Interpreter Access Is Not a Checkbox: Why the System Is Failing Deaf Professionals

Thanks to Greg Pollock for inspiring this article:

For Deaf professionals working in high-demand environments, corporate offices, engineering labs, academic institutions, hospitals, and government spaces, communication access is not a favor. It is not a nice-to-have. It is infrastructure. Yet the systems built around sign language interpreting are too often shaped by administrative ease, cost containment, and a lack of lived experience at the decision-making table. What results is a model of access that quietly fails the very people it was intended to support.

Many companies default to using interpreter agencies as their primary model. It looks simple on paper: one vendor, one invoice, one point of contact. The agency handles logistics, assigns interpreters, and rotates them as needed. But that simplicity comes at a profound cost. Interpreter agencies are profit-driven businesses. A significant portion of what they charge the company never reaches the interpreter. That margin is non-negotiable, even when it prevents agencies from hiring the right person for the job. Too often, they fill assignments with whoever is willing to work at the discounted rate, regardless of qualifications, certification, or fit for high-level professional settings. It stops being about access. It becomes about availability.

This issue is compounded by the fact that the pool of qualified interpreters for high-stakes, high-context environments is extremely constrained. Companies are not just selecting interpreters, they are competing for them. The scarcity of qualified talent makes it even more critical that companies build access systems around continuity, reliability, and respect for professional matching, rather than treating interpreters as interchangeable gig workers.

To understand why this happens, and how to fix it, we need to examine the different interpreting models in use, their tradeoffs, and when they are appropriate.

Interpreter Models and Their Tradeoffs

The agency model outsources interpreting to a third-party service provider. It is convenient for scheduling and may work well for one-off events, large public meetings, or general communication. Some agencies do attempt to honor requests for continuity and interpreter preference, especially when Deaf professionals advocate for it, but those efforts are often constrained by staffing limitations, internal rotation policies, and profit priorities. Interpreters are frequently rotated, and assignments are driven more by scheduling convenience and budget alignment than by domain expertise or relationship continuity. For Deaf professionals with ongoing responsibilities or leadership roles, this model becomes a barrier. It forces them to repeatedly reestablish rapport, re-explain technical language, and absorb the emotional labor of being misrepresented in spaces where precision and trust are critical.

The direct contract model allows the Deaf professional or their employer to hire interpreters directly. This bypasses agency fees, often leading to higher pay for interpreters and better service quality. While it requires more coordination up front, it gives the Deaf professional far more control over who interprets for them and ensures continuity, relationship building, and context retention, qualities that are essential in professional settings. It also supports interpreter sustainability by allowing for more humane schedules and ethical conditions.

The designated interpreter model is the gold standard for Deaf professionals working in complex, high-context environments. A designated interpreter works consistently with the same individual over time, building deep knowledge of their signing style, communication patterns, technical vocabulary, and team dynamics. This model is ideal for executives, engineers, educators, attorneys, and anyone whose role requires strategic communication, leadership, or subject-matter fluency. It is not just better, it is essential for inclusion to be meaningful at senior levels. It also reduces interpreter burnout by enabling shared preparation, realistic pacing, and mutual accountability.

In-house interpreter teams, permanent employees assigned to support Deaf professionals across an organization, represent another strategic access model. While less common, this approach offers continuity, reliability, and cultural alignment. When staffed by qualified interpreters with domain knowledge, in-house teams reduce coordination burden, foster deeper workplace relationships, and build institutional knowledge over time. However, they must be structured carefully to avoid overwork, ensure neutrality, and sustain professional growth.

Understanding VRS, VRI, VP, and Remote Access Models

Video Relay Service (VRS) is often misused in corporate settings. Funded by U.S. taxpayers through the FCC, VRS is meant to support real-time phone calls between Deaf and hearing individuals through a relay interpreter. It is built for personal access, not professional collaboration. Interpreters are assigned at random, operate under federal time constraints, and are unfamiliar with the Deaf user’s work, communication style, or professional vocabulary. Despite this, some companies use VRS during internal meetings simply because it is “free.” This is a misuse of public resources and results in poor communication quality. VRS should never be treated as a workplace accommodation.

Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) is a paid remote service often used by businesses through interpreting agencies. While it may work for short, low-stakes encounters, like checking in at a reception desk or answering basic questions, it breaks down quickly in sustained professional settings. Interpreters are often unfamiliar, rotated frequently, and lack the necessary subject-matter context. VRI is not a long-term solution for Deaf professionals who need continuity, trust, or high-speed communication in technical or collaborative environments.

Video Phone (VP) is often misunderstood. It is not a service itself; it’s a general term used in the Deaf community to describe the act of communicating via video. The important distinction lies in the platform used and who is on the other end. There are third party companies that operate as VRS providers, meaning they connect Deaf and hearing individuals through randomly assigned interpreters funded by the FCC. These services were designed for personal phone calls, not workplace meetings or professional collaboration. Interpreters cannot be requested, continuity is not maintained, and calls are limited in duration. These same companies may also offer VRI as a separate, paid service for businesses. However, like most agency-based models, VRI is often scheduled ad hoc and lacks interpreter consistency or domain-specific expertise.

The key issue is not the video itself, it’s the structure behind the connection. Whether it’s through a VRS platform or a VRI service, if the interpreter is unfamiliar, rotated frequently, or disconnected from the Deaf professional’s work context, the access suffers. In contrast, when VP is used to connect over general video platforms, such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, FaceTime, or Webex, with a designated or pre-arranged interpreter, it becomes a powerful remote access solution. This model allows Deaf professionals to maintain continuity, build rapport, and ensure communication is accurate and contextually aligned.

This distinction is essential. Using VP with a designated interpreter is not the same as using VRS or agency-based VRI. One is built around relationship and reliability. The others are built around service availability and administrative convenience.

The Emotional Toll: Interpreter-Induced PTSD

The consequences of using the wrong interpreter model go far beyond occasional miscommunication. Imagine preparing to lead a high-stakes meeting, only to have your interpreter fail to understand your signing, simplify your words, or completely distort your message. You try to rephrase, but the momentum is lost. Your credibility takes a hit, not because you lack insight, but because your ideas were mangled in real time.

Over time, these experiences accumulate into something deeper. Deaf professionals begin to anticipate failure. They enter meetings bracing for embarrassment or invisibility. They carry anxiety not about the content, but about whether the interpreter will sabotage their ability to participate. It becomes a form of workplace PTSD, one that rarely gets named or acknowledged, but quietly undermines confidence, advancement, and trust.

Poor systems also place interpreters under immense pressure. Many are forced to interpret back-to-back meetings without adequate prep time, often with no prior knowledge of participants, content, or goals. Ethical standards demand accuracy, neutrality, and preparation, but agency and VRI models frequently prevent those standards from being met. This creates a double bind for interpreters, contributing to burnout, mistakes, and early exit from the profession. System reform is not only a matter of Deaf access, it’s a matter of interpreter sustainability.

The Relationship Is the Infrastructure

This is why designated interpreters matter. When the same interpreter works with a Deaf professional over time, they don’t just become more efficient, they become part of the communication infrastructure. They know when to hold tone, when to clarify, when to let something breathe. They understand the difference between technical dialogue and personal nuance. That kind of understanding is not possible in two-hour agency blocks. It only comes through relationship.

Designated interpreters dramatically reduce the cognitive burden on Deaf professionals. They allow them to show up as leaders, collaborators, and decision-makers without having to manage the interpreter as a risk. It’s not about preference, it’s about dignity, fluency, and access. It is also how companies retain Deaf talent, develop Deaf leadership, and cultivate true inclusion.

When interpreters are matched correctly, over time, and with mutual respect, they also elevate the profession itself. Quality interpreting is not just a support function, it is a strategic lever that enables full participation, especially in technical, legal, medical, and executive spaces.

Where Coordination Breaks Down Internally

Another structural problem lies in how interpreting is coordinated within organizations. Sometimes, an in-house staff member, often someone in HR, operations, or the accommodation team, is assigned to manage interpreter requests. On the surface, this seems efficient. But if that person reports into cost-driven departments or is embedded in compliance-oriented structures, they may be pressured to prioritize budget, efficiency, and vendor contracts over quality and relationship-based access.

Even when the coordinator is a certified interpreter, their ability to advocate can be compromised by internal politics. Over time, they may be discouraged from recommending designated interpreters or higher-cost professionals and instead default to agency rotation or generic service models that are easier to justify on paper.

Interpreter coordination should not be treated as a logistics or compliance task. It should be led by someone who is both credentialed and structurally insulated from cost-containment agendas. This person must have the authority and independence to prioritize access quality, Deaf professional preferences, and long-term relationship continuity, not just what fits neatly into a purchasing system.

Conclusion: Real Inclusion Means Relationship, Not Rotation

It’s time to stop treating interpreting as a transactional service and start treating it as a strategic relationship. Deaf professionals are not passive recipients of support. They are leaders, innovators, and key contributors. The systems that support their communication must reflect that.

Choosing the wrong interpreting model is not a minor mistake. It is a structural failure that impacts access, visibility, and participation. If companies are serious about inclusion, they must abandon the idea that “any interpreter will do” and build systems centered on consistency, language alignment, and trust.

Interpreter access is not a cost center. It’s a reflection. It shows whether you believe Deaf professionals belong, or whether you're just checking a box and moving on.