Public bodies commonly publish translated leaflets and treat language access as addressed. The interaction that matters is usually live, and live interpretation is a very different service to provide.
Translation and interpretation solve different problems
Translation converts written material and can be done once for many readers. It is comparatively cheap per person reached and easy to procure in advance.
Interpretation happens in real time between speakers and cannot be prepared ahead. It requires an available person with the right language pair at the moment of the appointment.
Because most consequential encounters are conversations, translated documents alone leave the core problem untouched, even though they are the more visible provision.
Availability is a scheduling problem
Common language pairs can usually be covered by an existing roster. Less common ones may involve a small number of qualified interpreters over a large area.
Appointments then have to be arranged around interpreter availability, which lengthens waiting times for the people already facing the greatest barrier.
Telephone and video services widen the available pool considerably, though they lose visual cues and struggle in settings where documents must be examined together.
Using family members carries known risks
Relatives are often used because they are present and free. They may lack the vocabulary for medical, legal or financial terms and can summarise rather than convey what was said.
The relationship itself alters what is disclosed. A patient may withhold information from a professional if a family member is the channel, particularly on sensitive matters.
Children used as interpreters face an additional burden, and many services now have explicit policies discouraging the practice for that reason.
Qualification and subject knowledge matter
Interpreting accurately in a clinical or legal setting requires specialist terminology and an understanding of what a question is intended to establish.
Registration schemes exist in many countries, with assessment covering language competence, ethics and confidentiality. Coverage of these schemes across settings is uneven.
Where the budget is tight, bodies may use unassessed bilingual staff. That saves money but transfers risk into the encounter, where errors are hardest to detect.
Funding rules shape provision
Where interpretation is a statutory entitlement, it is generally budgeted and monitored. Where it is discretionary, it competes with other pressures and tends to shrink first.
Charging models also matter. A department billed internally for each session has an incentive to avoid booking one, whichever policy the organisation states.
Entitlements, funding arrangements and interpreter registration requirements differ substantially between countries and services, and they are revised as budgets and legislation change.