Click here to download a word document using recommended headings for writing evidence for the general Market Review into communication services for Deaf people.
Click here to download a word document using the CSW questions for writing evidence for the Market review looking at CSWs.
Click here to download a word document using the CSW questions for writing evidence for the Market review looking at CSWs.
If you are sending evidence for both the market review of communication services and open consultation into CSWs must be received by 10th March 2016.
3rd March 2016
You now have a little more time to send evidence to the market review. It must be received by 10th March, not 4th of March as was previously announced.
Also the market review has no evidence yet from or about communication services other than interpreting or CSWs. So please send evidence about deafblind interpreting, palantype, lipspeaking, speech to text, remote captioning, note taking, etc.
You now have a little more time to send evidence to the market review. It must be received by 10th March, not 4th of March as was previously announced.
Also the market review has no evidence yet from or about communication services other than interpreting or CSWs. So please send evidence about deafblind interpreting, palantype, lipspeaking, speech to text, remote captioning, note taking, etc.
What is a Market Review? And FAQs (taken from the Limping Chicken article)
24th February 2016
What is a Market Review?
There is no agreed meaning. So a market review means whatever it is said to mean.
In this situation it means that DWP wants to look at everything related to the communication services that Deaf, deafblind and deafened people use, and how the market works or doesn’t work. And market means how organisations, policies (etc.), and money all interact to make things work well or not.
An example of this is that AtW (organisation) has a new cap of 1.5 x the national average salary (policy) currently £40,800 (money). One impact of this is that deafblind people who need travel assistance and interpreting can no longer have both, and so may not be able to work. You might see this as an example of the market not working.
Is there one review or two?
There is one review, into all communication services and technology, covering England, Wales, Scotland and NI. But there is also an ‘open consultation’ asking four questions about Communication Support Workers (CSWs). So you can send evidence about both.
Is it really worth sending in evidence? The government’s going to ignore this just like everything else.
Yup, it’s definitely possible that this will just be written up and put on a shelf to gather dust.
However, it will be a published public document, so you, and I, and all the organisations will know what it says, and I suspect that when we want to argue with AtW, DWP, or the minister about something, we will point to the report and say, “but your own report shows that …”.
And of course, if you don’t send in evidence about what is important to you, then you have no chance of influencing anything.
OK, I’m persuaded. What can I do?
You can send your own evidence (in English or BSL), or take part in one of the surveys, or do everything! Full information about all of these is on this page.
Click here to read the original Limping Chicken article
What is a Market Review?
There is no agreed meaning. So a market review means whatever it is said to mean.
In this situation it means that DWP wants to look at everything related to the communication services that Deaf, deafblind and deafened people use, and how the market works or doesn’t work. And market means how organisations, policies (etc.), and money all interact to make things work well or not.
An example of this is that AtW (organisation) has a new cap of 1.5 x the national average salary (policy) currently £40,800 (money). One impact of this is that deafblind people who need travel assistance and interpreting can no longer have both, and so may not be able to work. You might see this as an example of the market not working.
Is there one review or two?
There is one review, into all communication services and technology, covering England, Wales, Scotland and NI. But there is also an ‘open consultation’ asking four questions about Communication Support Workers (CSWs). So you can send evidence about both.
Is it really worth sending in evidence? The government’s going to ignore this just like everything else.
Yup, it’s definitely possible that this will just be written up and put on a shelf to gather dust.
However, it will be a published public document, so you, and I, and all the organisations will know what it says, and I suspect that when we want to argue with AtW, DWP, or the minister about something, we will point to the report and say, “but your own report shows that …”.
And of course, if you don’t send in evidence about what is important to you, then you have no chance of influencing anything.
OK, I’m persuaded. What can I do?
You can send your own evidence (in English or BSL), or take part in one of the surveys, or do everything! Full information about all of these is on this page.
Click here to read the original Limping Chicken article
Market Review into Communications for people who are deaf or have hearing loss: Communication Support Work (CSW)
The DWP are asking for people to send in evidence about Communication Support Work and Communication Support Workers (CSWs). This will help the general Market Review understand about CSWs.
Click here to see the call for evidence in BSL and English.
There are just four important questions they are asking. You can send in two pieces of evidence, one for the general market review and one for the questions about CSWs.
See below for DeafATW's explanation of this, and alternative wording for the four questions. Evidence must be received by 10th March 2016.
Click here to see the call for evidence in BSL and English.
There are just four important questions they are asking. You can send in two pieces of evidence, one for the general market review and one for the questions about CSWs.
See below for DeafATW's explanation of this, and alternative wording for the four questions. Evidence must be received by 10th March 2016.
Include examples of good practice in your evidence
Update 4th February 2016.
The Market Review won't make recommendations. So it's important that in your evidence you include examples of good practice. Because the Market Review can include those.
The Market Review won't make recommendations. So it's important that in your evidence you include examples of good practice. Because the Market Review can include those.
Information and resources on this page (English) |
Information and resources on this page (BSL) |
|
This page has information about the Market Review into Communication Services, and how you can send evidence to the committee. The resources are listed below:
1) Guide to the Market Review - general questions about communications services and technology. (Plain English & BSL). 2) Download template for Market Review evidence. 3) Plain English suggestions about how to structure your evidence. 4) Guide to the Market Review - questions about Communication Support Workers (CSWs). (English & BSL). 5) Download template for Market Review evidence about CSWs. 6. In 2002 Durham University was commissioned to do a Market Review into interpreting service. Go to the bottom of this page to find my summary of this report, and the original report you can download. Links: Click here for the original Market Review of British Sign Language and communications provision for people who are deaf or have hearing loss. English and BSL versions are on the same page. |
Links:
Click here for the original Market Review of British Sign Language and communications provision for people who are deaf or have hearing loss. English and BSL versions are on the same page. |
Plain English guide to the Market Review - communication services |
BSL guide to the Market Review - communication services: |
1) DeafATW's explanation of the Market ReviewThis is a plain English summary of the call for evidence done by DeafATW.com. It contains what I think is the most important information, and what I understand is meant. If you want to see the original call for evidence, you can read it or see the full BSL translation here (look down the web page for the BSL translation).
|
1) DeafATW's explanation of the Market Review |
2) What is the Market Review?The government wants to understand more about the different communication services used by D/deaf and deafblind people. The government’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is asking for evidence about this. A group of organisations (the Steering Group) is helping the DWP.
This project is called the “Market review of British Sign Language and communications provision for people who are deaf or have hearing loss”. The reason for the Market Review is to help government and others to plan for the future. |
2) What is the Market Review? |
3) Who can send evidence?Anyone. This means any D/deaf or deafblind person, and hearing people who use communication services, communication service providers, organisations, trainers and assessors, etc.
The Market Review wants to know about ‘communication services'. These include:
The DWP would like lots of people and organisations to give evidence about communication services in the UK, (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) and abroad. You can send evidence:
When you send evidence, you must explain what kind of evidence it is, e.g. personal, from an organisation, etc. and explain how you got the evidence, e.g. personal experience, feedback from members, research, etc. |
3) Who can send evidence? |
4) Can I send evidence in BSL? How long can the evidence be?You can email or post evidence in English or BSL (details below).
In English it should be 5 sides of A4 paper or less. If you need to send evidence longer than 5 pages, or need more time, email the Market Review lead to ask about this. See below for more information about how to write and structure the evidence. |
4) Can I send evidence in BSL? How long can the evidence be? |
5) What will happen after I send evidence?They will tell you they have got it. If they don’t do this, contact them to check they have received it.
All the evidence will be looked at together, and a report will be made. This will show the different evidence sent in, and what we can learn from the evidence. There will also be a short report, called an executive summary. They will both be public reports. |
5) I send my evidence, then what? |
6) Is my evidence confidential (private)?No, evidence is not confidential or private.
All of the evidence will be published on the internet. There may a lot of evidence though, so most of it probably will never be read by anyone except the Market Review group. Because the evidence will be published it’s best not to use people’s names in your evidence, e.g. “an interpreter said ...” not "David Jones the interpreter said ...". |
6) Is my evidence confidential (private)? |
7) What does the Market Review want to know about? Suggested questions to think about.
In the call for evidence DWP say they are looking for evidence about demand, supply, and technology, now and 5-10 years in the future, for communication services with D/deaf people.
If that makes sense, then use that. If not, then I have suggested questions in a different way below. Remember you don’t have to answer them all! Communication services now: 1) What is happening with communication services now? For example:
2) Is training and assessment of communication professionals working well? 3) What about registration of communication service professionals? 4) Is there an appropriate career structure for communication services? 5) How much communication service is needed? Can you get the services you want when you need them? 6) How much do or might those communication services cost?
7) Are there regional differences?
Communication services in the next 5 to 10 years: 8) How might communication services change in the future?
Technology useful for communication services now: 9) What technology is useful now for communication services, at home and at work?
10) When is technology not useful? 11) In what situations are face-to-face communication services more useful than remote services (e.g. remote interpreting)? And in what situations are remote services more useful than face-to-face? 12) Who should fund the technology used in communication services? Who funds it now? Is there enough funding for this? 13) And what do you think the effect of cochlear implants will be? Technology useful for communication services in the next 5 to 10 years: 14) How do you expect the technology that we have available now to affect communication services in the next 5 - 10 years, for people who use and organisations who provide communication services?
15) What new technology do you think might be useful for communication services in the next 5 to 10 years?
Other areas you may want to give evidence about: 16) How the law (e.g. the Equalities Act) and policies (e.g. the NHS Accessible Information Standard) help or don’t help. 17) How do communication services, and possible changes in communication services, impact on your working life? |
7) What does the Market Review want to know about? Suggested questions?Explanation about questions:
Questions about Communication Services (interpreting etc.) now
Question about Communication Services in the next 5 to 10 years:
Questions about technology useful for communication services now:
Questions about technology useful for communication services in the next 5 to 10 years, and other questions:
|
8) Where do I send my evidence? (in English or BSL)Post: BSL and Communications Market Review, Disabilities and Work Opportunities Division, Ground Floor, DWP, Caxton House, Tothill Street, London, SW1H 9NA
Email: [email protected] |
8) Where do I send my evidence (in BSL or English)?Post: BSL and Communications Market Review, Disabilities and Work Opportunities Division, Ground Floor, DWP, Caxton House, Tothill Street, London, SW1H 9NA
Email: [email protected] |
9) Which organisations are on the Market Review Steering Group?Organisations: Acceque Ltd (telecommunications consultancy), Action on Hearing Loss, ASLI, Heriott Watt University, Microlink, NDCS, NUBSLI, Signature , SignVideo
Government departments / public bodies: DWP, Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), Crown Commercial Services (CCS), Department for Education (DfE), HMRC, Home Office, NHS, Scottish Government |
9) Which organisations are on the Market Review Steering Group? |
Suggestion about how to structure the evidence (English) |
Suggestion about how to structure the evidence (BSL) |
|
The Market Review group have said they will look at evidence in a similar way to the Select Committee. I have looked at the Select Committee evidence requirements, and made some suggestions for the Market Review. If you want to check anything, contact the Market Review group.
Headings: 1) Have an Executive Summary, saying the main points in your evidence, using bullet points. You may want to say what areas you are responding to and/or what questions you are answering. 2) Then explain whether you are sending evidence from yourself, or as an organisation, and how you collected the evidence. 3) Next have a short Introduction, about you or your organisation, and why you are sending evidence. 4) Then give your Evidence. 5) Include any references. Click here to download a word document using these headings for writing evidence for the general Market Review into communication services for Deaf people. Click here to download a word document using the CSW questions for writing evidence for the Market review looking at CSWs. |
|
Guide to the Market Review - questions about Communication Support Workers (CSWs) (English)
|
BSL guide to the Market Review - questions about Communication Support Workers (CSWs) (BSL)
|
|
Market Review - questions about Communication Support Workers (CSWs)
What is this? The government want to understand more about the different communication services used by deaf and deafblind people. The government’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is asking for evidence about this. A group of organisations (the Steering Group) is helping the DWP. The investigation is called the “Market review of British Sign Language and communications provision for people who are deaf or have hearing loss”. The reason for the Market Review is to help government and others to plan for the future. This is about questions about CSWs that you can send in as separate evidence, if you want to. See here for information about the general Market review. Why separate questions? A number of roles exist that are described as 'communication support work’. There is no generally shared agreement or understanding of the work done by such workers, or the qualifications, training and experience they need. This is different from the other communication professionals, e.g. sign language interpreters and lip speakers, where there is more agreement about the work they do, and the qualifications, training and experience they need. There is evidence that CSWs are regularly working as sign language interpreters in education and employment without enough training or skills. When this happens deaf people may not get full access. For the Market Review, they want to know how many interpreters (and other communications professionals) are needed. But if CSWs are doing work that is interpreting, this may make it look like less interpreters are needed. Who can send in evidence? Anyone. This includes Deaf (etc.) and hearing people who use communication services, communication service providers, organisations, trainers and assessors, etc. The DWP would like lots of people and organisations to give evidence about communication services in the UK, (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) and abroad. You can send evidence:
When you send evidence, you must explain what kind of evidence it is, e.g. personal, from an organisation, etc. and explain how you got the evidence, e.g. personal experience, feedback from members, research, etc. You can email or post evidence in English or BSL (details below). In English it should be 5 sides of A4 paper or less. (If you need it needs to be longer, contact them to talk about this). If you send evidence, they must receive it by 5pm 10th March 2016. What will happen after you send evidence? They will tell you they have got it. If they don’t do this, contact them to check they have received it. Your answers to the questions about CSWs will be looked at together, and a report will be made. This will show the different evidence sent in, and what we can learn from the evidence. There will also be a short report, called an executive summary. This report about CSWs will considered as evidence in the wider Market Review. This will be a public report. All evidence may be published, possibly quoting your evidence and personal information you send. What do they want to know about? Communication Support Workers’ (CSWs) are used in:
For the questions you can talk about CSWs work in education with children or adults and / or work. Please make it clear what you are talking about.
You don’t have to talk about all of these things. In fact, there is too much to talk about. So you should just send evidence about some of the questions that you think are important. The examples are just to give you an idea of what you can talk about, but you can talk about other things too. The Market Review is also asking for separate evidence about communication services and technology. This means that you can send two pieces of evidence. Interpreters can also reply to the NUBSLI survey which will contain questions for the Market Review, as well as send their own evidence. Where to send your evidence? Post: BSL and Communications Market Review, Disabilities and Work Opportunities Division, Ground Floor, DWP, Caxton House, Tothill Street, London, SW1H 9NA Email: [email protected] Important - this is a plain English summary of the call for evidence done for DeafATW.com. It contains what I think is the most important information. If you want to see it all, you can read it here or see the BSL translation here (look down the page for the BSL translation). What organisations are on the CSW sub-group? NDCS, NUBSLI, Signature Click here to download the Plain English guide to the Market Review questions about Communication Support Workers (CSW) |
|
THE ORGANISATION AND PROVISION OF BRITISH SIGN LANGUAGE/ENGLISH INTERPRETERS IN ENGLAND, SCOTLAND AND WALES (2002)
The Organisation and Provision of British Sign Language/English Interpreters in England, Scotland and Wales, 2002
There was a market review conducted in 2002. As the document is 177 pages, excluding appendices, I have created a summary focusing on project aims, methodology, and conclusions. (This summary was written for me, to support me in working with the Market Review. I am happy to share as may be of interest.)
Project aims:
The research project was commissioned by the former Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) in May 1999, for the Inter-Departmental Group on Disability, following the Social Services Inspectorate’s report “A Service on the Edge” (Department of Health, 1997).
The overall aims were to map current BSL/English interpreter provision, obtain information on the advantages and disadvantages of the current systems of provision, explore the experiences of interested parties, and make recommendations. Specifically:
Methodology: A mixture of desk based research, questionnaires, interviews, public meetings. Interviews and meetings held in Scotland, the North West of England, the English West Midlands, Wales, London.
Agencies (31 agencies):
Interpreters (372 interpreters) and organisations:
Deaf People & organisations:
Organisational users of interpreting services:
Desk based research:
Conclusions: (From overall conclusions, section 7).
7.4 “There are difficulties in measuring the demand for interpreting services. This is because of variations in the ways in which requests for services were recorded, and potential double counting if more than one agency operating in an area was unable to meet the request for an interpreter.”
7.5 “The researchers identified two distinct groups of Deaf users of interpreting services: a) Deaf people employed in professional occupations who are frequent users of such services and b) the majority of Deaf people, who are not employed in professional positions, who are occasional users.”
7.8 Conclusion. “In conclusion, the research showed that there was a shortage of BSL/English interpreters in England, Scotland and Wales.”
The researchers believe that the knowledge of this shortage influenced Deaf people’s use of the existing interpreting services: when, how often and under what circumstances an interpreter was used.
The limited number of professional interpreters, the geographical variation in provision and the varying standards of interpreting skills held, as well as organisational problems in the provision of interpreting services, provides Deaf people with limited access to services and organisations.”
Some (pretty random) issues:
There was a market review conducted in 2002. As the document is 177 pages, excluding appendices, I have created a summary focusing on project aims, methodology, and conclusions. (This summary was written for me, to support me in working with the Market Review. I am happy to share as may be of interest.)
Project aims:
The research project was commissioned by the former Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) in May 1999, for the Inter-Departmental Group on Disability, following the Social Services Inspectorate’s report “A Service on the Edge” (Department of Health, 1997).
The overall aims were to map current BSL/English interpreter provision, obtain information on the advantages and disadvantages of the current systems of provision, explore the experiences of interested parties, and make recommendations. Specifically:
- Describe the current organisation of BSL/English interpreters and interpreting agencies in England, Scotland and Wales.
- Map the locations of registered qualified and trainee interpreters and interpreting agencies in each of these countries.
- Obtain information on the settings in which BSL/English interpreters are used.
- Explore the experiences of users of BSL/English interpreters, BSL/English interpreters and agencies engaged in the provision of interpreting services.
- Provide recommendations on how the current organisation of BSL/English interpreters could be improved and how current difficulties could be addressed.
Methodology: A mixture of desk based research, questionnaires, interviews, public meetings. Interviews and meetings held in Scotland, the North West of England, the English West Midlands, Wales, London.
Agencies (31 agencies):
- Copies of agencies’ recent annual reports.
- Details about the interpreters they employed, and recent types, areas and levels of activity.
- Copies of information they provided to service users.
- Detailed returns of completed and unmet bookings for a two-week period.
- Structured and tape recorded interviews (26 - including those who hadn't replied to previous information requests).
Interpreters (372 interpreters) and organisations:
- Postal questionnaire distributed to all CACDP & SASLI registered qualified and trainee interpreters (372 questionnaires / 223 usable replies).
- Structured and tape-recorded interviews (14 interpreters).
- Public meeting in London to which all interpreters working in London were invited (5 attended).
- Semi-structured and tape-recorded interviews with officials of national organisations of BSL/English interpreters in Britain.
Deaf People & organisations:
- Structured and video-recorded interviews conducted in BSL with Deaf users of interpreting services (30 people).
- Public meetings with Deaf people on their experiences of obtaining and using interpreters and their views on how interpreting services could be improved (81 Deaf people attended)
- Semi-structured and tape-recorded interviews with officials of national D/deaf organisations.
Organisational users of interpreting services:
- Questionnaire circulated to organisations using the services of BSL/English interpreters (168 questionnaires / 84 responded in time).
- Telephone interviews with organisations employing BSL/English interpreters and related services to illustrate aspects of good practice (3).
Desk based research:
- Consulted and analysed a range of information on the provision of interpreting services in Britain.
Conclusions: (From overall conclusions, section 7).
7.4 “There are difficulties in measuring the demand for interpreting services. This is because of variations in the ways in which requests for services were recorded, and potential double counting if more than one agency operating in an area was unable to meet the request for an interpreter.”
7.5 “The researchers identified two distinct groups of Deaf users of interpreting services: a) Deaf people employed in professional occupations who are frequent users of such services and b) the majority of Deaf people, who are not employed in professional positions, who are occasional users.”
7.8 Conclusion. “In conclusion, the research showed that there was a shortage of BSL/English interpreters in England, Scotland and Wales.”
The researchers believe that the knowledge of this shortage influenced Deaf people’s use of the existing interpreting services: when, how often and under what circumstances an interpreter was used.
The limited number of professional interpreters, the geographical variation in provision and the varying standards of interpreting skills held, as well as organisational problems in the provision of interpreting services, provides Deaf people with limited access to services and organisations.”
Some (pretty random) issues:
- Despite the rigour of the Durham research, unmet demand was not possible to quantify.
- An additional difficulty in assessing unmet demand was ‘self-denial’, i.e. that Deaf people said that they “did not bother or did not consider it worthwhile to seek the services of an interpreter as they were certain none would be available.” (5.2.5.4)
- Geographical variation was significant.
- The review found significant differences between the experiences of professional Deaf users of interpreting services, and other Deaf people.