Strategic Initiatives

4. Approach and Methodology

4.1 Consultations with Advocacy Groups
4.2 Experts
4.3 Sample
4.4 Testing Protocol
4.5 Test

As described in section 1 of this report, the assessment of the availability, accessibility, effectiveness and quality of TTY services provided by federal organizations included the following:

• consulting advocacy groups;

• hiring qualified experts who understand the communications needs of people who are Deaf, deafened or hard of hearing, or have a speech impediment, and who have experience in using telephonic systems of communication designed for these groups; and

• evaluating a sample of federal departments and agencies to determine whether they provide TTYs and whether their TTY service operates effectively.

4.1 Consultations with Advocacy Groups

Advocacy groups represent people who use TTYs daily. They have expert knowledge and understanding of the special communications needs of people who cannot use the regular telephone system, as well as valuable insights into technology alternatives and modifications to TTY systems to enhance communication. In the case of the Canadian Association of the Deaf (CAD), they have also done extensive work on the specific issue of TTY access within the Government of Canada. It was therefore considered essential to seek their views on this important issue.

Meetings were scheduled and carried out with three advocacy groups: the CAD, the Canadian Hearing Society (CHS) and the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association (CHHA).

Advocacy groups raised the following TTY-related concerns:

• a lack of TTY numbers for certain services, federal organizations or regional offices;

• incorrect listings of TTY numbers;

• the high number of non-operational TTY numbers;

• confusion arising from the inconsistent approach federal organizations are taking to providing TTY services; and

• a consequent lack of trust in TTY services.

The advocacy groups also expressed a general frustration with the pervasive lack of knowledge and understanding of deafness and hearing loss, and the special needs that arise from these conditions. Sign languages are true languages, with their own grammar and syntax. What some people interpret as lack of English or French literacy is often nothing more than a person using ASL/LSQ grammar in translating their message to English or French. This misinterpretation shows that people communicating with deaf citizens need more training in using the technology and understanding the unique communications needs of the deaf.

Effective use of a TTY also involves knowledge of the appropriate protocols and etiquette of communicating via a text-based system. For example, when using a TTY it is customary to type "GA" (for Go Ahead) to indicate that it is OK for the other party to type their response. Proper TTY etiquette is not complicated but when it is not observed, effective communication is hampered.

As a result of the above issues, deaf people are asking advocacy groups, hearing family members or hearing friends for assistance with government services, rather than contacting the government directly.

Advocacy groups raised other important issues during the consultations. Although these issues (noted below) are not within the scope of the current study, they may indicate that the lack of effective TTY services documented in this study is part of a broader issue related to government communication with Deaf, deafened and hard of hearing Canadians in a variety of settings.

Meeting with the CAD

The CAD said the federal government failed to provide adequate access to printed media written in plain language and ASL (or LSQ) interpreters. Also, the CAD emphasized that the confidentiality concern was the main reason people were reluctant to use relay services. The third issue that came up during this meeting was the new, decentralized system for arranging ASL (or LSQ) interpreters, which had not been communicated properly to individual federal departments. Thus, departments and agencies were not aware of the available funding and of procedures for arranging for ASL (or LSQ) interpreters.

Meeting with the CHS

Since TTYs are still a basic means of communication used by a wide range of people to communicate with the federal government, the CHS recommended that people with low English literacy levels test them. It also recommended that the government explain available services and applicable policies more clearly by TTY, especially the steps needed to book an ASL interpreter. The CHS also recommended better training for personnel who deal with deaf people. Another communications-related issue mentioned was the security glass in front of some office reception desks. This security feature, although very useful, makes it impossible for a hard of hearing person to lip-read the receptionist. In addition, the CHS emphasized that when people need service or have a complaint about inadequate access, they usually turn to advocacy groups rather than to the Government of Canada.

Meeting with the CHHA

Many hard of hearing people can use a modified regular telephone; however, they still experience significant barriers. Their concerns involve difficulty listening to automated messages and voice mail, and waiting for a call back. Also, they rely on print interpretation and real-time captioning, if these services are available. They would appreciate a hearing loss help line, a Government of Canada line dedicated to providing information by trained personnel on all government services for deafened and hard of hearing people.

4.2 Experts

In the course of this project, qualified experts were hired who understood the communications needs of deaf people, and who had experience in using telephonic systems of communication designed for deaf people. This approach ensured that issues surrounding complaints of discrimination in service delivery were well understood. The experts’ input and suggestions have been useful in designing the testing protocol and finalizing this report. These experts carried out the actual tests. One expert is Anglophone and the other is Francophone. As well as being technical experts, both are deaf and have direct experience in using TTYs.

4.3 Sample

The Government of Canada’s official Web site lists 181 departments, agencies and Crown corporations. For the purpose of testing the availability, accessibility, effectiveness and quality of TTY services provided by federal organizations, small organizations and those that do not serve the public directly were removed from that list, leaving 129 federal organizations.

The next step consisted of searching the Web sites of the 129 organizations for a telephone number. Also, researchers searched the blue pages of the Ottawa–Gatineau telephone book and Vancouver telephone book (available on the Internet) for telephone numbers of the selected 129 organizations. If a telephone number was not listed, the organization was not considered further. The reasoning behind this elimination was the notion of equal access. In other words, if a telephone number was not listed, a TTY should not have been expected, either. This step eliminated six of the 129 organizations.

Researchers then searched the Web sites and blue pages listings of the remaining 123 organizations for a TTY number. Only 64 organizations (52%) had at least one listed TTY number. The sample was prepared using the listed TTYs of these 64 organizations.

When preparing the sample, the following factors were taken into account:

• the number of TTYs listed on the Web site or in the blue pages for each organization;

• the size of the organization (if more than one TTY was listed, larger organizations had more TTYs in the sample than did smaller organizations);

• services provided by the organization (if more than one TTY was listed, organizations dealing more frequently with the public had more TTYs in the sample than did organizations dealing less frequently with the public); and

• national coverage (if more than one TTY was listed, organizations in the regions had more TTYs in the sample than did organizations located mainly in the National Capital Region [NCR]).

The sample consisted of 118 TTY numbers, from which 20 TTYs were selected for the pre-test, to check whether the testing protocol was satisfactory. The remaining 98 TTYs were tested after the pre-test. There were no changes to the testing protocol, nor to the sample, after the pre-test, so the pre-test results were incorporated into the final results. Section 4.5 of this report explains the pre-test and test in more detail.

4.4 Testing Protocol

The testing protocol has been designed to test whether Government of Canada institutions have operational TTYs and knowledgeable operators, and whether they receive TTY calls. When a TTY call was successful, the experts asked the following two questions:

• What do you do when you get a TTY call requesting service or program assistance?

• What is the most common question you get asked?

To ensure transparency, the experts used the following script:

" Consulting and Audit Canada, on behalf of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, is currently undertaking a study on TTY lines listed by federal government departments and agencies. To complete this study, I am asking for your help in providing me with the following information…. "

Also, the experts provided contact information for Consulting and Audit (CAC) for departmental records or in case someone wanted to discuss the test.

After each call, the experts were asked to complete a response form, recording the following:

• date and duration of the call;

• type of response:
  • text—the response was received from a TTY (the expected response),
  • voice—the response was received from a traditional telephone (not acceptable),
  • machine—an answering machine responded to the initial call (acceptable only if the call was returned within two working days) or
  • no response (not acceptable);

• call response time, if the caller had to leave a message on an answering machine (response within one, two or more than two working days, or no response at all); and

• the quality of the interaction—which included an assessment of courtesy, control of interaction, understanding and accuracy of information, use of proper TTY etiquette, other call-specific issues and overall quality—as rated on a five-point scale from one (very poor) to five (very high).

A call was characterized as responsive if it resulted in a text response or call return within two working days.

The complete response form is included in Appendix B of this report.

4.5 Test

As reported in section 4.3, experts called 20 TTYs during the pre-test. Interestingly, two of these TTYs were listed under multiple departments, agencies and services; one was listed under five completely different organizations. The breakdown of the 20 TTYs called in the pre-test is as follows:

• 10 toll-free numbers;

• five numbers from the NCR;

• two numbers from Quebec (outside the NCR);

• one number from Western Canada;

• one number from Atlantic Canada; and

• one number from Ontario (outside the NCR).

The pre-test, conducted in the second week of February 2005, did not result in any changes to the testing protocol or the sample. Therefore, it was possible to incorporate these results into the final results, which are presented in section 5 of this report.

The actual test took place during the third and fourth weeks of February 2005 and included testing of 98 TTY numbers, as follows:

• 36 toll-free numbers;

• 47 numbers from the NCR;

• two numbers from Quebec (outside the NCR);

• six numbers from Western Canada;

• four numbers from Atlantic Canada; and

• three numbers from Ontario (outside the NCR).

Of the 98 TTYs, testing could not be completed for 12 TTYs, as one number was listed only partially and 11 TTY numbers were provincial toll-free numbers that could be called only from the specified province. However, eliminating these provincial TTY numbers did not completely eliminate any organization that was represented in the original sample.

Previous Page

Table of Contents

Next Page