Who Owns the System That Provides Access?

Sep 6

14 min read

Reflecting on Jen Bird’s session about social value, procurement and community-led interpreting services

A Deaf person arrives at a hospital believing an interpreter has been booked, but nobody appears.

Staff may say that the interpreter did not turn up. The agency may say that nobody accepted the booking. The Deaf person is left waiting, often without knowing where the failure occurred or who is responsible for resolving it.

It is easy to focus on the final missing interpreter. However, the problem may have begun much earlier. The hospital may have used the wrong booking process. The contract may sit with an agency that has limited knowledge of BSL provision. The agency may close outside normal office hours, rely mainly on remote interpreting or have no meaningful relationship with local interpreters and Deaf communities.

The failure is not always an individual one. It may be built into the system.

During The Together Conference 2026, Jen Bird asked us to step back from individual assignments and look at the structures surrounding interpreting provision.

Her session, Social Value in Action: What International Models Teach Us About Building Fair Community-Led Interpreting Systems, explored procurement, private ownership, cooperatives and the relationship between Deaf communities, interpreters, commissioners and service providers.

It raised a question that affects every part of access:

Who owns the system, and who therefore gets to decide what good access looks like?

Access is shaped before the interpreter arrives

Interpreters often think about quality in relation to the assignment itself. We consider preparation, language choices, professional conduct, co-working and whether the people involved were able to communicate.

Jen’s presentation reminded us that the quality of access is influenced long before the interpreter enters the room.

Someone has decided which agency will hold the contract. A booking process has been designed. Rates, cancellation terms and interpreter requirements have been agreed. Decisions have been made about whether an assignment will be offered face to face or remotely, and whether the Deaf person can request someone they know and trust.

These decisions are often made by commissioners, procurement teams and company directors who may have little direct knowledge of interpreting or Deaf communities.

The interpreter and Deaf person then meet within a system they did not design.

Jen’s research, including work connected to her Churchill Fellowship, examined different approaches internationally. Her focus was not simply on which country could provide an interpreter most quickly. She looked at where decision-making power sat, whether communities were involved, how interpreters were supported and where the money generated by interpreting services eventually went.

From local relationships to fragmented services

Jen described how interpreter provision in the UK was historically connected more closely to Deaf clubs, Deaf organisations, charities and local services.

The technology was basic. Bookings might arrive through a fax machine in an interpreter’s home. However, Deaf people and interpreters often knew one another, and services were connected to the communities they supported.

This was not a perfect system. Informal arrangements could raise questions about boundaries, availability and consistency. Technology and administration needed to improve.

However, the system held something that can be difficult to recreate once it has been lost: relationships.

Interpreters knew the local community. Deaf people knew how to request support and had some idea who might arrive. Local services understood the language and cultural knowledge required for the work.

Jen contrasted this with the present system, where interpreting contracts may be spread across several large agencies. A Deaf person’s GP, hospital, council and other services may each use a different provider, creating little continuity between them.

She also noted that newer interpreters may see performance interpreting on television, at concerts and online, but have far less visibility of everyday community interpreting. The services that once connected developing practitioners with local Deaf communities have become less visible and more fragmented.

The question is not whether we should return to fax machines and informal booking arrangements. It is whether modern systems can retain the community knowledge and relationships that older services sometimes held.

When procurement becomes a race to the bottom

Public bodies need systems for purchasing services and accounting for public money. Procurement is therefore not automatically a problem.

The difficulty comes when price becomes the strongest measure of value.

Jen described tendering processes in which large agencies compete to provide interpreting across wide areas or multiple languages. Spoken-language agencies may add BSL to a much larger contract even when sign language interpreting represents only a small part of their work.

Smaller Deaf organisations and specialist providers may struggle to compete with companies that have larger administrative teams, greater financial backing and experience of writing tender applications.

The winning bid may be the one that promises the greatest coverage at the lowest cost, but that does not necessarily mean it can provide the most appropriate interpreter, maintain local relationships or respond well to complex communication needs.

Jen referred to this as a race to the bottom.

When an agency reduces rates or applies unsuitable terms, experienced interpreters may choose not to accept its work. The agency may then struggle to fill bookings and place responsibility on a supposed interpreter shortage.

However, the issue may not be that no interpreter exists. The available professionals may be unwilling to work under the conditions created by the contract.

This can produce a cycle in which commissioners believe that BSL bookings are inherently difficult to fill, while interpreters and Deaf people experience a service that has made itself unattractive or impractical to use.

Being large does not mean being available

Large organisations often sell themselves through scale.

They may advertise national coverage, a wide range of languages, remote technology and access at any time of day. For a commissioner, this can appear safer than contracting with a smaller specialist provider.

Jen shared an example of a remote-only agency that closed at 17:00, despite holding contracts for services that could be needed outside those hours.

A Deaf person attending an emergency department during the evening or weekend would therefore have no meaningful access to the provision the contract was supposed to supply.

The service may exist on a procurement document but not when the person actually needs it.

Jen also discussed how agencies can decide that remote interpreting is “good enough”, even where it may not suit the Deaf person, the setting or the communication. Deafblind people, those with limited access to technology and people involved in complex or emotionally difficult conversations may require a different approach.

When ownership and decision-making sit far away from the community, there is a greater risk that convenience for the provider becomes the main measure of suitability.

Who carries the blame?

Fragmented systems can make accountability difficult.

A hospital may blame the agency. The agency may blame the interpreter. The interpreter may never have received the booking, or may have rejected it because essential information, suitable conditions or appropriate payment were missing.

The Deaf person is often the only one who experiences the entire failure.

They may miss an appointment, receive delayed treatment or be asked to proceed through written notes or a remote system they did not choose.

Jen encouraged participants to look beyond the final stage and ask where responsibility sits across the whole process.

Was the person able to request an interpreter easily? Did staff know how to make the booking? Did the agency receive enough information? Was the assignment offered to appropriately qualified practitioners? Were the terms reasonable? Was there a process for checking that provision had been confirmed?

Interpreters should still be accountable for the bookings they accept. However, blaming an individual interpreter cannot repair a system that repeatedly produces the same outcome.

What does social value really mean?

Jen then turned to the idea of social value.

Public contracts may assess more than price. Organisations can receive credit for creating jobs, apprenticeships or opportunities for people who have faced barriers to employment.

These aims can be worthwhile. The problem is that the social value measured in a tender may not reflect the value experienced by the Deaf community using the service.

A large company may score highly because it employs many people or offers a general apprenticeship scheme. A small Deaf-led service may employ fewer people but provide stronger language access, local knowledge, continuity and direct community involvement.

If the contract measures employment numbers more easily than the quality of Deaf access, the larger company may appear to offer greater social value even when the community loses a trusted service.

Jen argued that Deaf organisations historically created considerable social value through their relationships, knowledge and community presence. Much of that value was difficult to represent within procurement scoring systems.

This leaves us with an important question:

Who gets to define value?

Is a service valuable because it looks efficient on a spreadsheet, or because the people using it receive consistent, appropriate and trusted access?

From social value to community wealth

Jen connected social value with the idea of community wealth.

She referred to the Preston Model, which centres on buying locally so that public money remains within the area and continues to support local people, employment and services.

Applied to interpreting, this would mean looking at where the money generated through contracts goes.

Does it remain within Deaf and interpreting communities? Does it support training, mentoring, employment and future access? Are profits reinvested into services, or extracted by distant owners and investors?

Community wealth is not only about money. It also concerns knowledge, relationships and power.

A community-led provider may know which interpreters have the relevant skills, which communication approaches work locally and where service gaps are emerging. Deaf people can contribute to decisions about quality and priorities rather than being consulted only after a contract has already been designed.

Jen described a model in which Deaf people become decision-makers and ownership remains connected to those who use and provide the service.

This is a significant shift. Instead of asking how an organisation can deliver services to a community, it asks how the community can hold power within the service itself.

What can international systems teach us?

Jen’s Churchill Fellowship allowed her to examine approaches in several countries, including Kenya, Canada, Finland and Sweden.

She did not present any country as having found a perfect system. Each offered useful ideas alongside continuing limitations.

The purpose of international comparison was not to select one model and copy it directly. It was to notice how ownership, procurement, government involvement and community relationships produce different outcomes.

Kenya and platform cooperatives

In Kenya, Jen explored the idea of platform cooperatives.

Many people are familiar with app-based businesses such as taxi and food delivery services. The technology connects customers with workers, but ownership and profit often remain with the company behind the platform. Workers carry out the service without holding meaningful power over the business.

A platform cooperative uses similar technology, but ownership is shared with the people providing or using the service.

For interpreting, this could mean an efficient app-based booking system without giving control to a company whose main aim is extracting profit. Interpreters and community members could have a say in how the platform operates, what standards apply and how money is reinvested.

Jen noted that the interpreting context she observed in Kenya was still developing, but platform cooperatives offered a useful way to think about combining technology with collective ownership.

Canada and familiar fragmentation

Jen found similarities between Canada and the UK.

Canada has interpreter training, professional structures and a range of agencies and video interpreting providers. However, services can still be fragmented, with private ownership and limited community decision-making.

Having universities, registers and established companies does not automatically create a community-led system.

This is an important lesson for any profession with formal structures. We can have qualifications and standards while still excluding the people who use the service from the decisions that shape it.

Finland and the Kela system

Finland has a national system called Kela, through which Deaf people can request interpreters without paying directly for the service.

Sign language provision is separate from spoken-language agencies, which recognises that these services require different knowledge and structures.

Jen saw clear strengths in this approach, but also identified limitations. Procurement remains competitive and cost still affects which organisations secure work. Deaf people do not hold final decision-making power within the system, and developing interpreters may find it difficult to gain the experience they need.

Jen highlighted Via, a Finnish cooperative with Deaf employees and interpreters who share ownership and influence. The organisation adds value through training, CPD and strong links between interpreting and Deaf communities.

This showed that even within a government-led procurement system, the ownership and culture of individual providers can make a difference.

Sweden and community presence

Jen spoke warmly about her visit to Sweden, particularly the sense of Deaf community presence she experienced at a national Deaf event.

The event included performances based on everyday Deaf experiences, activities for children and opportunities for Deaf people of different ages to spend time together using sign language naturally.

She contrasted this community atmosphere with events that can feel more commercially focused.

Sweden’s interpreter booking system is regional but connected through a broader structure. Deaf people can identify preferred interpreters and can request access for social activities as well as essential appointments.

However, Jen also described how a social booking could be cancelled if another booking, such as a hospital appointment, was given greater priority. The decision may be understandable within a system managing limited resources, but the Deaf person whose booking is cancelled does not hold the final power.

Once again, the system decides which parts of a Deaf person’s life matter most.

Why ownership matters

Across the different countries and models, Jen repeatedly returned to ownership.

Whoever owns an organisation normally has the greatest influence over its priorities. They decide how profits are used, which services are developed, what conditions workers receive and whose views carry weight.

A privately owned company may involve Deaf advisers or carry out consultation. However, consultation is not the same as ownership.

The organisation can listen and still make a different decision.

Cooperative models distribute ownership among members. Depending on the structure, those members may include interpreters, Deaf people, staff or community organisations.

Jen discussed UK examples including iNet in Leicester and the North West cooperative. She also explained that Signalise is owned by Deaf people and interpreters rather than being solely interpreter-owned.

In this model, money is not intended to be extracted for distant shareholders. It can be reinvested into the service and the communities connected to it.

Cooperatives are not automatically free from disagreement, financial pressure or operational difficulty. Shared ownership still requires good governance, clear roles and professional standards.

Their significance lies in where power begins.

The people most closely connected to the service are not simply workers and customers. They have a formal place within its ownership and decisions.

Technology does not decide who benefits

Digital booking, remote interpreting and app-based services can all improve access when they are designed and used well.

Jen did not argue for returning to older technology. Signalise itself uses modern booking systems and remote video services.

The important question is who owns the technology and who benefits from it.

A booking app can make it easier for Deaf people to request an interpreter, or it can restrict them to the provider’s cheapest option.

Remote interpreting can create access where no local interpreter is available, or it can be imposed on someone whose communication needs require face-to-face provision.

Data can help identify service gaps, or it can be used mainly to reduce costs.

Technology reflects the priorities of those who design and own it. It does not remove questions about power, quality and choice.

This also applies to AI and sign language services. Before debating what a system can produce, we need to ask who controls the data, who sets the rules and whether Deaf communities have meaningful decision-making authority.

What does this mean for interpreters?

It can be tempting for individual interpreters to see procurement and ownership as issues outside their role.

Most practitioners do not write national contracts or sit on commissioning panels. They may feel they have little influence over how agencies operate.

However, interpreters interact with these systems continually.

We choose which agencies we register with. We accept or reject terms. We decide whether to provide feedback when a process is failing. Some interpreters join professional associations, unions, regional networks or cooperatives. Others contribute to consultations or speak directly with commissioners.

An interpreter cannot repair the entire system through one decision. Collective action matters because isolated complaints are easier to ignore.

Jen encouraged practitioners to organise, form regional groups, challenge unsuitable procurement and speak with decision-makers. She also offered the experience of Signalise to people considering cooperative or community-led approaches.

This does not mean every interpreter needs to establish a new organisation. It may begin with understanding where work comes from, who holds the contract and how the conditions affect Deaf people and professionals.

What does this mean for translators?

Although Jen’s session focused mainly on interpreting services, the same structural questions affect sign language translation.

A large contract may treat BSL translation as another item within a broad language package. Decisions about deadlines, format and quality may be made without Deaf translators being involved early enough.

A community-led model can place Deaf translators closer to the commissioning process. They can contribute to decisions about audience, language, presentation and whether a translated resource is the right solution.

Ownership also affects professional development. When money is reinvested locally, it may support translator training, equipment, paid consultation, mentoring and the creation of further accessible information.

Public bodies increasingly place services and information online. A digital service may be technically available but remain linguistically inaccessible.

Deaf translators and community organisations need a role in designing that access, not simply receiving an English script after every other decision has been made.

Commissioners need to ask better questions

A fair interpreting system requires more than asking which agency can offer the lowest hourly rate.

Commissioners could ask:

How are Deaf people involved in the design and governance of the service?
Does the provider specialise in signed-language provision?
How will continuity and interpreter preference be supported?
What happens outside normal office hours?
How are face-to-face and remote options decided?
What conditions and rates are offered to interpreters?
How will Deafblind people and those with additional communication needs be supported?
Where will profits be directed?
What will the provider contribute to local training and professional development?
How will service failures be recorded and corrected?

A low hourly rate may create greater costs elsewhere if appointments fail, treatment is delayed or professionals spend time managing communication breakdowns.

Value should be measured through the experience and outcome of the service, not only its purchase price.

What are we passing on?

The theme for The Together Conference 2026 was Pick It Up, Pass It On.

Interpreting systems are also passed on.

Contracts are renewed because they already exist. Booking processes continue because nobody has been given time to redesign them. New practitioners accept agency terms because they assume those arrangements are normal.

Over time, a system created through a series of short-term decisions begins to feel inevitable.

Jen’s session challenged that assumption.

Services have been organised differently in the past and are organised differently across countries today. Cooperatives, Deaf-led providers, national systems and platform models show that there is more than one possible approach.

We should be careful about what we pass on as normal.

Is it normal that Deaf people have little control over who interprets for them?
Is it normal that BSL provision is placed within a large spoken-language contract?
Is it normal for community organisations to lose work because they cannot compete with private companies on price?
Is it normal for interpreters to be blamed for failures created by procurement and booking systems?

Asking these questions does not produce an immediate replacement system. It does make the current one visible, and that is an important first step.

Shared purpose means sharing power

The theme for The Together Conference 2027 is New Insights, Shared Purpose.

A shared purpose cannot be created while decision-making remains concentrated among people who are distant from the service.

Deaf communities, interpreters and translators need more than occasional consultation. Their knowledge should shape procurement, governance, technology and quality standards.

Perhaps you are involved in a cooperative, Deaf-led service or regional interpreter network. You may be researching procurement, social value, service failures or community wealth.

You might have experience of a public body changing its booking model, or evidence that a small specialist provider achieved outcomes a larger contract could not.

You may also be developing technology that is owned or governed by the people using it.

These experiences could contribute to The Together Conference 2027.

The Call for Papers opens on Monday 5 October 2026. You do not need to decide whether your proposal belongs in the live programme or the extended conference. Submit your idea and the review panel will consider where accepted contributions fit best.

Poster submissions will also be welcomed for developing services, cooperative models, research, early findings and community projects.

Jen’s session showed that access is not only a language question. It is also a question of ownership, money, trust and power.

A fairer system will not be built simply by booking more interpreters into the same structure. It will require us to reconsider who the structure belongs to.

Using this article for unstructured CPD

You may wish to reflect on one or more of the following questions:

How are interpreting and translation services commissioned in the areas where you work?
Who owns the agencies or organisations through which you receive bookings?
How are Deaf people involved in decisions about those services?
Have you experienced a booking failure that was blamed on an individual when the wider system was responsible?
How do rates, terms and preparation affect whether qualified interpreters accept agency work?
What has been gained through modern booking technology, and what community relationships may have been lost?
How should social value be measured within a sign language interpreting contract?
Where does the money generated by interpreting and translation services go?
What are the strengths and limitations of cooperative ownership?
Could a platform cooperative combine modern technology with community control?
What did the international examples from Kenya, Canada, Finland and Sweden make you reconsider?
What questions should commissioners ask before awarding a contract?
How could interpreters and translators influence systems collectively rather than only raising individual complaints?
Is there a service model, project or piece of research that you could share through a 2027 conference proposal or poster?