[community] Fwd: AODA standard for Social Assistance?

Fri Jul 16 01:01:32 UTC 2021

For sure, it all revolves around the old concept of a deserving poor versus the underside of the quarter. Which, since it is by definition discriminatory, opens the door to every other form of oppression based on race, gender, sexual orientation, faith, etc.

I’m one of the co-leads on a project now to try to understand how we can measure that impact, so there is at least some thinking going on at the level of civil servants.

But to your broader point about different types of disabilities, the people I think we should really be concerned about are those on Ontario Works – whose income therefore is extremely low – but who are not eligible to move onto ODSP

John D. Willis
Design & innovation in Public Services

> On Jul 15, 2021, at 19:29, Cybele S <cybele.sack at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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...