[community] Fwd: AODA standard for Social Assistance?
Cybele S
cybele.sack at gmail.com
Thu Jul 15 23:29:32 UTC 2021
Agree, but we also need to include people who were denied entry into these
channels. In other words, we need to include people in that co-design who
were told they weren't disabled enough with their PTSD diagnosis or their
fibromyalgia etc.
Otherwise, we allow a government scarcity mindset to create hierarchies of
disability.
+1 to everything else you wrote, John.
C.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 7:25 PM John W (personal) <pickupwillis at gmail.com>
wrote:
> As always this community is awesome!! thanks all for your fee
>
> Cybele and Lucian, I agree with basically all your points, which is not to
> say there is no real distinction you are raising - rather, I think the
> redesign of social assistance is realy quie complex. The historic
> undermpinnings (as Cybele notes) really limit the mental models that public
> service managers of OW/ODSP can mobilize. For example, OW is
> still designed to punish people who are not productive in mainstream labour
> markets, but they can escape into a higher income bracket (somewhat) by
> gaining entry to ODSP -- where the underlying logic is you are useless to
> society because you are neither able enough to 'produce' in the economy..
>
> The overall logic, then, is that people on social assistance are either
> failing because they aren't effective consumers or effective producers.
> This means they are eminently ignorable from a political standpoint.
>
> This is what it means to be truly 'marginal' in a capitalist society. The
> 'recovery' plan for social assistance coming out of COVID is in fact to
> double-down on this framework by funneling resources to job-seekers --
> which means those on Ontario Works by the way, not ODSP.
>
> Having said all that, the actual experience of getting services through
> these programs seems to me an important driver of equity as well - for
> example, if there are no touchpoints (no affordable wifi, no offices, no
> material in indigenous languages...) for low income nortrners, they cannot
> get the benefits for housing or food they may need.
>
> I now am starting to understand that the wedge, or lever, for change could
> well be the issues around culturally-appropriate services and supports.
> What does an indigenous northern young woman need in order to access
> services? What does a black family in Brampton need? If 'equity' means
> anything I think it has to do with respecting difference in perspectives
> and designing for that difference - again let's challenge 'one size fits
> all' thinking!
>
> All of these threads converge, I think, on participatory models in which
> peple who use the service are involved in its design and governance. Big
> role for our community in that. Equity strategy must include real
> participation, co-design, co-production.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 10:19 AM Lucian Timofte <luciantimofte at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I cannot access enough data or facts to suspect everyone in
>> the
>> system as ableist.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 10:04 AM Cybele S <cybele.sack at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Structural ableism. Systemic ableism.
>> >
>> > What is the limit of conscious ableism? Are we defining individual
>> intent
>> > now? Whose? It's not necessary but it's certainly provable to show
>> > historic bias that underpins the creation and maintenance of these
>> systems.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 9:45 AM Lucian Timofte <luciantimofte at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I agree the picture is larger. However, I am not sure if it is about
>> >> conscious ableism.
>> >> To me, lack of participatory design, funding issues, poor management
>> and
>> >> communication are facts.
>> >> Before digital inclusion with ODSP, PwDs still do pirouettes to
>> navigate
>> >> financial problems, underfunding their housing/renting, nutrition,
>> >> assistive devices and medical needs.
>> >>
>> >> Sincerely,
>> >> Lucian
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 12:00 PM Cybele S <cybele.sack at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Of course those should not be lost.
>> >>>
>> >>> What is the big picture on this?
>> >>>
>> >>> Layers of denials of claims, filtering people out first by type of
>> >>> disability, then by system literacy and access to supports, then by
>> >>> technological barriers which amplify bias towards exclusion and
>> towards a
>> >>> belief that people are cheating the system.
>> >>>
>> >>> If we do tech fixes without addressing the bigger picture, we could
>> >>> whitewash these exclusions as “accessibility” when real accessibility
>> >>> addresses ableism.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:50 AM arc23 <arcohoon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > Great with that, just as long as the technology problems and
>> >>> communication
>> >>> > discussions are not lost thank you
>> >>> > written using voice to text excuse any mistakes 416-710-0817
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Wed., Jul. 7, 2021, 11:02 a.m. Cybele S, <cybele.sack at gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> Before we get too granular, can this discussion also include
>> >>> definitions
>> >>> >> of who qualifies and when?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:59 AM Fran Quintero Rawlings <
>> >>> >> rawlings.fran at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> Hey this is a fascinating and important topic.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Firstly because of how many barriers there are to filling out
>> these
>> >>> >>> forms. The requirements for someone that is disabled, low income
>> or a
>> >>> >>> senior needing any type of assistance is ridiculous.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Secondly current AODA standards are still missing the mark - they
>> >>> don’t
>> >>> >>> account for neurodiversity needs and perhaps other inclusive need.
>> >>> On top
>> >>> >>> of being cumbersome, they are confusing and overwhelming to fill
>> out.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> The elephant in the room around all of this is the lack of dignity
>> >>> >>> considered in the design of these services. They are not
>> co-designed
>> >>> with
>> >>> >>> people that actually use the services (or the existing design of
>> the
>> >>> AODA
>> >>> >>> standard.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> I would be interested in discussing this more.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Cheers
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Fran
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> > On Jul 7, 2021, at 09:52, arc23 <arcohoon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> >>> >>> > From: arc23 <arcohoon at gmail.com>
>> >>> >>> > Date: Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:40 AM
>> >>> >>> > Subject: Re: [community] AODA standard for Social Assistance?
>> >>> >>> > To: Brian Moore <bmoore at screenreview.org>
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> > I am using both windows 10 and the latest version of Android and
>> >>> then
>> >>> >>> both
>> >>> >>> > those cases if there is a way to fill a PDF without paying for
>> the
>> >>> >>> premium
>> >>> >>> > the user interface way finding does not make it easy so I don't
>> >>> know if
>> >>> >>> > there is a way I didn't fill out the form without signing up
>> for a
>> >>> >>> monthly
>> >>> >>> > membership because I used up my free trial a few years ago
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> > I bet it's a government security thing but the fact is it's
>> going
>> >>> to
>> >>> >>> nickel
>> >>> >>> > and dine as low income users they say you can get a word
>> document
>> >>> but I
>> >>> >>> > think you have to talk to somebody first and if you can't get a
>> >>> hold of
>> >>> >>> > anybody then you're still stuck
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> > written using voice to text excuse any mistakes 416-710-0817
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> >> On Wed., Jul. 7, 2021, 7:47 a.m. Brian Moore, <
>> >>> >>> bmoore at screenreview.org>
>> >>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> really! Are you using a mac? Adobe reader the free version
>> >>> should be
>> >>> >>> able
>> >>> >>> >> to fill out pdf forms although most of them really suck for
>> >>> >>> accessibility?
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> I am not sure the mac version does though.
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> Yeah, I have heard that calling them is a shit show and you can
>> >>> never
>> >>> >>> get
>> >>> >>> >> a hold of anyone. Clearly that hasn't changed since I was on
>> it.
>> >>> you
>> >>> >>> could
>> >>> >>> >> leave voice mails and never get a call back!
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> Contact me on skype: brian.moore
>> >>> >>> >> follow me on twitter:http://www.twitter.com/bmoore123
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> On 2021-07-06 5:28 p.m., arc23 wrote:
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> They have definitely made in roads in making ODSP more digital
>> >>> >>> accessible
>> >>> >>> >> for users during the pandemic with my benefits website my only
>> >>> >>> concern as
>> >>> >>> >> an ODSP recipient is the digital forms are all in PDFs that
>> need
>> >>> the
>> >>> >>> >> premium version of acrobat to fill electronically I cannot use
>> my
>> >>> >>> wordq to
>> >>> >>> >> fill out the digital PDF forms. Can I claim Adobe Acrobat as an
>> >>> ODSP
>> >>> >>> >> expense that's the only way I can pay over $10 a month to be
>> able
>> >>> to
>> >>> >>> >> properly fill out ODSP forms online
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> And also doesn't seem like they want clients to get a hold of
>> them
>> >>> >>> easily
>> >>> >>> >> because I constantly had workers that just disappeared and
>> when I
>> >>> >>> call in
>> >>> >>> >> they tell me all your worker quit months ago and they do
>> nothing
>> >>> to
>> >>> >>> >> actually let you know that on their voicemail you just get a
>> >>> >>> voicemail box
>> >>> >>> >> that's full of messages
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> They should definitely look into inclusive design principles
>> and
>> >>> >>> better
>> >>> >>> >> customer service principals for for us clients do actually use
>> the
>> >>> >>> service
>> >>> >>> >> and do it more efficiently
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> But usually when I do send them a document through the my
>> benefits
>> >>> >>> website
>> >>> >>> >> I usually do get a response in about a week but it's getting to
>> >>> talk
>> >>> >>> to an
>> >>> >>> >> actual person on the phone that is still a problem
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> written using voice to text excuse any mistakes 416-710-0817
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> On Mon., Jul. 5, 2021, 5:12 p.m. Brian Moore, <
>> >>> >>> bmoore at screenreview.org>
>> >>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >>> Hi. If nothing else, I think all those programs
>> communications
>> >>> with
>> >>> >>> >>> consumers are still in print. I think even the monthly
>> reporting
>> >>> >>> forms
>> >>> >>> >>> are still print. I heard some talk of online forms for
>> reporting
>> >>> >>> monthly
>> >>> >>> >>> income and there was some talk of developing this when I was
>> >>> doing
>> >>> >>> >>> contract work at MGCS but not sure if anything ever came of
>> >>> that. I
>> >>> >>> >>> know they have an online application package now but can't
>> >>> comment on
>> >>> >>> >>> its accessibility as I haven't tried although I did hear some
>> >>> people
>> >>> >>> had
>> >>> >>> >>> trouble.
>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>> Would be interested what anyone knows about this.
>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>> Brian.
>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>> Contact me on skype: brian.moore
>> >>> >>> >>> follow me on twitter:
>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.twitter.com/bmoore123
>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>> On 2021-07-05 4:11 p.m., John W (personal) wrote:
>> >>> >>> >>>> Hello Inclusive Design Community (aka My External Brain)
>> >>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>> >>>> I think a number of folks here -- including Pina and Jutta
>> and
>> >>> >>> David L
>> >>> >>> >>> but
>> >>> >>> >>>> maybe others? -- have deep expertise in AODA Standards
>> >>> development.
>> >>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>> >>>> Question: Has there ever been a discussion with the
>> Provincial
>> >>> gov
>> >>> >>> >>> (either
>> >>> >>> >>>> the current Ministry or the former ADO) about developing a
>> >>> Standard
>> >>> >>> for
>> >>> >>> >>>> social assistance? Since OW an dODSP are heavily targeted at
>> >>> persons
>> >>> >>> >>> with
>> >>> >>> >>>> disabilities, some of us are interested if this idea has ever
>> >>> >>> surfaced
>> >>> >>> >>> and
>> >>> >>> >>>> if so, what was the upshot?
>> >>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>> >>>> If it has NOT come up, does anyone here want to make a case
>> for
>> >>> or
>> >>> >>> >>> against
>> >>> >>> >>>> having an AODA Standard for social assistance? Since services
>> >>> under
>> >>> >>> OW
>> >>> >>> >>> and
>> >>> >>> >>>> ODSP are by eligibility only (not universal per se) this
>> would
>> >>> >>> >>> presumably
>> >>> >>> >>>> be a narrower Standard than others, but at the same time it
>> is
>> >>> >>> >>> interesting
>> >>> >>> >>>> to consider how a third-party standards-development process
>> >>> might
>> >>> >>> serve
>> >>> >>> >>> the
>> >>> >>> >>>> people who need social assistance in terms of accessibility.
>> >>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>> >>>> thanks, all thoughts welcome
>> >>> >>> >>>> j
>> >>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________
>> >>> >>> >>> Inclusive Design Community (community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca)
>> >>> >>> >>> Click here to unsubscribe:
>> >>> >>> >>> https://lists.idrc.ocadu.ca/mailman/listinfo/community
>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> > --
>> >>> >>> > _______________________
>> >>> >>> > Adam Roy Cohoon [name]
>> >>> >>> > @ARC23
>> >>> >>> > ARTIST/ACCESS advocate / Tech Tester
>> >>> >>> > cell. 416-710-0817
>> >>> >>> > www.youtube.com/ARC23
>> >>> >>> > skype: arcohoon
>> >>> >>> > arcohoon at gmail.com
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> > this may have been composed with experimental speech and word
>> >>> >>> prediction
>> >>> >>> > software, please, feel free to contact me for clarification if
>> >>> unclear
>> >>> >>> or
>> >>> >>> > always glad to talk via voice
>> >>> >>> > ________________________________________
>> >>> >>> > Inclusive Design Community (community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca)
>> >>> >>> > Click here to unsubscribe:
>> >>> >>> https://lists.idrc.ocadu.ca/mailman/listinfo/community
>> >>> >>> ________________________________________
>> >>> >>> Inclusive Design Community (community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca)
>> >>> >>> Click here to unsubscribe:
>> >>> >>> https://lists.idrc.ocadu.ca/mailman/listinfo/community
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> ________________________________________
>> >>> Inclusive Design Community (community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca)
>> >>> Click here to unsubscribe:
>> >>> https://lists.idrc.ocadu.ca/mailman/listinfo/community
>> >>>
>> >>
>> ________________________________________
>> Inclusive Design Community (community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca)
>> Click here to unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.idrc.ocadu.ca/mailman/listinfo/community
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *John D. Willis | CE CAIP MDes*
> Design & Innovation in Public Services
> Toronto CANADA
>
> Garbled text? My apologies - speech-to-text technology is still a work in
> progress...
>
More information about the community
mailing list