Extracted text from TNA_3.5_English_Final.pdf:

TNA 3.5 - Translation Needs Assessment and Monitoring Recommended criteria and scoring form, with an explanation/guidelines for project assessment With references to the Common Framework Principles Short Introduction This set of criteria for Bible translation projects has been elaborated by the TNA Review Group, which was composed of members of UBS Global Bible Translation and other GMT departments as well as representatives of a number of Bible Societies and partner organisations. The Review Group developed this in the first half of 2014. After the two previous TNA reviews of 2006 and 2011, we refer to this planning and monitoring tool as TNA 3.5. It is our hope that the criteria and the guidelines behind themconcerning the need, the commitment and the planningwill help Bible Societies to assess and monitor the translation needs in the countries in which they carry out their mission. The guidelines are designed to help to assess and improve translation projects and project proposals. A scoring form (available in Excel) is included, to help determine the extent to which a translation project meets the criteria. In order to reach out to the intended audience, the life-cycle of a translation project should include planning for literacy activities and publication. The Common Framework (CF) agreement as agreed by different translation agencies is an expression and endorsement of the goals, the ethos and the praxis of Bible translation work in the Bible Societies movement. In its long history of Bible translation, partnering with local stakeholders, other Bible translation agencies and resourcing partners has always been a crucial criteria and a foundational aspect in the ministry of promoting Scripture engagement in the local context. The different aspects of the Common Framework agreement have been present in one way or the other; but there has been a felt need to improve on different aspects depending on the local context. The version of TNA 3.0 (update Nov. 2016) was reworked in view of making visible explicitly the CF principles which the United Bible Societies as a part of its cooperation with other translation agencies adheres to: ownership, partnership, stewardship, accelerated impact and relationship. These principles are not seen as a way to conform to outside standards but are intrinsic to Bible Translation in the modern age, building on the legacy of Bible translation in the Bible Society movement. The UBS translation criteria as expressed in TNA 3.0 do help accomplish the CF goals in a way that respects the long legacy of UBS Bible translation and work with local church. How can this tool be used? The criteria, the scoring form and the guidelines are intended to help individual Bible Societies to plan and organise translation projects in the spirit of ownership, partnership, relationships, stewardship and in promotion of an accelerated Scripture engagement or impact during the translation phase and afterwards. Success of the project is not its finalization but rather its integration as part of the community and their acceptance of the Scripture engagement products whether it be audio, written, visual or cyber. evaluate their translation project proposals prioritise the translation needs in their country or region. (Translation) staff members who fill in the scoring form are advised to be as objective as possible, concentrating on the descriptions that fit their situation best (rather than on giving a high score). UBS Global Translation Advisors are available to help Bible Societies with this process. In this document: The criteria for assessing translation projects presented briefly A summary of the criteria in a diagram for use without scoring The criteria-based Excel project form a self-assessment tool which includes scoring The guidelines, which explain the criteria in more detail to help assess projects The CF principles underlying the translation criteria as adopted by UBS TNA 3.5

CRITERIA (six recommended) 1.

Objective translation need Type and scope of translation project adequate description and motivation Intended audience adequate research and motivation The match between audience / translation type / church demand How the translation will be complementary to existing translations in this language or in the dominant language This is done in partnership with the local churches and local Bible Society so as to ensure ownership by them. The need for translation has to be established through good relationships with local partners and their valuable input.

Language vitality and use Used actively in the media (cultural identity) Used actively in the churches Used actively by young people and children For Sign Languages: used actively within the Deaf community Literacy level in the language of the translation (for translations in print and on internet) Bilingualism and other sociolinguistic indicators [For information, not for scoring:] Number of (churchgoing) mother tongue speakers Percentage of mother tongue speakers of the language in this community Language vitality is a key element beyond mere numbers since it gives a realistic sociolinguistic assessment of the language use and ownership even of the promotion of the language by the local partners as explicitly established in the CF agreement.

BSs commitment, capacity and ownership Translators recruitment plan in place Commitment to the translators welfare Financial what can be expected locally through the Bible Society Infrastructure, coordination, staff support In agreement with the CF principles this criteria ensures the partnership model and is based on relationships that have been established or will be established to accomplish the work.

Churches / Christian organisations/ resourcing partners commitment and ownership Are churches they seconding translators and reviewers? Financial what can be expected locally from Churches / Christian organisations? What can be expected by other resourcing partners? Interconfessional involvement in the project Other expressed forms of commitment For Sign Languages: Is the Deaf community involved in the planning of the project? Ownership by the local churches as well as by other partners is guaranteed through the ongoing relationships with churches who are treated as partners in the project. For the United Bible Societies a project with partnership with the local churches when this is possible, has the highest priority.

TNA 3.5

Project Plan in place Quality of the translation project TO support and CAP support available Budget (all categories of expenses; all stages of project)

Translation brief (translation principles, form/medium of publication) Working procedures (reviewing, testing, other) Contracts and copyright holder (Online) publication plan already during the different stages of the project Place of this translation in other programs of the Bible Society The project plan will include explicit goals and milestones to accelerate the impact of Scripture among the local community. Print and non-print publications of the work during the life the project will be a key component of the project plan. 6.

Regular review Evaluation of: The teams progress at different stages of the project The progress of publication progress (portions online) Ownership, management and infrastructural support (by BS and other parties) Adequate financial management Infrastructure and coordination Churches continued commitment Stability of sociolinguistic indicators Structure in place for the evaluation The whole project will adhere to sound stewardship guidelines where not only account is given to the mission/donor partners, but a culture of local stewardship is encouraged and implemented through concrete management tools. Sound stewardship of the translation project entails not only financial stewardship, but includes sound stewardship of relationships, local ownership, translators wellbeing and scripture engagement with the community. The criteria summarised in a diagram (if scoring is not preferred) TRANSLATION [name of project/language]: FACTS, FIGURES, PLANNING Objective translation need Yes.no Why and how is the well-described and argued translation complementary to others Language vitality and use Yes.no; in which Bilingualism and other contexts? sociolinguistic indicators Bible Society commitment Strong? Bible Society can fund xx % and ownership (funding / of the project, and is staff / infrastructure) committed to supervise and look after translation team Churches commitment Yes.no; which xx % of the local Churches and ownership Churches? are involved; expressed forms of commitment Project Plan in place Yes.not yet Support, budget, translation brief, procedures, contracts, publishing Regular review in place Yes.not yet Progress, infrastructure, commitment

SCORING FORM With the help of the Excel project scoring form (as a self-assessment tool on the basis of the Guidelines below), the criteria can be weighed and given a score:

TNA 3.5

UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES - Translation Needs Assessment TNA Evaluation Form

Date prepared:

Language Project: Ethnologue ISO language code:

Bible Society:

Criteria

Very low Low 1 2 Some Description of Inadequate Description of the Need for Objective the Need for Translation Translation for the Translation Need for the Audience -- Poorly Intended Audience -Argued Not Argued Written language but Language spoken by Language Vitality restricted use in some young people, but and Use social contexts -- high primarily in home bilingualism

Bible Society Commitment & Ownership

Minimal Inadequate infrastructure. infrastructure. No Considering some local local funding. Few funding. Some prospects prospects for for translators training translators training and support. Inadequate and support. No TO TO & CAP support. & CAP support.

Churches' / Christian organisations' Commitment & Ownership

General interest and Written request from request from a several Churches for a Church for a translation, with a vernacular commitment to provide translation mother tongue translators

Project Plan in place

Undeveloped plan. No translation brief. No budget. No procedures in place.

Preliminary plan. Inadequate translation brief and procedures. Budget estimate.

Regular Review (of progress, infrastructure, ownership) in place

No plan or commitment to regular review

Basic preparation for regular review

TOTAL SCORE

Medium 3 Adequate Description of the Need for Translation for the Audience -Reasonably Argued Language has official status, use in church, education and media - some bilingualism Adequate infrastructure. Raising some local funding. Reasonable prospects for translators training and support. Adequate TO & CAP support. Explicit commitment of major denominations to participate in the translation and to use the translation

High 4 Comprehensive Description of the Need for Translation for the Audience -Well Argued National language used in all public domains -- low bilingualism

Score

Additonal Comments

Optimal infrastructure. Committed to some local funding. Good prospects for translators training and support. Optimal TO & CAP support.

Broad interconfessional support and commitment to full participation and use of the translation Well-developed plan. Reasonable plan. Clear translation brief Adequate translation and procedures. Fully brief and procedures. costed budget and Reasonable budget well-managed and strategy in place. strategy in place. Adequate infrastructure for regular review

Well-developed infrastructure for regular review in place

PRIORITY:

Other aspects to consider (not part of the scoring): Please give specific comments instead of only answering yes/no: Planned commencement Expected duration of project Translation Type (First / New / Revision) Scope (OT, NT, portion, study edition/helps) Is it a Sign Language? Publication medium (Audio? Print? Electronic? Video?) Literacy level in language of translation Number of (churchgoing) speakers Percentage of mother tongue speakers number of (churchgoing) speakers Are there exceptional socio-political circumstances? Existing translations in this language? Existing translation in the 2nd language? Literacy program? Other translation agencies Translation Officer Which agencies might be interested in supporting this project? If the score on this form is quite low - for which of the six Criteria do you see potential for improvement and a higher score in the future? Expected Date of Completion

Reviewed By: Date:

TNA 3.5

GUIDELINES The above criteria, diagram and scoring form are based on the following, more detailed guidelines: [The opportunity and objective need]

Objective translation need Type of translation project: Oral (non-print) / Written (print) / On internet/Digital First translation / New translation / Revision / Study Bible for an existing translation Scope of translation: Whole canon? A Testament? Deuterocanonical Books? Meaningful group of books? Why? Intended audience: for example, youth, interconfessional, TAZI: Has research been done, among the wider community, showing the need for this translation? This translation and other translations: How is the translation envisaged to be complementary to any existing Scriptures (whether oral or printed or signed) in this language or in the dominant language of the region/country? Or to any other ongoing translation projects (by other agencies)? Which gap will this project fill and what difference will it make? Establishing of the objective translation need should be done in the spirit of ownership, partnership and stewardship as established by the CF criteria. Inherent in the criteria there is link to (ongoing) ownership of the project in terms of goal, selection of material and platform of distribution.
Language vitality and use: Language attitude - Vitality and use of language Sociolinguistic indicators: Official status of the language? National language? Restricted use or in the public domain? TV? Radio? Papers? Is the language a Sign Language? Do young generations use it? Is the language promoted among them? Is there a strong sense of identification with the language and culture? Do churches (how many) actively use this language in their worship? To which extent is the intended audience bilingual? (With which other language?) If a Sign Language, which deaf community has adopted it? What is the populations level of literacy in the language of the translation (for translations in print and on internet) Population size / number of mother tongue speakers (corroborated by reliable sources) Geographical distribution and dialectal variation [Local commitment and ownership]
BSs commitment, capacity and ownership: Bible Societys own vision on Bible translation and developing translations Bible Societys own commitment and capacity to sustain the project: Making translation team members available Not always but often better part time - not taking people out of their cultural network commitment to motivate and help translators during and after the project TNA 3.5

Contributing financially: what can be expected locally? are funds being raised locally? balance of local support vs. support from others (ISP; donors) Facilities/infrastructure: office space; computers Providing coordination and staff support Track record of managing translation projects Local ownership is key for the projects soundness and vitality. Monetary and non-monetary contributions on the local level are an expression of the CF guidelines of which the TNA is an explicit expression and elaboration. The TNA-CF guidelines will always be adapted to the context of the local stakeholders and never be imposed as a top-down budgetary tool. 4. Churches / Christian organisations commitment and ownership: Supported by the Churches / Christian organisations of this language group? How many? Interconfessional? Making translation team members and reviewers available (not always but often better part time - not taking people out of their cultural network) (If a Sign Language,) are the (Deaf) translators acceptable to all Churches? Are Churches contributing financially (what can be expected locally?) Facilities: office space Evidence of other expressions of commitment? Commitment to use the translation? By how many Churches? Supported by Churches / Christian organisations (or other parties) outside this language group? Are there any exceptional socio-political circumstances? (In some areas the Church is not established but a translation might be needed to help the Church and support it in threatening circumstances.) Ownership by local churches and partnership with local churches has been a condition a sine qua non for the Bible Society movement since its inception and barring special circumstances in specific countries and territories. [Planning put in place for the translation and publishing process] 5. Planning in place before the translation starts Quality of the project [This planning should be in place before funding is made available or after, depending on the BS staff capacities. It should certainly be in place before the translation starts.] The following eight points should be included in the planning: a.

Qualified TO support made available in order to help assure good stewardship and ownership by the local community and churches as agreed upon in the CF agreement.

CAP support available in order to help good stewardship of computer tools in the service of translation.

Budget fully prepared: duration of project after period of preparation and training remuneration, computers, office, (travel to) meetings, translation training; Paratext training typesetting and publishing

Presence of a translation brief reflecting principles of ownership, partnership, relationships, accelerated impact:

TNA 3.5

Are the Bible Society, interested parties and the translation team committed to the same translation principles? Are resourcing partners an integrated part in the planning and monitoring process, to insure understanding of the contextual needs, encourage their support and maintain a dialogue in an attitude of respect for the local ownership and needs? Translation from source text / source text check? Which base text (especially with Churches of different Confessions)? Target language: spelling and script Type of translation; translation method; how is this translation different from others? Intended audience: who will use the translation and how? Working procedures in the translation team and for external reviewers Medium of publication Which communication platform: audio, print, or both? Internet? Visual (SL)? e.

Reviewing process of the translations that are in progress: Who will be involved and why? Reviewing and checking done online? Testing translation drafts with the community (future users) done online? Sharing translated portions with (members of) community online; audio; visual (SL); storytelling; Paratext The fleshing out of the reviewing process is a key element in the actual implementation of the accelerated impact goal as established by the CF agreement.

Copyright to the translation: Contracts with the translators and other parties, protecting the Bible Societys copyright The copyright agreements should reflect the spirit of ownership, stewardship, and the relationships which all Bible translation agencies adhere to.

Publishing: Planning in place (from the start) to publish and launch specific portions (milestones) of the translation during the lifetime of the project? Willingness of Bible Society to (pre)publish portions of the translations online (via DBL)? Pricing policy for copies of the complete translation The publishing plan and agreements are key in implementing the accelerated impact goal as established in the CF.

Place of this translation in plans for Literacy, Bible Engagement and Advocacy so as to accelerate the impact of the translation work with the local partner involved in the language community. If the level of literacy in the language of the translation is low, is there planning in place to provide literacy education to the audience (duration, places, partners, participants)?

[If criterion 5 meets only two of these pointers then it should not score more than 1 point. If it meets four of these pointers, it should not score more than 2 points, etc.]

[Monitoring the process and progress] 6. Regular review Evaluation: Regular reporting for semi-annual review (or more frequently): on the progress made by the translation team on the teams development and ownership of the translation brief on how the Bible Society manages the project, the team, and prepublications on the continued commitment, ownership, and infrastructural support of the Bible Society, the Churches, and all parties on any obstacles that have hindered progress TNA 3.5

TMS or TMS-based summary of progress The monitoring of the process and the progress represents the fleshing out of good stewardship not seen or implemented as imposed from outside or from above, but rather as an integral part of the work itself which is owned by the local community and an expression of relationships of trust that have been established. [As one of the Other aspects to consider, the scoring form includes the phrase If the score in the form is quite low for which of the sic criteria do you see potential for improvement and a higher score in the future? Comments can be made here if the project scores high for criteria 1, 2, and 4 (clear translation need and interest), but still low for criteria 3 and 5 (due to lower capacity). In this way, TNA assessors can draw attention to projects that have potential for funding in the future (after capacity building).]

Versions: 15 Aug 2014, update 22 March 2015 with amendments re sign language, updated November 2016 to explicit dovetail with the Common Framework model, updated end of June 2017 with amendments re Literacy.

TNA 3.5

Extracted text from TNA-3.5-Evaluation_form_-_English.xlsx:

Sheet1 UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES - Translation Needs Assessment 3.5 TNA Evaluation Form Date prepared:

Language Project:			Bible Society:	 
Ethnologue ISO language code:

 Criteria	Very low	Low	Medium	High	Score	Additonal Comments
	1	2	3	4
Objective Translation Need 	Some Description of the Need for Translation for the Intended Audience -- Not Argued	Inadequate Description of the Need for Translation for the Audience -- Poorly Argued	Adequate Description of the Need for Translation for the Audience --  Reasonably Argued	Comprehensive Description of the Need for Translation for the Audience -- Well Argued
Language Vitality and Use	Language spoken by young people, but primarily in home	Written language but restricted use in some social contexts -- high bilingualism	Language has official status, use in church, education and media -- some bilingualism	National language used in all public domains -- low bilingualism	 
Bible Society Commitment & Ownership 	Minimal infrastructure. No local funding. Few prospects for translators training and support. No TO & CAP support.	Inadequate infrastructure. Considering some local funding. Some prospects for translators training and support. Inadequate TO & CAP support.	Adequate infrastructure. Raising some local funding. Reasonable prospects for translators training and support. Adequate TO & CAP support.	Optimal infrastructure. Committed to some local funding. Good prospects for translators training and support. Optimal TO & CAP support.	 
Churches' / Christian organisations' Commitment & Ownership	General interest and request from a Church for a vernacular translation	Written request from several Churches for a translation, with a commitment to provide mother tongue translators	Explicit commitment of major denominations to participate in the translation and to use the translation	Broad interconfessional support and commitment to full participation and use of the translation	 
Project Plan in place	Undeveloped plan. No translation brief. No budget. No procedures in place.	Preliminary plan. Inadequate translation brief and procedures. Budget estimate.	Reasonable plan. Adequate translation brief and procedures. Reasonable budget and strategy in place.	Well-developed plan. Clear translation brief and procedures. Fully costed budget and well-managed strategy in place.	 
Regular Review (of progress, infrastructure, ownership) in place	No plan or commitment to regular review	Basic preparation for regular review	Adequate infrastructure for regular review	Well-developed infrastructure for regular review in place	 	 
 	 	 	 		 
 	 	 	 	 	 
TOTAL SCORE	0					PRIORITY:


Other aspects to consider (not part of the scoring):
				Please give specific comments instead of only answering yes/no:
Planned commencement
Expected duration of project			 
Translation Type (First / New / Revision)
Scope (OT, NT, portion, study edition/helps)
Is it a Sign Language?
Publication medium (Audio? Print? Electronic? Video?)
Literacy level in language of translation
Number of (churchgoing) speakers
Percentage of mother tongue speakers
Is it an area without an established church?
Are there exceptional socio-political circumstances?
Existing translations in this language?
Existing translation in the 2nd language?
Literacy program?
Other translation agencies
Translation Officer
Which agencies might be interested in supporting this project?
If the score on this form is quite low - for which of the six
Criteria do you see potential for improvement and a higher
score in the future?
Expected Date of Completion 

Reviewed By:
Date:

Sheet2

Sheet3

Translation Needs Assessment

0 comments