The Scottish Government

Listen

Jim Kyle, Anna Marie Reilly, Lorna Allsop, Monica Clark, Alexy Dury
Deaf Studies Trust

ISBN 0 7559 2540 8

This document is also available in pdf format (149k)

This research aimed to learn more about the needs of British Sign Language ( BSL) users in terms of:

• the extent to which public services could be accessed using BSL
• the experiences of BSL users in attempting to access public services using BSL
• alternative methods that were used when BSL was not available
• alternative means of communication that BSL users would find useful if BSL was not available

Main Findings

• The central underlying theme of Deaf people was that BSL is a natural language of their community and as such is part of their lives - it is not a service nor a decision in regard to providing service. Just as much as English is the vehicle for most mainstream services, Deaf people view BSL as a right in regard to service use. The clear priority was that more hearing people should learn more sign. Direct access through sign was the goal. Whenever Deaf people met with service providers who could sign there was a great deal of satisfaction.
• BSL users were almost never able to access public services directly using BSL. They also had difficulties using interpreters to access public services, mainly because there were not enough interpreters available. The cost of interpreters and concerns about privacy and confidentiality were also problems.
• The lack of available interpreters sometimes led to the use of people who were not fully qualified, or to Deaf people using family or friends to act as interpreters for them. This could lead to poor quality relay of information and to concerns about confidentiality.
• Deaf people considered there was a lack of Deaf Awareness amongst public service employees. The lack of a visual display system in waiting areas caused Deaf people particular difficulties and often led to missed appointments.
• Where Deaf people were unable to communicate in BSL they adopted a number of strategies including writing things down, attempting to speak and attempting to lip read. These were generally considered unsatisfactory.
• Deaf people disliked automated machines because if anything went wrong they were often expected to use voice intercoms to obtain help.
• Deaf people were keen users of text messaging ( SMS) and considered that it could be used to receive information from service providers. The Internet was also popular with some respondents and many people asked for more BSL on the Internet.
• It was considered vital that any material produced in BSL should use Deaf rather than hearing signers and that the signing was Scottish.

Background

In 2003 BSL was recognised as a language by the UK government. There may be up to 4000 Deaf community members in Scotland who use BSL as their preferred language. Little is know about the needs of BSL users when engaging with public services. The Disability Discrimination Act ( DDA) puts a duty of service on providers to make 'reasonable adjustments' to allow disabled people to access services.

Research Findings

Accessing public services using BSL

The study found that Deaf people have virtually no access to public services in BSL. The research found no examples of health care, emergency services or council provision which were delivered in BSL. Deaf respondents described feelings of surprise and relief when they found staff who could sign. In the rare cases where a public service employee could sign, however, their signing was not of a sufficient standard to allow proper communication.

Using an interpreter is one option for accessing public services using BSL but a key problem with the use of interpreters was lack of availability.

" It is impossible to book interpreters at the last minute. Lots of Deaf people give up."

There were also concerns about cost and who would pay for the interpreter. While some respondents who had used interpreters were happy with them others reported poor performance amongst interpreters, sometimes because the interpreter was not fully qualified.

Deaf people reported concerns about privacy and confidentiality when using interpreters. This was a particular problem for people who frequently used interpreters in work settings. They did not want to use interpreters for sensitive or personal situations in case they met the same person in a work setting at a later date.

Experiences of accessing public services

Deaf people used words such as 'frustrated', 'annoyed' and 'embarrassed' to describe their feelings about attempting to access public services. A significant problem was the lack of visual display systems in waiting areas and the failure of staff to alert the Deaf person that it was their turn. Reception areas with glass windows also caused communication difficulties and Deaf people said that they needed a separate private room to enable them to communicate successfully. Respondents also reported problems accessing buildings with intercoms.

Respondents described situations where hearing staff did not understand them, where they were left waiting while staff dealt with other people first and where staff would speak to their children or other family members rather than them. A common response was for the Deaf person to withdraw from the situation and not return.

" They make me feel "angry with myself" I feel useless and embarrassed at being Deaf. If the person is not nice, I would never go back to that place again."

Health-related situations caused Deaf people particular problems with potentially serious consequences. They reported difficulties explaining what was wrong and understanding the doctor's response.

Access to public services was particularly difficult in Shetland and Lewis where many of the issues were magnified and there were additional problems of isolation.

Alternative strategies for accessing public services

Deaf people would frequently take friends or relations with them when attempting to access public services. If the other person was not fluent in BSL this could mean that the Deaf person only received limited or incorrect information. It also removed the Deaf person's right to privacy.

"My aunt always goes with me to the GP. I am not happy as it affects my privacy and also can affect her if anything is seriously wrong and she tells the family."

Another common strategy was for the Deaf person to write things down. Respondents reported that they did not feel comfortable writing things down, often because of lower levels of literacy in English. They also found that hearing people often did not like writing things down and they often had problems obtaining a pen and paper.

Deaf people reported trying to speak but finding that hearing people could not understand. Respondents also had negative experiences of trying to lip-read and although a few people said they could lip-read the majority were not able to do this successfully. There was a view that it was Deaf people who were always expected to make the adjustment in interactions with hearing services.

The vast majority of Deaf respondents were opposed to the use of automated machines. Although the machines avoided direct contact with hearing people they often depended on the use of intercoms if anything went wrong. Many respondents also said that they avoided using information kiosks as they did not understand how to use them. The one kiosk that did have positive responses was the Boots Advantage card machine, which was seen as easy to use because there were lots of pictures and symbols. Few Deaf people reported using textphones, although there was some consensus that they should be retained. A primary problem with textphones is the unfamiliarity of hearing people with this technology. Many respondents reported instances when textphone calls were not answered. Fax was used more often but was unpopular with younger people and with respondents who were unsure about their ability in English.

Future possibilities for accessing public services

Deaf people were keen users of text messaging ( SMS) and could see possibilities for text messaging to be used by service providers to send information. In the future some people wanted to see video available in mobile format so that they could have sign language on mobile phones.

Deaf people thought that text documents, e.g. Council agreements, service documents etc. should be available in simpler English. This may imply more illustrations as well as simpler words.

Just over half of respondents were users of the Internet. Users were almost all positive about the Internet and the use of written English does not seem to be of such great concern on the Internet, possibly because there are many different sources of information to choose from. Many people asked for more BSL on the Internet.

A surprisingly large proportion of respondents had not seen videotapes. Those who had usually, but not always, preferred them to leaflets. Respondents considered that signed video/ DVD would be a useful means of communication for public services, as long as information was kept up to date. There was a strong preference for the use of Deaf rather than hearing signers, and for signers to use Scottish signing.

For Deaf people the best solution to accessing public services was for hearing people to learn to sign. Respondents considered that public service employers should ensure staff were trained in BSL and suggested that BSL should also be taught in schools.

Policy implications

The following issues could be considered in attempting to improve access to public services for BSL users:

• Exploring options for training of more interpreters
• Reviewing availability of BSL training courses for public service staff
• Increasing availability of Deaf awareness training for staff in public services
• Considering the introduction of visual information systems in waiting areas and making available private rooms and video intercoms
• Increasing the use of BSL on public service websites
• Considering the use of text messaging for information provision
• Using Scottish Deaf signers to produce any information material
• Developing simplified documents, including illustrations
• Redesigning information kiosks to make them more accessible and exploring Deaf access issues when considering introducing automated systems
• Considering the provision of specialist interpreters for different areas, e.g. medical, legal, to reduce concerns about privacy

Research methods

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with a quota sample of 80 Deaf people in five centres: Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Kirkcaldy and Inverness. Nine interviews were also carried out with Deaf people in Shetland and Lewis. The interviews were followed up by focus group discussions reflecting on the findings from the individual interviews and involving the same participants. A total of 45 participants returned to take part in 8 focus groups.

If you wish further copies of this Research Findings or have any enquiries about social research, please contact us at:

Tel: 0131 244 7565
Fax: 0131 244 7573
Email: socialresearch@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Website: www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch

If you wish a copy of "Investigation of Access to Public Services in Scotland using British Sign Language" the research report which is summarised in this research finding, please send a cheque for £5.00 made payable to:

Tel: 0131 622 8283 / 0131 622 8258
Fax: 0131 622 8258
Email: business.edinburgh@blackwell.co.uk

This document (and other Research Findings and Reports) and information about social research in the Scottish Executive may be viewed on the Internet at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch

The site carries up-to-date information about social and policy research commissioned and published on behalf of the Scottish Executive. Subjects covered include transport, housing, social inclusion, rural affairs, children and young people, education, social work, community care, local government, civil justice, crime and criminal justice, regeneration, planning and women's issues. The site also allows access to information about the Scottish Household Survey.