UK Council on Deafness

Communication Support Agencies consultation

13th August 2004

Dear Colleague,

Re: Proposed Minimum Standards for Agencies

Following CACDP's decision last year to discontinue their registration of agencies, the Agency Steering Group (ASG) was established in January 2004 to devise minimum standards for agencies to follow in their operation and delivery of communication support services for deaf and hard of hearing people; the term 'deaf' (with lower case d) is used as a general term to refer to people with all degrees of deafness, including those who use British Sign Language (BSL) as their first or preferred language. The minimum standards were subsequently drawn up by the ASG and were presented to the UKCOD agency conference on 6th July 2004. They are enclosed within this dispatch (Document 2). They represent an initial benchmark of service quality that service users / purchasers should expect from an agency and are intended purely as an interim measure prior to the possible establishment of a formal regulatory body to properly monitor and oversee agency standards.

The ASG now wishes to enter into a consultation process with all stakeholders involved in the industry regarding the potential adoption of these minimum standards. We have attached six separate documents which we would like you to consider:

Document 1: Agency Steering Group
This gives some brief background information on how and why the ASG was established.

Document 2: Proposed Minimum Standards
This is the consultation document. We are requesting your views on this document only. It is envisaged that the minimum standards will initially only require a voluntary sign-up of agencies who agree to adopt and abide by them within an agreed timescale. Other issues to consider in relation to the proposed minimum standards are:

• Who will host the initial voluntary sign-up of the minimum standards?
• How are we to publicise who has signed up?
• Should there be a charge levied for the initial voluntary sign-up to the minimum standards and to support the work of the ASG?
• Are we requesting agencies to only recommend and pass work onto other agencies who have signed -up to the minimum standards?
• How long should the agreed timescale be to enable agencies to meet all the criteria of any agreed minimum standards?

Future regulatory arrangements relating to the minimum standards are discussed in document 5 (see below).

Document 3: Standards of Service
This links with the previous document and is intended to enable service users/ purchasers to make informed consumer decisions prior to engaging the services of any agency.

Document 4: Standards of Service Example
This gives an indication of what an actual Standards of Service document might look like.

Document 5: Possible Agency Regulatory Structures - Challenges and Options
This outlines the issues around the potential establishment of a regulatory body to monitor and oversee agency standards. We are not seeking feedback on this document at this stage, it is merely intended to generate some initial thoughts around what regulatory structures might be required following the adoption of any agreed minimum standards.

Document 6: UKCOD Agency Conference - 6th July 2004
This gives a selection of initial delegate responses to the Proposed Minimum Standards and Possible Regulatory Structures presentations given by the ASG at the conference.

The consultation period will run until 1st October 2004. Please send your responses to agencysteeringgroup@hotmail.com or alternatively to Donna Rubin c/o Deaf Direct, 13 Castle Street, Worcester, WR1 3AD. An outline of the consultation process is given below.

We welcome any comments you wish to make in relation to the proposed minimum standards. If you strongly disagree with any aspect of the proposals it would be helpful to us if you could detail your alternative suggestion(s).

We look forward to receiving your feedback.

Yours faithfully

Agency Steering Group
(Donna Rubin, Jason Barnett, Sally Chalk, Joan Quarrington, Lynden Mack)

The consultation process

Phase 1

August - 1st October 04: First consultation regarding the proposed minimum standards

November 04 - January 05: Second consultation regarding the revised minimum standards (revision based on feedback from the first consultation)

February 05 - April 05: Final version of the minimum standards devised. Preparation for their adoption by the industry in April 05.

Phase 2

From April 05: The ASG proceeds to consider the establishment of a formal regulatory structure to oversee and monitor the agreed minimum standards.

During both phases the ASG will also be considering how it can best expand its representation and further develop its recognition and accountability to the industry. This will be an evolving process as the ASG continues its work.

Document 1

AGENCY STEERING GROUP

Introduction - How did we get here?

Agency Conference - Walsall February '03
In February 2003 the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People (CACDP) arranged a conference in Walsall to discuss various issues relating to agency registration and regulation. Later in 2003 CACDP's board of trustees took the decision to withdraw its system of agency registration from April 2004.

Agency Conference - Leicester January '04
In January 2004 a further agency meeting took place in Leicester. A total of 20 agencies attended and there was also representation from CACDP, the Association of Sign Language Interpreters (ASLI), the Federation of Deaf People (FDP) and freelance interpreters. Following discussions it was agreed that a new system of registration was worthless unless properly monitored. There was general agreement that a new agency registration system was needed to replace CACDP's system, and that the essential first step would be the creation of some minimum standards for agencies to agree to abide by. If adopted the standards could then form the basis of a future formal regulatory system.

Steering Group
A steering group consisting of five volunteer agencies was convened, their remit was agreed as follows :-

• Create proposed minimum standards (Document 2) utilising any existing research on the subject.
• Collate a list of agencies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
• Circulate the proposed minimum standards to all identified agencies for feedback.
• Collate any feedback received to create a second draft of the proposed minimum standards.
• Explain the work of the group and present the proposed minimum standards to a wider audience at UKCOD conference on 6th July 2004.
• Collate feedback for a third and final draft of the standards.

Steering Group Members

• Sally Chalk - Clarion (Cambridge)
• Donna Rubin - Deaf Direct (Worcester)
• Jason Barnett - Hounslow Translation and Interpreting Service
• Lynden Mack - RNID
• Joan Quarrington - RAD

The group is independent of CACDP / Independent Registration Panel (IRP). At present there are no funds to support this work.

Aims of the Agency Steering Group
Three clear aims were identified by the Steering Group:

• Write the draft minimum standards for agencies - including the provision of categories of recognised Language Service Professional (LSP).
• Increase the agency contact list.
• Consultation with all stakeholders regarding the proposed minimum standards.
• To consider the viability of establishing a formal regulatory body to monitor and enforce the minimum standards.
  

Document 2

Proposed Minimum Standards

a) Staff

1. Criminal Record Bureau Checks

All agency staff will require enhanced Criminal Record Bureau checks.

Rationale
To ensure compatibility with Independent Registration Panel (IRP) and purchaser requirements.

2. Registration status of Language Service Professionals

All LSP's will be listed under IRP registration categories or their unregistered 'equivalents'. Categories include BSL/English Interpreters, Lipspeakers, Speech to Text Reporters, Electronic Notetakers and Deafblind Interpreters (Manual). To be detailed in the Standards of Service document (Document 3).

Communication support workers and deaf relay interpreters are not included at this point but may be in the future pending any CACDP registration developments with these categories of LSP.

Rationale
Service users / purchasers should be informed of the agency's policy regarding the use of registered and unregistered LSP's, particularly whether unregistered LSP's are used by the agency.

3. Training, development and monitoring of agency staff (including staff LSP's where applicable).

Supervision and staff appraisal / development systems required for all agency staff. Training budgets to be allocated specifically for this purpose. All co-ordinators to be trained in deaf awareness (CACDP accredited) and to possess or working towards CACDP BSL Stage II.

Rationale
Ongoing staff training and monitoring is integral to a high quality service.

4. Health and Safety

To include risk assessments for all agency staff and lone working policies / co-working policies specific to staff LSP's.

Rationale
To comply with government legislation and provide a safe working environment for all agency staff.

b) Service

1. Details of Ownership

Agency status to be declared - Registered charity / Local authority / Private company / Education establishment / Other (please specify).

Rationale
Service users / purchasers to be assisted in exercising an informed choice of provider.

2. Charges

Charges, including terms of cancellation, to be published. They must be available upon request and included in the Standards of Service document.

Rationale
To enable service users / purchasers to compare charges between different agencies.

3. Complaints System

The agency must have a complaints policy, available in written English & BSL formats.

Rationale
An accessible complaints procedure is integral to a high quality service.

4. Performance Statistics

The average response times in terms of acknowledgement and confirmation of assignments to be displayed in the Standards of Service document.

Rationale
To enable service users / purchasers to make some degree of response time comparison between different agencies.

5. Advertising

Current CACDP / IRP terminology to be used for the services provided. All publicity materials (including the Standards of Service document) contain accurate information in clear English and are not misleading to service users / purchasers.

Rationale
Use of standard terminology will raise awareness among service users / purchasers and will facilitate direct comparisons between the services offered.

6. Insurance

The agency must hold public liability insurance and employee liability insurance. All contracted freelance LSP's must be covered by the agency's professional indemnity insurance.

Rationale
This is a legal requirement.

7. Data Protection Policy

The agency must possess a data protection policy that is compliant with current legislation.

Rationale
This is a legal requirement.

8. Equal Opportunities

The agency must possess an equal opportunities policy.

Rationale
To ensure compliance with current legislation in the operation and delivery of services

9. Service User Involvement

The agency to provide the opportunities for service user involvement. A minimum requirement would be the use of feedback forms for services provided. Direct methods of consultation such as service user forums are also recommended. Details of the level of service user involvement to be included in the Standards of Service document.

Rationale
It is important that service users are given the opportunity to feedback on the quality of services received.

10. Terms & Conditions for Freelance LSP's

The agency must have written terms & conditions that state how it will operate in relation to freelance LSP's.

Rationale
To define the contractual relationship between agency and freelance LSP.

Document 3

Standards of Service

1. Charges & terms of cancellation

Each agency to publish its service charges and terms of cancellation.
(It is acknowledged that for certain domains charges may be negotiable).

2. Range of LSP services provided

BSL/English Interpreting, Lipspeaking, Speech-to-Text Reporting, Electronic Notetaking, Deafblind interpreting (manual), Video Interpreting, Other.

3. LSP registration policy

Unregistered BSL/English Interpreters used? - Yes/no
Unregistered Lipspeakers used? - Yes/no
Unregistered Speech-to-Text reporters used? - Yes/no
Unregistered Deafblind interpreters used? - Yes/no

4. Performance statistics

Response times targets for acknowledgement and confirmation of booking.
e.g. 100% of requests acknowledged by X working days
100% of requests confirmed by X working days

5. Complaints

Number of co-ordination related complaints received as a percentage of total bookings

6. User consultation

User feedback forms sent out? - Yes/no
User service monitoring committee/forums? - Yes/no

7. Additional information

Details of recognised quality assurance systems to be disclosed

Document 4

Standards of Service 1st April 2004

Services Provided & Charges

Language Service Professional

British Sign Language/English Interpreter, £ 90.00 minimum call out, £ 30.00 additional per hour
Lipspeaker Level 3, £ 90.00 minimum call out, £ 30.00 additional per hour
Notetaker - Handwritten, not provided
Notetaker - Electronic, £ 70.00 minimum call out, £ 20.00 additional per hour
Deafblind Interpreter, £ 90.00 minimum call out, £ 30.00 additional per hour
STT Reporters, Negotiated per assignment
Video Interpreting, not provided
Translation Service, £ 90.00 minimum call out, £ 30.00 additional per hour

Cancellation Terms:
Notice (in working days) Charges
More than 10 days £10 administration fee
Between 10 and 6 days Charged at half usual rate
5 days or less Charged at the full rate

Travel Expenses:
Mileage @ 45 pence per mile
Public transport at standard fare
Other travel expenses, eg taxi, parking, charged at cost

Unsociable Hours:
For assignments that take place between 8pm and 8am, or at weekends the charges are as follows: (insert charges here)

Other expenses:
Subsidence or accommodation costs, if incurred, will be charged at cost.
Specialist assignments may incur higher charges.
Freelance interpreter rates may vary.

LSP Registration Policy

This agency contracts the services of the following categories of LSP:

Qualified British Sign Language/English Interpreter, Registered and unregistered
Trainee BSL/English Interpreter, Registered and unregistered
Junior Trainee BSL/English Interpreter, Registered
Lipspeaker Level 3, Registered and unregistered
Lipspeaker Level 2, Registered
Notetaker - Handwritten, N/a
Notetaker - Electronic, N/a
Deafblind Interpreter, Registered
STT Reporters, Registered

• British Sign Language/English Interpreters register with the IRP.
• Lipspeakers, Deafblind Interpreters & STT Reporters register with CACDP.
• There is no register for Notetakers.
• Unregistered means individuals that are qualified to a level that would entitle them to registration, however, they have not registered.

Performance Statistics

All LSP requests are acknowledged within 3 working days.

Complaints

Between 1 April 2003 & 31 March 2004 complaints about the service were received on 3% of bookings processed.

User Consultation

The following methods are used to survey user satisfaction/service quality:

Feedback Forms sent to deaf/hard of hearing clients, YES
Feedback Forms sent to purchasers, YES
Feedback Forms sent to LSPs, YES
Service User Monitoring Committee, n/a
Service User Consultation Forum, n/a
Other (please specify), n/a

Additional Information

This agency has achieved the following nationally recognised Quality Assurance Standards:

Investors in People
Positive about Disabled People
Matrix
ISO 9000
PQSSO

Document 5

Possible Agency Regulatory Structures - Challenges and Options

1. Justification for Regulation

• Consumer interest requires opportunities for members of the public to pursue complaints against organisations, both with the assurance of formal disciplinary codes, sanctions and procedures, and complaint procedures freely available.

• Once we have accepted the logic of self-regulation some key questions arise:

  Why is there a need for regulation?
  What standards do we need to raise?
  What policy objective(s) are we pursuing?
  What benefits are we seeking?
  What do we want any possible regulatory structure to achieve?

  We would suggest there are two key objectives for our industry:

  i)To ensure the monitoring and enforcement of the Minimum Standards criteria.
  ii)To secure commercial advantages by subscribing to a body overtly raising standards.

• Additionally, any regulatory structure could also concern itself with issues relating to:

  Vulnerable consumers
  Resolution of disputes and the pursuit of redress
  Fraud, deception and oppressive marketing practices
  Imperfect information
  Inadequate local competition
  Safety

2. Self-regulation: the Pros

• Can help tackle undesirable practices and can also benchmark best practice over and above the basic minimum standards.

• Flexible way of tackling problem areas and standards. A potential means to differentiate from those with lower standards. Commercial and service benefits if customers actually seek out agencies who observe agreed standards.

• Ownership by the industry.

• Can address evolving issues.

• Customer redress can be achieved more quickly and cheaply than via legal mechanisms.

3. Self-regulation: the cons

• Regulatory capture - there are real and perceived doubts about the ability of self-regulated industries to represent the interests of their members and simultaneously aspire to a consumer interest role. Doubts about impartiality are especially acute where the self regulator is responsible for enforcement, or is involved in adjudicating disputes between consumers and traders.

• If there is no commitment and resources for monitoring and enforcement, the effectiveness of self-regulation will be very limited.

• The outstanding drawback with a self-regulatory system is that it would not apply to those agencies who do not subscribe to the scheme. If there were only to be partial coverage it will often be those who fall outside the scheme who tend to be the main cause of consumer problems.

• Risks of anti-competitive behaviour and barriers to entry. Fine line between 'public interest' and 'restrictive practices'

• There can be distortion of the market. Non members do not follow standards and can therefore undercut the market with lower standards

• Even participating members may not take self-regulation seriously

• Limited range of sanctions available other than expulsion

4. Possible regulatory options for agencies

i) Who would host the regulatory body?

Option 1: An existing body or organisation - either within or outside the industry

• Advantages - More cost effective assuming the necessary administrative infrastructure was in situ; a suitable and recognised body could lend credibility and confidence to the industry

• Disadvantages - Few suitable bodies within our industry would possess the necessary capabilities and infrastructure; a suitable body from outside the industry could prove difficult to identify and may confuse consumers.

Option 2: Create a new independent body

• Advantage - Regulation more likely to be viewed as being truly independent.

• Disadvantage - Very costly and time consuming to establish and operate.

ii)The regulatory panel

To consist of a combination of the following representative groups:

• Deaf service user representatives
• Industry representatives
• Independent / lay representatives

Option 1: All 3 representative groups participate with independent representatives constituting a minority. Any serious disputes arising from a panel decision to be adjudicated on by an additional review and appeals panel consisting entirely of independent representatives.

• Advantages - Inclusive and captures knowledge of the industry; contentious decisions have an appropriate process of appeal and redress.

• Disadvantages - Regulatory capture; potential conflicts of interest could arise from industry representation.

Option 2: Industry representatives not included. Deaf users and independent representatives comprise the panel.

• Advantages - Deaf user involvement maintained; the overwhelming majority of successful self-regulation schemes operate through dedicated organisational structures outside the industry itself.

• Disadvantages - Important industry-specific knowledge lost by non-inclusion of industry representatives.

5. Panel roles and responsibilities

• Terms of reference and statements of principle.
• To monitor, audit, revise and ensure compliance with the agreed minimum standards.
• To ensure that adequate resources are secured and monitored and objectives are not compromised by insufficient levels of funding.
• Dealing with complaints and sanctions.
• Devise, monitor and revise performance indicators to measure the effectiveness of the scheme.
• Raising awareness of the scheme, particularly its complaints procedure. Education of consumers regarding the minimum standards.
• Demonstration of public accountability via the publication of an annual report.
• To obtain legal expertise and guidance in the development of the panel's operational framework.
• Establishment of general procedures.

6. Conclusion

The following points need to be considered:

• Acceptance of the proposed minimum standards (document 2) requires some form of regulatory structure to monitor and enforce compliance.

• There are pros and cons associated with self-regulation. Overcoming the cons will not be easy.

• The track record of trade bodies which decide to self-regulate is decidedly mixed.

• There are a number of possible regulatory options for our industry. The most important issue relates to the hosting of any regulatory body - will this be via an established organisation or will a new body have to be created?

Document 6

UKCOD Agency Conference - 6th July 2004

Delegate responses to the Proposed Minimum Standards / Possible Regulatory Structures presentations

1. Proposed Minimum Standards

"Agencies should be more proactive in trying to promote the use of registered professionals and not to use unregistered ones, so I am slightly unhappy with the form that says unregistered people are used by agencies, I feel this might give the wrong idea that this is acceptable and perhaps promotes the use of cowboys out there in the field, another reason for this is that its almost impossible to have a complaints procedure that applies to unregistered people"

"There is a cost to it [regulation of standards]. It has to be shared some way...maybe pro rata, but you need to think about [your] budgets for that."

"Government has recognised BSL so don't we need something legal which will protect us?"

"What I would like to see is some kind of a kite mark like a CORGI for gas installers so there was a sign of approval to show they [agencies] have been through some kind of assessment process."

"We should not be looking at people who are using unregistered people. The majority of our purchasers are hearing organisations and unless we actually educate them in what is the correct standard then we are fighting a losing battle so we need to make sure that we tackle it on both sides."

"It's not acceptable in my view to have written simplified forms for feedback it does not give recognition to the BSL which is a visual language...We should drop the term "minimum", these are about standards which you want to put into operation."

"I think you need to expect maximum sign up to those minimum standards but they have to be robust enough. What you can't do is bring them down to the lowest common denominator, or they are absolutely useless. I think there's a role for the interpreter themselves, who they work for, I would argue that ASLI and IRP have a role to ensure that interpreters do not work for agencies that are not signed up to the minimum standard."

2. Future Regulatory Structures

"I think the way it would be funded has to be a levy from the agencies themselves...Surely there is also an opportunity to fine agencies that are not performing effectively?"

"For me the prize is that agencies enjoy the same external assurance of professional standards as interpreters themselves get by virtue of the existence of the independent registration panel...what we want to see regulated are service professional interpreting standards and service standards...we should start with a trade association...and the only way we will really begin to recognise the true cost of this will be when we get together and agree the [minimum standards] and how it will be applied."

"We need a properly constituted forum for agencies to come together, that...would enable these issues to be progressed because we must keep momentum going from today...[minimum standards] will not work unless everybody buys into it and signs up to it."

"The institutions purchasing the interpreters have to make a contribution to the cost; one of the reasons for operating with agencies [is that] their costs are transparent and it [should] include a component about training more interpreters... when you talk about standards [the] government has to take responsibility...if you do not have a dimension that is in there about government taking on its appropriate responsibilities, equal opportunities under access, then we are not going to [achieve] the standards."

"Maybe we should set up something independent which I think would be fairer, perhaps use the model of the independent registration panel for interpreters, perhaps there could be a similar model."

[Back to top]

UK Council on Deafness, Registered Charity Number 1038448

Your use of this site is in accordance with our Privacy Statement

© UK Council on Deafness, 2003-5.