Report

2018

The contentsof this report are the intellectualpropertyof theauthors.Nopart of this reportmaybe circulatedor reproducedwithout explicitpermissionfromtheauthors,or fromtheSchoolofArts,LanguagesandCulturesattheUniversityofManchester,OxfordRoad,ManchesterM139PL,UnitedKingdom.

2

ExploringtheDemandandProvisionforInterpretingService

inRusholmeJobCentrePlus

YanWenAcknowledgementI would like to thank Sarah Aslam, Ana Alves, and Tanya Bhamber for their help andaccompanyduringthefirstfieldtripandquestionnairedistribution.

3

1IntroductionOver150 languagesare spoken in theGreaterManchesterarea.The linguisticdiversity isbrought by the burgeoning international population including labour migrants, refugees,British Commonwealth citizens, EU citizens, etc. (Gopal et al., 2013). Although the citycontinues to attract people from different national backgrounds with a variety of skills,these people may encounter difficulties accessing the labour market due to languagebarriers. When comparing the job search methods between immigrants and native UKresidents, a study identified among immigrants a strong reliance on jobcentres (Frijters,Shields & Price, 2005). This brings into focus the language service provided in thejobcentres.Inresponse,theparentdepartmentforUKjobcentres,theDepartmentforWorkandPensions (DWP), reported tobeable todealwith claimants in165 languages (Watts,2012). The language support is contracted out to The Big Word, a private professionalinterpreting company, to cover telephone and sign language interpreting. Nevertheless,DWPhasdecidedtocutspendingoninterpretationbyatleast30%since2012(ibid.),albeitregulardemandforinterpretingservicesinJobcentrePlusofficeshasbeenfoundinGreaterManchester,reportedforexampleforLongsight,RusholmeandevenDidsbury(Gopaletal.,2013:8). Being awareof potential languagebarriers to accessing services, the popularity ofjobcentresamongimmigrantsandtheeconomicausterity,thisresearchaimstoexplorethecurrent customer demand and institutional provision for interpreting service in the localjobcentre.Theresearchquestionisbrokendownasfollows:

1. Investigatingcustomerdemandforinterpretingservices:• Howmuchdocustomerswantorsupportinterpretingservice?• Howistheutilisation?• Whatdocustomersknowaboutlanguageservicescurrentlyavailable?

2. Exploringthestatusofsupportgivenbythejobcentre:

• Whatlanguageservicesarecurrentlyavailable?• Howdoesthejobcentregettheservicesknowntocustomers?• Arethereanyalternativewaysforlanguagesupportattimesofausterity?

This research takesamixed-methodapproach, combiningquantitativequestionnairedatawith qualitative interviews, observations, and documentary analysis. The data werecollected from customers through questionnaires distributed over a week outside theentrance, fromconversationswithstaff throughmultiple fieldtripstoRusholmeJobCentrePlus (JobCentre),aswellas fromgovernmentwebsitesandmedia reports.Thestudyalsoattempted to conduct recorded semi-structured interviewswith customers, but due to alack of voluntary participation, this plan was eventually replaced by chats and informalinterviewswith customers and staffs, supplemented by a forty-minute observation insideJobCentreandonlinedocumentaryanalysis.

4

All the questionnaire datawith personal informationwere entered and stored onuniversitycomputers,codedandanalysedwithStatisticalPackageforSocialSciences(SPSS),anddisposedofasappropriate.2DemandTo answer the first set of research questions, a quantitative questionnaire was used togatherinformationfromcustomers.Thequestionnairecomprisestwelvequestionscoveringboth individual experience and demographic features, i.e. gender, age, native language,citizenshipandtimeofresidenceintheUK(seeAppendix2).Thefirstfivequestionstargetallcustomersregardlessofnativelanguage,whiletherestarerelevantonlyfornon-native-English speakers. The sample includes native English speakers becausemost, if not all ofthem are tax-payers; their views on interpreting services are highly likely to reflect andshapethelanguagesupportthatthecountryiswillingtooffer,andtheiranticipationofthedemandfor interpretingserviceamongnon-nativescancreateanewangleto lookatthisissue.

The survey generated 56 answers, achieving a response rate of 35.24%. Therespondents consist of 22 native speakers and 34 non-native speakers. The formerexpressed, by individual, their level of support for interpreting services in jobcentres; thelatter reported their demand for the service and also shared information about theirknowledge and experience of the service. While filling in the questionnaires, somerespondents were alsowilling to chat about some of the questions and share their ownexplanations.Theseconversationswererecordedafterwardsasfieldnotesintheresearchdiary.

i.Perception/SupportofDemand

Onascaleof0-10,howmuchdoyouagreeordisagreethatJobCentreshouldprovideinterpretationservicesfornon-Native-Englishspeakers?(0beingextremelydisagree,10beingextremelyagree)

Theselectedvaluesunderthisquestionare2,4,5,8,9,10bynon-nativespeakers,and1,5,7,8,10bynativespeakers.10marksextremelystrongdemandorextremelystrongsupport.Among the34non-native-English-speaking respondents, 64.7% reportedextremely strongdemand for interpretingservice,whileamong theother22whospeakEnglishasanativelanguage; theextremely strong supportersonly takeup54.5%.This createsagapof10.2percentagepointsbetweencustomerdemandandcustomersupport(seetable1).

5

However,whenthevaluesarerecodedas0-4fornegativeopinions,5forneutralpositionoruncertainty,and6-10forpositiveopinions,aclusteredbarchartimmediatelydemonstratesahigh levelofagreementamongnativespeakerstoofferpublic interpretingservices (seechart 1). The percentage of support by native-English speakers even overtops thepercentage of demand perceived by non-native speakers by 8.5 percentage points.Furthermore,thisdifferenceincreasesto10.2percentagepointswhencomparingnegativeattitudes--14.7%ofnon-nativespeakersversus4.5%ofnativespeakers.

nativelanguage

Others English

Perception/Supportofdemandforinterpretingservice

1 0 1

0.0% 4.5%

2 3 0

8.8% 0.0%

4 2 0 5.9% 0.0%

5 1 1

2.9% 4.5%

7 0 2

0.0% 9.1%

8 2 6

5.9% 27.3%9 4 0

11.8% 0.0%10 22 12

64.7% 54.5%Total 34 22

100.0% 100.0%

Table1.Perception/Supportofdemandforinterpretingservice

6

Chart1.Perception/Supportofdemandforinterpretingservice(recoded)

These data demonstrate high demand for interpreting service, although there is varianceandsomenon-nativespeakersshowlowdemand.Theyalsoindicateinterestingdifferencesbetween non-native perceptions and native anticipations. As an account for the demandamong non-native speakers, the data collection period constantly witnessed non-nativeswho could not speak or understand English at all, especially among recent arrivals whoarrivedwithinthelastsixmonths.Theirdemandforinterpretingisalsoamongthehighest,with87.5%ratingabove9and75%rating10 (seeAppendix3.7). As for thehigh levelofnative support, one possible explanation may be related to individual’s experiences ofwitnessing immigrants struggling with English inside or outside the JobCentre, as wassuggestedbythreeofthenative-English-speakingparticipants.

ii.Currentutilisation

Whichmethod of interpretation services have you used? Please check all thatapply.

Face-to-FaceinterpretationprovidedbyJobCentreTelephoneinterpretationprovidedbyJobCentreInterpretationprovidedbyFriend/FamilyMemberOther:__________________None

34 non-native speakers were asked about their utilisation of interpreting services in theJobCentrewithacheck-boxquestionthatallowsmultipleresponses. Interestingly,despitethe strong demand and support for the JobCentre to provide interpreting service, theutilisation at first sight is surprisingly low (see chart 2). The only officially offeredinterpreting service besides Sign Language translation is telephone interpreting, but theutilisation rate among respondents was only 26.7%. Eight respondents clearly reportednever using any interpreting services before, seven identified this question as non-

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%100.0%

0-4 5 6-10

others

English

7

applicable due to unawareness of any available language service, and two refused toanswer.Thesemissingdatamayaddtothepopulationthatneverorrarelyusedtheserviceaswell. Interestingly,althoughthejobcentresstoppedusingfacetofaceinterpreting,sevenrespondents reported using this method in the JobCentre, but described it as ‘staffsexplainingthingsslowlywithsimpleEnglish’.Amongthethreepeopleselected‘other’,oneexplaineditas‘askingthestafftosendawrittenmessagewhichwouldbetranslatedlaterby familymember laterathome’.These reflect thehelpfulnessof JobCentrestaff,butontheotherhandfurtherdemonstrateastrongdemandforlanguageaid.Althoughitprovidesaclueforalternativelanguagesupport,italsocallsintoquestiontheaccesstoinformationabouttelephoneinterpretingservice.

Chart2.Interpretingservicesusedbyrespondent

iii.Knowledgeandutilisation

Which methods of interpretation services are available at this JobCentreaccordingtoyourknowledge?Pleasecheckallthatapply.

Face-to-FaceinterpretationprovidedbyJobCentreTelephoneinterpretationprovidedbyJobCentreInterpretationprovidedbyFriend/FamilyMemberOther:__________________None

face-faceinterpreing,15.6%

telephoneinterpreing,26.7%

friendfamily

interpreing,13.3%

other,6.7%

none/missing,37.8%

8

A crosstab between knowledge and utilisation was produced to better understandwhilepeople assumed there was high demand, while showing low utilisation themselves. Asdemonstratedintable2(seebelow),22respondentsareawareoftelephoneinterpreting,taking 64.7%of thenon-native sample.Half of these respondents haveused this service.Only13.6%ofthisgroupofrespondentsreportedtohaveneverusedanyformoflanguageprovision before. There is a significant difference of 36.4 percentage points, indicating astrong relationshipbetweenawarenessof theavailabilityof the servicesanduse thereof.The implication of this relationship is twofold. Firstly, the low usage rate of interpretingservicesattheJobCentremaypartlybeduetoinsufficientpublicity.Secondly,thedemandforinterpretingisrelativelyhighwithinthepopulationwhoareawareoftheservice.

Interpretingserviceknownbyrespondent

face-faceinterpreting

telephoneinterpreting

friend/familyinterpreting

Interpretingserviceusedbyrespondent

face-faceinterpreting 6 3 3 28.6% 13.6% 15.8%

telephoneinterpreting

6 11 6 28.6% 50.0% 31.6%

friend/familyinterpreting

3 4 5 14.3% 18.2% 26.3%

other 2 1 2

9.5% 4.5% 10.5%none 4 3 3

19.0% 13.6% 15.8%Total 21

100.0%22100.0%

19100.0%

*Percentagesandtotalsarebasedonresponses.Table2.Knowledgeandutilisationcross-tabulation3LanguageProvisionsTo answer the second set of research questions, and to follow up on the patterns andquestionsthatemergedfromthequantitativedata,threefieldtripsweretakentoRusholmeJobCentre Plus for collecting qualitative data through interviews and observations;documentary analysis of government websites and media reports were also used assupplements.

9

The first two tripswereundertakenbefore theanalysis of quantitativedata. Theymainlyfocused on the available services. Information was gathered through informal interviewswithtworeceptionists.Thethirdfieldtripwasconductedafterthequantitativeanalysis.Theaimwastoinvestigatethedisclosureofinformationaswellasalternativelanguagesupportssuch as staff help, as suggestedby some respondents on thequestionnaire. This fieldtripconsisted of three informal interviews with two security guards and one receptionist (adifferent receptionist from the previous two), and one forty minute overt observation.Duringthethreevisits,Iwaspermittedtotakewrittennotes,butmyrequeststorecordandphotoweredeclined.

i.Availableservices

OnereceptionistconfirmedthattheJobCentredoesnotprovidefacetofacetranslators,butcandirect customers to theBigWord for telephone interpreting service. The intervieweefurther indicated that themost encouragedmethod is for customers to bring their owntrusted interpreters such as friends or family members. On the second visit, anotherreceptionist shared more insights into telephone interpreting and reported that theirbudgethadbeendecreasing.TheintervieweereportedthattelephoneinterpretingservicesarecurrentlyofferedforNationalInsuranceNumberregistration,butnotforbenefitservicedue to limited budget and the expectation for the receivers to be English speakers. Thereceptionistalsomentioned thatboth staff andcustomersareunhappywith theexternaltelephoneservicebecausethetranslators’availabilityandthecustomers’requestsarehardtomatch,especiallyintheafternoon,whenthecustomersoftengetputonholdforawhilewhilst another interpreter is being sourced in the American office. The intervieweepredictedthatthebudgetwouldcontinuetodropowingtothisunsatisfactorysituation.

ii.Disclosureofinformation

ThegroundflooroftheJobCentreisdividedintotwobigareas:thelobbyandtheworkingzone.Theonlypubliclyaccessiblearea is the lobby,where twomembersof security staffwill confirmwitheachclient theirname,appointment timeand referencenumberbeforethey are allowed to proceed. In the lobby there is also one receptionist that canprovidesimple consultations for customers or handle emergencies.Overall, the security staff andthereceptionistsare inthefront lineofcustomerservice;everycustomerwilltospeaktothemuponenteringtheJobCentre. As I observed around the lobby, I did not find any formsof advertisements aboutinterpreting service. The only materials with a glimpse of the multilingual aspect of theRusholme area were two posters. One of the posters was about a community activityorganisedbyEthicHealthForum.ThesecondwasinformationaboutEnglishforSpeakersofOtherLanguages(ESOL)courses,butthethreshold ishigh.Thecourse isonlyavailableforUK/EUcitizensorwhohaveindefiniteleavetoremain;therequiredageisnineteenyearsorover,andparticipantsneedtobereceivingbenefitorlookingforawork.Thesetwoposters

10

wereavailableinEnglishandalanguageusingtheArabicscript(AsIwasnotallowedtotakephotosoftheposters,Iwasunabletoidentifywhichlanguageitwas). Afterthefailedsearchforinterpretingserviceadvertisement,Iinterviewedthetwosecuritystaffmembersseparately,andlaterwithareceptionist.Thesecuritystafftoldmethattherehadnotbeenanyadvertisementaboutinterpretingservicebefore.AlthoughtheywereawareofthecontractwithTheBigWord,theynever informedanycustomersaboutthe free service, instead, they would advise clients to bring their own (untrained)interpreters such as a friends or familymembers. The receptionist confirmed the lack ofpublicpromotionof interpreting service,but indicated that the servicewasdisclosedandprovided based on individual cases – this depended on the staff’s judgement of thecustomer’s levelofEnglishproficiency.The receptionistpreferred tonotdiscusspotentialreasons for the lack of promotion of interpreter services, but she suggested that all theinformationaboutaccesstointerpretingservicecouldbefoundontheJobCentrewebsite. Following this advice, I conducted some online research. However, the officialwebsite only offers English-Welsh translation ("Find a job with Universal Jobmatch -GOV.UK", 2018), or directs to British Sign Language support ("Interpreting Solutions –CreatingAccessThroughSupport",2018).Asforinterpretingforotherlanguages,theDWPwebsiteprovides listsofprivate interpreterswith their contactmethods for customers tohire("interpretingservice-Search-GOV.UK",2018).iii.Alternativelanguagesupport

I overtly observed for 20minutes in the lobby area the interaction between the securitymembersandtwoclientswhowerenon-nativespeakersofEnglish,andalsotheinteractionbetweenaworking-zonestaffmemberandaclientwhowasnotanativespeakerofEnglish.I noticed that when talking to foreign customers who struggled with English, the staffswouldspeaktothemslowly,usingsimple,shortsentences,andmanyrepetitionstoclarifyand confirm.Althoughwithout interpreting intervention,both the staffmembersand thecustomers managed to handle the situation. No significant communication problemsoccurredduringtheconversation.

4ConclusionsThis research identifies a strong relationship between the JobCentre’s way of informingabout the interpreting service available and service usage. According to the interviews,observationsandonlineresearch,theJobCentreseemstoberestraining itsfree-of-chargetelephoneinterpretingservice.Therearenoadvertisementsinthebuildingorinformationon itswebsite.Decisions to reveal or conceal the service are allmadeby staffmembers,basedontheirownjudgement.Customerswithlanguagedifficultiesaremostlyadvisedtobring theirown interpreters,whetherprofessionalornot. These largely shape theoveralllowusageofinterpretingserviceandthehighlevelsofuseoftelephoneinterpretingamongtheinformedcustomers.

11

Thelowpublicitygoeshandinhandwithtighteningprovision.OneformerJobCentrestaffrecalledherexperiencewiththecontrolinaGuardiananonymousserieswhichaimstogiveavoicetothestaffbehindthepublicservices,

I used a cardwithmy questions in different languages rather than an over-the-phoneinterpreter.Ifweusetheservicetoomuch,seniormanagerschallengeouruse.Theyaccuseusofbeingcarefreewithpublicmoneyandmakeitclearthatitwon’thappenontheirwatch(Anonymous,2017,p.6).

Such situation is largely due to a decreasing budget. In 2011 alone, the DWP usedinterpreters271,695times,payingTheBigWord£3.5millionofpublicmoney(Watts,2012).SpokesmenforMigrationWatchandTaxPayers’Alliancecommentedthisinvestmentas‘theheightoflanguagesupport,thestoriesbehindcustomerswhostrugglewithEnglish,andthereasonsfornativespeakingcustomerstosupportoropposeinterpretingservice.

12

5BibliographyAnonymous(2017).Iworkedatajobcentre–I'msosorryforthewaywetreatedyou.theGuardian. Retrieved30April2018,from:https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders- network/2017/jul/08/dwp-jobcentre-sorry-treatment-national-insurance-benefits-work

FindajobwithUniversalJobmatch-GOV.UK.(2018).Retrieved30April2018,from https://www.gov.uk/jobsearch

Frijters,P.,Shields,M.A.,&Price,S.W.(2005).Jobsearchmethodsandtheirsuccess:acomparison ofimmigrantsandnativesintheUK.TheEconomicJournal,115(507).

Gopal,D.,Matras,Y.,Percival,L.,Robertson,A.andWright,M.(2013).MultilingualManchester:A Digest.Retrievedfrom:http://mlm.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/wp- content/uploads/2015/12/MLMDigest.pdf

Interpretingservice-Search-GOV.UK.(2015).Retrieved6May2018,from https://www.gov.uk/search?q=interpreting+service&show_organisations_filter=true

InterpretingSolutions–CreatingAccessThroughSupport.(2018).30April2018,from https://www.interpretingsolutions.co.uk/

Watts,R.(2012).MillionsofpoundsspentonGovernmentdepartmenttranslations.Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved30April2018,from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9150478/Millions-of-pounds-spent-on- Government-department-translations.html

What'saGoodSurveyResponseRate?.(2015).Retrieved6May2018,from https://www.surveygizmo.com/resources/blog/survey-response-rates/

13

6AppendixAppendix1:timetableMarch First fieldtrip by Sarah and Tanya to explore available interpreting

services05/04 Second fieldtrip by me, Sarah and Ana for permission to conduct

researchinside09/04-13/04

Coding(09/04)Questionnaire collection with Sarah, Ana and Tanya (one hour everyday)Enter data on University PC (every day, immediately after datacollection)Takefieldnotes,keepresearchdiary(everyday)

14/04-16/04

analysequestionnairedatawithSPSS

17/04(Tuesday)12：00-14：00

MeetingwithAna,SarahandEthanfor1.amendinginterviewguidetofollowupthepattern2.draftinginterviewinvitation:anemailversionand a text version, get them translated into Urdu, Chinese andPortugueseSendoutinvitations

18/04-27/04

Followupnon-responseemails(20/04)Thirdfieldtriptoinvestigatethepublicityofinterpretingservice(26/04)Formalisethesplitupwiththedatacollectiongroup(27/04)Analyse,assimilate,interpretquestionnairedatawithSPSS

30/04-06/05

onlineresearchliteratureresearch

07/05-10/05

writeup

14

Appendix2:CodedQuestionnaireQuestionsforallUsers1. What’syourgenderandage?Gender:0Male1Female2Other3PreferNottoSayAge:___enternumbers______0.09formissing2. AreyouaUKCitizen?

0Yes1No0.09formissingIfNo,howlonghaveyoulivedintheUK?Pleaseselectone.

0Lessthan6months16-12months21-5years35-10years410+years0.01forlogicalmissingie.UKcitizen,0.09formissing3. Whatisyournativelanguage?______________________

Q3nativ:1forEnglish,0forothersQ3langue:putinthestring,leaveitblankifnotanswered

4. Onascaleof0-10,howmuchdoyouagreeordisagreethatJobCentreshouldprovideinterpretationservicesfornon-Native-Englishspeakers?(0beingextremelydisagree,10beingextremelyagree)0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (0-10 /

0.09)5. Areyouwillingtoparticipateina5-10minuteinterviewtoshareyouropinionsonthe

currentinterpretationservices?Yes No(0/1/0.09)

IfYes,pleasespecifyyourpreferredcontactmethodtoarrangeanappointment:byemail:__________________________________bytextmessage/phonecall:__________________other:_____________________________________

Iftherespondentrefusetheinterview,put0.01forallthese(Q5email-Q5other)Q5email:0forticked,1fornottickedQ5emailD:putinthestring,leaveitblankifnotansweredQ5phone:0forticked,1fornottickedQ5phoneD:putinthestring,leaveitblankifnotansweredQ5other:0forticked,1fornottickedQ5otherD:putinthestring,leaveitblankifnotanswered

15

QuestionsOnlyfornon-Native-Englishspeakers• ForNativespeakers,codeallvaluesforQ6-Q12as0.01• Fornon-nativespeakers,followtheinstructionsbelow• Ifshe/heneverheardofavailableservicebefore(‘none’forQ6,noapplicationfor

therest),put0forQ6none,and0.01foralltherest(fromQ7facetotheend)• Ifshe/heneverhasheardbutneverusedanyservice,put0forQ7none,and0.01

foralltherest(fromQ8)• !!!! If the respondent never heard of/ never used the interpreting service, then

follow the instructions above!Don’t care aboutwhat the person says about therest,becausetheymayhavemisinterpretedthequestionstobeabouttheoverallservice.

6. Whichmethods of interpretation services are available at this JobCentre according toyourknowledge?Pleasecheckallthatapply.Face-to-FaceinterpretationprovidedbyJobCentreTelephoneinterpretationprovidedbyJobCentreInterpretationprovidedbyFriend/FamilyMemberOther:__________________None

Fornon-nativespeakers,ifdeliberatelyleftover,codeallQ6valuesas0.09Q6face:0forticked,1fornottickedQ6tele:0forticked,1fornottickedQ6fri/fa:0forticked,1fornottickedQ6other:0forticked,1fornottickedQ6otherD:putinthestring,leaveitblankifnotansweredQ6none:0forticked,1fornotticked7. Whichmethodofinterpretationserviceshaveyouused?Pleasecheckallthatapply.

Face-to-FaceinterpretationprovidedbyJobCentreTelephoneinterpretationprovidedbyJobCentreInterpretationprovidedbyFriend/FamilyMemberOther:__________________None

For non-native speakers, if deliberately left over, code all Q7 values as 0.09; if notapplicable,codeallas0.01Q7face:0forticked,1fornottickedQ7tele:0forticked,1fornottickedQ7fri/fa:0forticked,1fornottickedQ7other:0forticked,1fornottickedQ7otherD:putinthestring,leaveitblankifnotansweredQ7none:0forticked,1fornotticked8. Whichmethoddidyouusemostoftensincelastyear?(fromJanuary2017tillnow):0Face-to-FaceinterpretationprovidedbyJobCentre

16

1TelephoneinterpretationprovidedbyJobCentre2InterpretationprovidedbyFriend/FamilyMember3Other:__________________4NoneQ8most:0-4/0.01/0.09Q8otherD:putinthestring,leaveitblankifnotanswered9. On a scale of 0-10, how accessible are the interpretation services provided in the

JobCentrewhenyouneedtousethem?(0beingimpossible,10beingveryeasy)0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (0-10

/0.01/0.09)For non-native speakers if deliberately left over, code all Q7 values as 0.09, if notapplicable,codeallas0.0110. Whatwasyourexperienceoftheinterpreter?Pleasecheckallthatapply.

Friendly Professional Cold Rude Other___________________For non-native speakers, if deliberately left over, code all Q7 values as 0.09, if notapplicable,codeallas0.01Q10F:0forticked,1fornottickedQ10P:0forticked,1fornottickedQ10C:0forticked,1fornottickedQ10R:0forticked,1fornottickedQ10other:0forticked,1fornottickedQ10othD:putinthestring,leaveitblankifnotanswered11. Was the information given in translation clear? (0 being no translation/extremely

unclear,10beingveryclear):0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (0-10 /

0.01/0.09)For non-native speakers, if deliberately left over, code all Q7 values as 0.09, if notapplicable,codeallas0.0112. HowsatisfiedareyouwiththecurrentinterpretationservicesprovidedbyJobCentre?(0

beingextremelyunsatisfied,10beingverysatisfied):0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (0-10

/0.01/0.09)For non-native speakers, if deliberately left over, code all Q7 values as 0.09, if notapplicable,codeallas0.01

17

Appendix3:frequencytables1.Agegroup

Frequency Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid 18-24 14 25.0 26.4 26.425-34 19 33.9 35.8 62.335-44 8 14.3 15.1 77.445-54 10 17.9 18.9 96.255-64 2 3.6 3.8 100.0

Total 53 94.6 100.0 Missing refused 3 5.4 Total 56 100.0

2.Gender

Frequency Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid male 36 64.3 64.3 64.3female 20 35.7 35.7 100.0Total 56 100.0 100.0

3.Nativelanguage

Frequency Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid Others 34 60.7 60.7 60.7

English

22 39.3 39.3 100.0

Total 56 100.0 100.0 4.UKcitizensamongallrespondents

Frequency Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid yes 30 53.6 53.6 53.6no 26 46.4 46.4 100.0

Total 56 100.0 100.0

18

5. UK citizens among non-native-English-speakingrespondents

Frequency Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid yes 9 26.5 26.5 26.5no 25 73.5 73.5 100.0Total 34 100.0 100.0

6.Howlonghasthenon-native-English-speakingrespondentlivedintheUK

Frequency Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid less than 6months

8 23.5 25.8 25.8

6-12months 3 8.8 9.7 35.51-5years 13 38.2 41.9 77.45-10years 5 14.7 16.1 93.510+years 2 5.9 6.5 100.0Total 31 91.2 100.0

Missing NOTAPPLICABLE 2 5.9 REFUSED 1 2.9 Total 3 8.8

Total 34 100.0

7.Demandofinterpretingservice*howlonghasthenon-native-English-speakingrespondentlivedintheUKcrosstabulation

howlonghastherespondentlivedintheUK

Totalless than 6months

6-12months

1-5years

5-10years

10+years

demand ofinterpretingservice

2 33.3% 7.7% 20.0% 9.7%4 12.5% 20.0% 6.5%5 7.7% 3.2%8 7.7% 20.0% 6.5%

9 12.5% 15.4% 20.0% 12.9%10 75.0% 66.7% 61.5% 20.0% 100.0% 61.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

19

8.Interviewinterestamongallrespondents

Frequency Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid yes 23 41.1 42.6 42.6

no 31 55.4 57.4 100.0Total 54 96.4 100.0

Missing REFUSED 2 3.6 Total 56 100.0

9.Mostfrequentlyusedmethod

Frequency Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid Face-to-FaceinterpretationprovidedbyJobCentre

1 2.9 4.8 4.8

TelephoneinterpretationprovidedbyJobCentre

8 23.5 38.1 42.9

Interpretationprovidedby Friend/FamilyMember

4 11.8 19.0 61.9

other 3 8.8 14.3 76.2none 5 14.7 23.8 100.0Total 21 61.8 100.0

Missing NOTAPPLICABLE 11 32.4 REFUSED 2 5.9 Total 13 38.2

Total 34 100.0

20

10.AccessibilityoftheinterpretatingservicesprovidedintheJobCentre

Frequency Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid 0.00 1 2.9 5.3 5.32.00 1 2.9 5.3 10.53.00 2 5.9 10.5 21.15.00 2 5.9 10.5 31.67.00 1 2.9 5.3 36.8

8.00 1 2.9 5.3 42.19.00 1 2.9 5.3 47.4

10.00 10 29.4 52.6 100.0Total 19 55.9 100.0

Missing NOTAPPLICABLE 13 38.2 REFUSED 2 5.9 Total 15 44.1

Total 34 100.0 11.Experienceofinterpreter

Responses Percent of

CasesN Percent

experienceofinterpretera

friendly 13 52.0% 76.5%professional 11 44.0% 64.7%other 1 4.0% 5.9%

Total 25 100.0% 147.1%

21

12.Clarityofinformationgivenintranslation

Frequency Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid 2.00 1 2.9 5.9 5.9

5.00 1 2.9 5.9 11.87.00 1 2.9 5.9 17.68.00 2 5.9 11.8 29.49.00 1 2.9 5.9 35.310.00 11 32.4 64.7 100.0Total 17 50.0 100.0

Missing NOTAPPLICABLE 14 41.2 REFUSED 3 8.8 Total 17 50.0

Total 34 100.0 13.SatisfactionoftheinterpretingservicesprovidedintheJobCentre

Frequency Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid 1.00 1 2.9 5.9 5.9

2.00 1 2.9 5.9 11.88.00 2 5.9 11.8 23.5

9.00 2 5.9 11.8 35.310.00 11 32.4 64.7 100.0Total 17 50.0 100.0

Missing NOTAPPLICABLE 14 41.2 REFUSED 3 8.8 Total 17 50.0

Total 34 100.0