[community] Fwd: AODA standard for Social Assistance?

[Lucian Timofte]

Interesting thought exchange, Cybele and John.

While I acknowledge historical underpinnings or social determinations, I am
not really convinced that they are the sole cause of limited mindset when
designing anything for the disabled communities. Human history is, among
many things, a collection of adversities that is troubling and regrettable.
Regardless of their reasoning one thing is certain to me, they will never
disappear because the problem resides in the way humans function as
individuals and as collectivities. Something much important I think is
missing. Human beings are amazing yet surprising creatures in all
directions and what they think and do, either good or bad, becomes
contagious. I believe any social structure mirrors what happens at the
level of the individual. Then understanding a community is to pay attention
to each of its individuals and the context they live in. And it is not
rocket science to observe that the human person is a cluster of opposites
that cannot be easily kept in balance. Depending on the circumstances, the
same individual can switch back and forth an array of positions including
the victim and the aggressor. Anyone getting in a power position will take
advantage and set up desired rules. The rest engage in a battle for power
to overthrow existing rules and impose a different set of rules. Then
within this never ending circuitry, we fail to acknowledge that we all
share the same human nature with its great potential and
pitfall, brightness and shadows. For instance, I do not consider myself any
better or any worse than you Cybele or you John or you any of the actors in
the public sector. On a deep level we may come to the understanding that
each one of us is the extension of everyone. Disagreements are natural but
getting (too) confrontational will not make them disappear, on the
contrary. In order to enlarge our mindset, consistent practice of
empathy/compassion would need to happen. Having dialogue, switching
positions, understanding the other's perspective, getting along together,
overcoming divisions.

Now, getting back to our social services and policies. When criticising
these, I would kindly ask you to stretch your imagination with the worst
case scenario, a flat landscape which to me is the true "marginal" position
in any society. From this position, we may appreciate the existing
landscape of inclusion with its imperfections and then we can move forward
to identify problems and solutions. I don't have much experience with OW
but I think the program is designed to determine receivers wanting to get
back in the workfield rather than punishing them for their poor performance
in the labour market. I have more experience with ODSP as a receiver and
from this position I clearly afirm the program is not a fit for those who
aim to live independently, outside of subsidized housing. Maximum allowance
for someone who rents a regular apartment is lower than the monthly rent
itself. A notorious drawback of ODSP is its total lack of funding for many
needed assistive devices such as hoyer/ceiling lifts, commodes, door
openers. However, they eventually would cover 25% of the client portion for
"basic" devices such as a power/wheelchair, I think every 5 years (if
really needed) and some very expensive furniture such as hospital bed,
basically to accommodate attendants. When it comes to caseworkers, most
ODSP receivers have experienced great disappointment in terms of
communication and approach to their challenges. Exceptions may occur.
Definitely, most caseworkers behave as solely bureaucrats interested in
numbers and saving money for the government. A nice feature of ODSP is they
allow the client to work without cutting the allover benefits but they
apply certain income deductions. As well, they consider family members in
the application if they don't have a job. I have heard that ODSP
eligibility would end beyond a certain age, 50-55, which if true, doesn't
make any sense to me.

A bigger problem than OW/ODSP issues for the disabled communities I think
is the attendant services. Shortage of PSWs during pandemic, too many
intermediaries involved that waste public money, absurd and made up safety
regulations for transfers, poor training with the PSWs, modest wages for
PSWs, all these and many other things exposed the design issues
dramatically happening in this vital sector, that endangered the life
fellow disabled, put them in isolation, abandonment and fear. This exerts
inimaginable pressure and stress over them and it definitely has to be
addressed and has to be drastically rethought and changed as it is
essential for surviving and functioning. None of the fellow disabled can
make and pursue any plan in regards to their education and employment if
their basic needs cannot be covered on a daily basis.

Having said these, I think the disabled communities have to connect
together and speak out over and over again, to reach out to the decision
makers/designers and to co-design any policy, product or service that is
tangential to them and that has an impact on their lives. Using
powerful arguments, showing intelligence, determination and dignity, yet
empathy/compassion towards adversity. There is no need for
unnecessary enemies. And remember, from seeing or hearing to the heart
understanding, is a long way. It takes time, great effort and good examples
to build emphatic relationships around us.

Sincerely,
Lucian

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...
>