Sometimes, new studies and analyses are perfectly timed to fit the moment. That axiom is certainly true for the new “Spanish-dominant Speakers and Language Access in the Justice System,” written by University of California at Irvine (UCI) co-authors Nancy Rodriguez, Meghan M. Ballard, and Melissa Martinez. Their study was supported and funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as part of the Safety and Justice Challenge, which aims to reduce over-incarceration by changing the way America thinks about and uses jails.
They conclude:
“An estimated 69.2 million people in the U.S. speak a language other than English at home, with 26.5 million people classified as limited English proficient (LEP).
“’LEP individuals have a limited ability to read, write, speak or understand English and are more likely to need language assistance — such as interpretation or translation — when communicating with, for example, officials who work within the criminal justice system (CJS),’ Ballard explains. ‘Without proper language assistance during these interactions, LEP individuals risk wrongful detention and arrest, inadequate representation, and other adverse outcomes that can further exacerbate inequities in the CJS.’”
Today, many LEP people, as well as English-dominant speakers, face nearly unprecedented challenges in the midst of White House-directed deportation efforts. People who are stopped, detained, or arrested by U.S. law enforcement on suspicion of being undocumented immigrants face myriad challenges communicating with law enforcement concerning the charges against them, Miranda warnings against self-incrimination and availability of legal counsel, and explanations for being stopped by police. There are waivers, confessions, and other documents, written in English, that people are faced with understanding and signing.
There may be interactions with immigration judges or federal judges where lack of English proficiency can create difficult, if not impossible, conditions for comprehending the charges pending against them, rights of detained individuals, and how they can secure legal representation, if possible.
Although not written with the current level of detentions and deportations in mind, the study has salient examples of how the lack of English language proficiency in criminal justice system (CJS) interactions with ICE and other similar agencies can be highly problematic.
The authors note:
“The policy brief examines the experiences of Spanish-dominant individuals within the CJS and addresses the lack of research on LEP individuals’ encounters with crime and the CJS.
“Our goal was to highlight a population highly overlooked in CJS research and move toward addressing gaps in language access policies and practices,” according to Professor Rodriguez.
The research uncovered what Ballard described as ‘a surprising—and, sadly, not entirely unexpected—finding:’ the widespread reliance on family members and friends, especially children, to serve as informal interpreters during interactions with the CJS “despite concerns about accuracy and confidentiality.”
To reach their conclusions, the UC Irvine team analyzed original data on the experiences of 85 (CJS) system-impacted Spanish-dominant speaking individuals who live or have resided in the U.S. Southwest. Their shared experiences and perceptions were based on access to language services across the CJS spectrum: police stops, arrests, interviews, court hearings and incarceration. The hope is the policy brief findings can lead to a more equitable justice system.
“’The implementation of several recommendations, including expanding qualified interpreters, increasing the number of bilingual personnel within in the CJS, and supporting self-improvement of English proficiency will go a long way toward enhancing the accessibility, fairness, and effectiveness of the justice system for LEP individuals,’ Rodriguez says.
Adds Ballard: ‘When all individuals, regardless of their English language proficiency, are provided the tools to fully participate in their interactions with CJS officials, it not only leads to more equitable legal outcomes but also fosters greater public trust, social stability, and overall societal well-being.’”
Poignantly, a majority (58.3%) of those people interviewed for this study related that “communication was easy or extremely easy” when they were afforded language assistance to enable effective communication during their detention or incarceration, including interactions with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
According to the study:
“More than a third of the interviewees (36.5%) reported having spent time in jail, prison, or an immigration detention center in the U.S. During their most recent incarceration experience, jail detention and ICE detention were the most recent types of incarceration experiences. More than half of all interviewees (51.6%) reported being detained for more than 24 hours. The proportion of interviewees who reported getting help to communicate with corrections staff was higher than those who engaged with the police. A little more than sixty percent of interviewees (61.3%) said that someone helped them communicate with corrections staff during their incarceration. More than half of those who received help with communication reported that communication was easy or extremely easy (58.3%). A little less than seventeen percent of interviewees (16.7%) reported that communication was difficult or extremely difficult. A few interviewees reported receiving help from corrections staff who spoke Spanish or they were provided with a phone/video interpreter to communicate with corrections staff. Among those interviewees who were confined and who did not get help with communication, almost two-thirds of the interviewees (61.1%) reported that communication was difficult or extremely difficult. Interviewees reported, once again, knowing enough English to communicate with correctional officers and staff.”
Finally, as has been documented many times previously in other studies, the UCI analysis further supports and recommends against the use of informal, ad hoc interpreters.
“A key finding of our study was the prevalent reliance on family and friends to communicate with CJS personnel. Interviewees reported an average of 6.3 individuals they could rely on to help them communicate with English-speaking CJS personnel. This suggests that most interviewees are not linguistically isolated insofar as they have access to multiple people who can act as informal interpreters during encounters with CJS personnel. However, the use of informal interpreters is generally not recommended in language access guidance, especially in the context of the CJS, due to concerns about accuracy and confidentiality.”
“Spanish-dominant Speakers and Language Access in the Justice System” comes at a highly propitious time in our nation’s experience and history. The report provides significant documentation, perhaps when most needed, to reaffirm the vital need for effective spoken language assistance for LEP people in law enforcement encounters, where lack of communication and comprehension can be matter of life or death. As immigration related encounters, arrests, and deportations continue and may increase, the UCI’s study should be a critical part of how law enforcement interacts with the public and how LEP people who are detained can be more aware of the events swirling around them that affect their liberty and rights guaranteed by U.S. law.
© Bruce L. Adelson 2025 All Rights Reserved The material herein is educational and informational only. No legal advice is intended or conveyed.
Bruce L. Adelson, Esq., is nationally recognized for his compliance expertise. Mr. Adelson is a former U.S Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Senior Trial Attorney. Mr. Adelson is a faculty member at the Georgetown University School of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh School of Law where he teaches organizational culture, implicit bias, cultural and civil rights awareness.
Mr. Adelson’s blogs are a Bromberg exclusive.