Government agencies’ work to bridge language barriers not sufficiently effective

The Swedish language is to be used in public sector activities. Shortcomings in communication can lead to incorrect decisions, longer processing times and higher costs. This can also lead to the individual neither understanding their obligations nor being able to exercise their rights, impaired legal certainty and poorer confidence in government agencies. This is why, under the Administrative Procedure Act, government agencies must use interpreters and translate documents when necessary.

The Swedish National Audit Office has examined whether cases in which the individual lacks a command of Swedish are processed effectively at the Social Insurance Agency, the Pensions Agency and the Tax Agency. The overall conclusion is that, while processing functions well in several respects, it could be more effective.

The most obvious shortcoming is that government agencies do not ensure that non-Swedish-speakers can understand their case or the decisions taken. Government agencies use interpreters to some extent, and often translate documents added to the case, but do not translate correspondence or decisions that they send to the individual – not even when the case officer knows that the individual does not understand Swedish.

“Although the Language Act stipulates that government agencies should use Swedish, they must also comply with requirements in the Administrative Procedure Act for translation when necessary. Those efforts could be considerably improved,” says Auditor General Christina Gellerbrant Hagberg.

The fact that agencies do not translate outgoing communications can also lead to additional work and increased costs for the agency in cases where the individuals concerned need to make repeated contact attempts to understand their case.

Furthermore, the audit also shows that government agencies often engage multilingual staff to bridge language barriers. However, the agencies do not have any processes for quality-assuring employees’ language skills, and it is unclear who is responsible for the accuracy of translation and interpretation.

“Case officers who are assisted by multilingual colleagues cannot check whether the translation or interpretation is accurate. Our assessment is that agencies should formalise the use of multilingual employees to clarify responsibility for quality,” says Hedvig Tängdén, Project Leader for the audit.

The Swedish National Audit Office also notes that the audited agencies do not perform any overall follow-up of interpretation and translation costs. Such follow-up is important for agencies’ ability to assess whether they are choosing cost-effective solutions to bridge language barriers.