very hard to maintain confidentiality due to human error, or circumstances.
What is the middle ground? Due to FCC’s threatening to cut rates, and it will be difficult for new VRS companies to build call centers, then how can they remain competitive, and keep up with top-notch services?
Amy Cohen Efron
Yeah good Idea and Im very agree with you very much. You can service deaf who need interpreted for church and bible study that Deaf person can bring thier laptop.
VRS interpreting jobs shouldn’t be done at home, even if the interpreters have their own offices in their residences. There is no guarantees of confidentiality outside of the official work environment. It doesn’t matter if the location is in another state, far away from where one is calling from, especially in the Deaf Community. There are circumstances that may interfere with the interpreter’s ability to maintain confidentiality in home, like spouse or children. How many interpreters have deaf spouses and children or hearing people who are familiar with sign language? I can easily envision abuses of the confidentiality.
In fact, VRI jobs shouldn’t be handled at home, for the same reason Ed mentioned above.
Mary Lou,
Do you mean VRS providers provide video interpreting service for the churches or bible study that do not have interpreter? In other words, Deaf persons can bring laptop computer to church or bible study and use VRS to follow the sermon or learn lessons?
I am afraid that the state and federal government do not allow this.
Mary Lou, you raised a good point. In USA we can’t go to just any church and get interpreting service. That is too bad, because it means our choices are limited by churches that do provide interpreting services.
Ed
Misconception:
“FCC threatening to cut VRS rates”
That’s not even true at all.
Read NECA’s rates proposal to FCC.
Amy,
Actually there is a “middle ground”. There is one interpreting service that services more than one VRS providers. In other words, the interpreting service will provide video interpreting for two or three VRS providers. This type of pooling of terps among several VRS providers helps keep within the federal rules on average speed answer. It would also help reduce the stealing of video interpreters from each other. Community and education interpreting would become more available cuz this interpreting service also provides community, education, and video interpreting. Cool idea, don’t you think? The damnable non-compete issue would not be an issue – at least not among VRS providers.
The problem is the most competitive VRS providers may not be interested in doing that.
Ed
Ed,
While you bought up a point about VRS working out of their home, what about captioning services working out of their homes?
You may be opening a can of worm here with your views (as well as others who support your views). You have a valid point however, there may be more harm to the business than what’s good for the community.
We are in deep need for interpreters for VRS and trying to question a business practice may backfire and you know who lose out.
….. the solution to rates and home offices and shortage of interpreters:
Invest money in existing technologies and expand them to be able to recognize ASL over a video connection and convert it to speech. Tie that to a computer animation (“avatar”) that coverts English to ASL.
Ta da! No human issues: the interpreter is replaced by a supercomputer and and 3D camera. No confidenitality issues. No shortage issues. Cost drop from $6 per minute to $6 per day.
Ok, ok, ok .. BEFORE you all nail me to a stake and set fire to my shoes: I KNOW that the technologies I described are not adequate “today”. But, people once said “Man will never fly”, and then “Man will never walk on the moon”. People were wrong.
The technologies CAN be developed, they CAN be delivered to every Deaf person with a laptop, and we CAN be free of agruments and lawsuits over who will pay for interpreters, we CAN be free of “sorry, all of our interpreters are booked for the next three weeks”, we CAN be free of doubt and fear and worry that the interpreter blabbed.
PS, I love interpreters, I have great respect for what they do and the hard work and years of training required to get good at what they do. In spite of all that, I’d choose to replace my interpreters with a laptop, IF and WHEN the technology is ready.
An idea: Add one dollar per minute to the cost of VRS. Take all those extra dollars and put them into technology research!
There’s someone selling the VRI kits for $15,000 to the interpreters I know. States you can start your own VRS service at home or work as a VRS interpreter from home.
Richard
Many people work at home office for company. That’s mean — company have to trust that they will do right thing when they are working at home office.
For example, they will sign contract that they must do certain things (# of hours of interpreting per day, closed environment, etc.) or they will void the contract. Also, they will have to allows company to monitor home office activities while they are on the clock.
Yeah it could be crazy.
Another reason NOT to do it at home- the conversations can be easily recorded by a VCR without the client’s knowledge.
This opens up a lot of potential for abuse. Besides, do you think that telephone companies would allow their operators do it at home? Why should it be any different for Deaf people?
Cheers,
Erick
There are two aspects to this that concern me: having VRIs in a professional location means enclosing interpreters in cubicles for hours on end and not respecting their professionalism or training in confidentiality. I appreciate this on one hand, but on the other hand it provides a suffocating environment that is not conductive to a good working personality. There are many ways to alleviate this, but they take money.
I would choose to use VRIs in office environments if I were making calls that were highly sensitive. Other times, for pizza calls or simple appointments, I wouldn’t mind using homebased VRIs, just so I know enough to make the choice.
The other aspect is providing a choice to interpreters which means relying more on their professionalism if they choose to work at home. They would be more responsible to keep children and dogs out of the room, forbid watchers, and not to use recording equipment at risk to their jobs. This is similar to other professionals who are trusted to keep a high standard of performance while working at home. In a employment situation where it is difficult to have flexibility or a good supply of workers, working at home can be valuable.
The key would be full disclosure of conditions and truthfulness in responding.
[edited some language out by edsalert editor]
Amy Cohen Efron, Wake up! It is *NOT* okay to have the vrs coming from home. You need to understand the WHOLE picture of the VRS industry. Thank you.
Hi “thinks-like-hearing”,
I know two companies (probably more that I am not aware of) are hard at work in developing avatar (computer animated caricature) that interpret voice to sign, and sign to voice. I’m cheering them on and hope to see that happen within my lifetime. Ed
I totally agree with Ed.
I have one friend who work as SorensonVRS installer, this person once told me that this person had made installation at one interpreter’s home ordered by SorensonVRS to set up VRS at her (interpreter) home. I express my discomfort regarding this idea to this installer as this installer understood but was following the order made by SorensonVRS. I don’t use SorensonVRS because of several reasons plus this one. Someone need to check in with SorensonVRS and perhaps political group re: lobbying VRS and NAD shall bring to FCC’s attention regarding home based VRS service as this shall be banned!
I don’t think it is appropriate for the interpreters to take on VRS calls from home. There are so many operation issues that can not be resolved that easily…
1. Suppose my VRS call lasts for hours such as a conference call, does it mean the interpreter will not have a break? I prefer to have a team of two interpreters to handle my lengthy call so that way I will not experience interpreting errors due to fatique…
2. Suppose I have a complaint, I would like to speak with the supervisor immediately? Do I have to hang up and contact somebody… look for the contact information listed in the website? I consider this inconvenient…
3. Suppose there are technical issues, the technican is not readily available to support the interpreter or the customer?
The practice of VRs working at home is already being used. I am NOT comfortble with the idea of having a VRS interpreter work at home because of limited security and confidential information. How can I know if the interpreter handles confidential information well? I knew one VRS interpreter who wore a nice shirt on top and pajamas at bottom. It was not professional at all. What’s more… If there is a problem with the system, how can the interpreter resolve it without having the service disrupted? I am NOT in support of VRS interpreters working at home at this point.
As an interpreter myself that holds their ethics to the highest priority I find it very sad that interpreters have driven themselves into this hold where they are not trusted.
If an interpreter is going to break confidentiality, being at home is not the environment that will stem this action. People are mentioning having the interpreters ‘monitored” at home? who monitors the interpreter in the community? I completely agree with Quality Control… but why only VRS.
I speak to many deaf folks.. who tell me.. “you know this Interpreter (Name) .. they did.. A, B and C that was clearly unethical” I respond by asking if they filed a grievance. “ooh.. no! never file a complaint”
There are Ethical interpreters out there.. that are competing with the blatenly UNETHICAL interpreter that works all the time. I would like to see the Deaf community stepping up and fighting for their rights to demand quality, ethical interpreters.
If the community catches these unethical interpreters.. early.. they will change their ways early in their career and BECOME the qualified ethical interpreter and value their role as a professional, which would build back trust in our profession, OR it will weed out the bad apples.
PLEASE… have a voice.. dont let an interpreter take advantage of you. why depend on the Relay services to do what really is your responsibility. Interpreters dont seem to listen to other interpreters when they are approached on their ethical decisions.. but they DO respond to you. and if they dont.. talk to your colleagues.. aske around.. is this interpreter doing these things to everyone? Read the Registry of Interpreter for the Deafs Code of Professional Conduct. find out what is really requred of them.. discuss how things that happen.. are related to the Code interpreters have been given to follow. This CPC was put together by a team from the NAD and RID. its for the CONSUMERS best interest!!
Just my two cents
We (Sorenson Communication) have never set up a VRS interpreter station in a person’s home. We as a company are always vigilant at ensuring the FCC regulation to provide confidential calls as we do just that by providing Sorenson VRS services from confidential and secure Interpreting Centers across the country.
We provide VRI service which is not a regulated service. It is a fee based and similar to community interpreting. VRI is being done from the interpreter’s home. This is a common practice with other VRI Interpreting agencies as well. These interpreters providing VRI services are using other types of equipment and all services are scheduled through a different department and scheduling service, there is no overlap of VRI with VRS.
Cheers!
Ron
[fyi - Ron is a deaf and is a vice president of Sorenson VRS] –
Hi Ron,
Thanks for ur remarks; they help clarify SVRS’s position. Video Remote Interpreting (VRS) indeed is not regulated by either state or federal regulations. Generally, VRI users know upfront who the video interpreter of VRI might be as these type of VRI typically are scheduled ahead of time.
Likewise Cheers…
Ed
I am puzzled over argument – why not as many interpreter have sick kids can work only short period plus good for enviromnent no car exhaust pollution travel to work! Plus confidential already in code of ethics no worries over that plus I think if interpreter alone home more confidential than VRS center because no gossip with other interpreters!!! Often i see interpreters gossip but no real broke of confidential as no name mention but sometimes I can grab knowledge of who through context very dangerous!!!!
I am a working VR Interpreter. From my point of view, I do not want to work from home. Any company providing VR services is required to maintain certain standards, right? If I did this from home, how would they do that? The only way to be sure would be to come into my home and check up one me from time to time.
Any policy which allows your boss to walk into your house and look around is an invasion of privacy and, to me, unacceptable. I have heard (but not verified) that it is actually illegal in my state. That is why I would not do VR interpreting from home even if it was offered.
Your blog is quite fair, open and reasonable and merits a response from Lifelinks. Although all our interpreters work from call centers, in order to provide the deaf community with as many certified interpreters hours as possible, we will enable, e.g. a mother, who has family responsibilities, to supplement her hours by working from a office located in a separate facility such as a garage or basement which is used for no other purpose, is lockable, secure, private, professional with back-up power, etc. and far away from the distractions of children or intrusion. An interpreter is required to have a babysitter or child-care person while she/he works. Two or more interpreters may simultaneously work from the same superbly equipped facility because these are, in effect, call centers. Our technology enables any interpreter to transfer a call depending on caller preference, length of call, etc. just as if the interpreters were in the same location, so the issue of interpreter fatigue is moot. A supervisor is always available. All facilities are examined to assure compliance. The interpreters are paid the same as if they work in our main call center Thus, as one of your writers beautifully wrote; the major beneficiary is the deaf and hard of hearing community because of increased access to more interpreters. We hold your privacy and confidentiality in the highest regard and respect. We are not your adversary; we are your friend. Our primary concern should be the continuation of federal funding for VRS, or we all lose.
Ruth David, Thank you for your response. It is much appreciated – not only by me, but by Readers of Alert as well. Confidentiality and privacy are, as you said, very important. I strongly believe that ultimately it would need to come from VRS users themselves in deciding the degree of comfort/confidentiality in using VRS provider that allows video interpreters to work from home.
The FCC would need to check the pulse of the VRS users and ensure that these confidentiality and privacy issues are maintained to the highest level. Unfortunately, at this time, the FCC does not have resources to check that out in a thorough way; perhaps ultimately from the demands of the teeming masses, these issues will go higher up on priority rating and receive thorough reviews these issues deserve.
I do strongly suggest that any VRS providers that do allow VIs to work from home to be open about that and state publically the security measures to ensure confidentiality and privacy instead of hiding behind so called "private office" which they may be, but, nevertheless, from a home. VRS users, in upon learning the security measures, may or may not be comfortable to use VRS that allow VI to work from private offices of their homes. The choice should be up to the VRS users to decide that with facts openly shared regarding VIs and their "private offices".
I beg to disagree; continuation of federal funding of VRS will not stop as ur message seems to imply. VRS industry is here to stay no matter what. You may be referring to reimbursement rates; in that case, this is still open to debate and that the FCC ultimately will have to decide on reimbursement rates. (By the way, we should hear from the FCC on that very soon.)
Again, thanks for your remarks.
We’ll see what the Gentle Readers have to say.
eyes open & thumbs up, Ed
I know for fact that interpreters for LifeLinks work home. I think there 2 call centers. That all. They try to trick us, but they won’t get way with it. There never enough interpreters to do the calls anyways. I can never get in and wait for hours. How can company still work if not meet FCC rules. I also know there is no security at home. One interpreter said they never check. and their pets always comes in means no shut door. this no good company.
Annonymous,
If you can note the time, day, VI’s identification number, and the name of VRS. You can file complaint with the FCC.
Go to http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm and follow the instruction. I suggest two ways: one via online complaint and other via email.
Good luck…
Ed
Confidentiality is never a guarantee no matter where you go. A call center interpreter can talk about deaf conversations when s/he is done with the call or leaves the call center. I’m a VRS terp who has worked for several companies and have witnessed terps who finish with a call and then go talk about it to another interpreter in the call center. That violates confidentiality and they work in a call center! I believe that confidentiality is higher from home-offices because there’s no one else there to talk to!
And to clear up a misunderstanding…home-office terps can transfer calls if they need a switch. Yeah, technology!
(For the record, I’m not a home-office terp)
“….. the solution to rates and home offices and shortage of interpreters:
Invest money in existing technologies and expand them to be able to recognize ASL over a video connection and convert it to speech. Tie that to a computer animation (”avatar”) that coverts English to ASL. ”
Thinks-Like-Hearing,
That “solution” just puts countless people out of jobs. Your “solution” for confidentiality issues is to eliminate the interpreting profession altogether and replace it with software?
I think most Deaf people would rather have a human in front of them. For every 1 interpreter that violates confidentiality there are 10,000 that never even think to do so.
Terrible idea.
Ron Burdett, Sorenson Communication (19:15:44) :
We (Sorenson Communication) have never set up a VRS interpreter station in a person’s home. We as a company are always vigilant at ensuring the FCC regulation to provide confidential calls as we do just that by providing Sorenson VRS services from confidential and secure Interpreting Centers across the country. We provide VRI service which is not a regulated service. It is a fee based and similar to community interpreting. VRI is being done from the interpreter’s home. This is a common practice with other VRI Interpreting agencies as well. These interpreters providing VRI services are using other types of equipment and all services are scheduled through a different department and scheduling service, there is no overlap of VRI with VRS.
Cheers!
Ron
Ron,
You (Sorenson) are also notorious for working your interpreters into the ground. Many people only work for Sorenson because it is the closest VRS service to their home or because there are simply no alternatives. If VVI catches on and interpreters can work from home with other companies, and your company continues to take a hard stance, I believe you will be out of business. I’m not saying this WILL happen, but, given the choice, any interpreter would choose to set-up a home office and work for a technologically-savvy company with eyes toward the future, rather than the Sorenson monopoly.
Who is more likely to break confidentiality? A well-rested, less-stressed interpreter with a PROFESSIONAL HOME OFFICE who is certified and follows confidentiality to a T, or an over-worked cubicle interpreter?
Dont be paranoid, VVI interpreting companies are smart enough to employ professionals with access to a private home-office and a vast knowledge of the Code of Ethics. I have several friends who work for LifeLinks, they tell me that the screening process is extensive and that the company comes out to the individuals home and carefully determines if the set-up and situation is/are appropriate. They don’t just send any ol’ person who wants to interpret the software/hardware and say “good luck!”
Fortunately, I work for a fantastic VRS company that works its interpreters just enough and is sensitive to ergonomic needs and provides sufficient breaks. I work with several former Sorenson VRS interpreters who left because they felt over-worked and under-appreciated, which is often the case with a mega-corporation like Sorenson. I also work with several people who drive 2+ hours to-and-from work EVERYDAY.
I personally don’t work VVI, but if it catches on I can’t say I wouldn’t consider it.
You cant complain about a lack of interpreters, yet at the same time say that something that provides professional interpreters incentives to stay/start in the interpreting field shouldn’t be allowed.