[community] Fwd: AODA standard for Social Assistance?

[Cybele S]

Agreed and some of those people who don't qualify for disability, despite
having disabilities, are among those OW recipients.

C.

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 9:01 PM John Willis <pickupwillis at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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...
>>
>