There are lots of clues in the air that a federal election will soon be called. First, Stephen Harper himself flies to the Arctic to make an appearance in the far northern community, only to speak to the media about the possibility of sending Canadians to the polls. Further, a television commercial featuring a number of "ordinary Canadians" who speak highly of Stephen Harper and their intent to vote for him in the next election has already been put on the air, despite the fact no writs have actually been dropped.
There were threats of plunging Harper's minority government into an election for the past couple of years, but nothing ever materialized. Harper's Government actually tendered and passed an election bill that would set future election dates, namely the next one, which was supposed to be set for October 2009, and not this year. The only exception to this specific date is if the Government fell to a non-confidence vote. So, why is he going to the polls now?
I am hearing from people who feel that calling the election now would certainly be a breach of Harper's first promise, which was to not call an election himself until October 2009, which in itself was enough to steer some people away from his party and government. Further, Harper indicated that he felt that Parliament was dysfunctional and difficult to govern, given the minority situation, so an election call was valid ... nevertheless, Harper himself admitted we might just put another minority back into Parliament again, given the polls showing Harper's governing party and the opposition Liberals to be neck and neck in popularity.
At the same time, this is a minority Parliament and it appears that all parties have attempted to make minority government work. Thirteen bills have been passed into law, as well as three budgets have been implemented since the election of this government. Henceforth, it is certainly not as dysfunctional as some might suggest. Further, the appetite of Canadian voters appears to lean towards minority governments, which can force parties to work together on proposals, as opposed to ramming their own through despite massive public opposition.
Do I want another federal election? I personally could not care less, although I tend to participate in the public debate around issues in the election, write letters to the paper and attend meetings, if possible, as well as cast my vote as I did since I was old enough in every federal, provincial and municipal election. I might even work on voting day at the polling stations, something my husband and I have done for years.
However, to me, real issues are hardly ever discussed in elections. When the then Right Honourable Kim Campbell was campaigning to return to her job as Prime Minister, she set the standard that an election was not the time to discuss issues. However, to some extent, it is. In the last election, for example, the Conservatives focused heavily on 'accountability' and 'transparency' in government. Unfortunately, this has not translated into action, particularly when the same organizations continue to get the same funding and are mandated to carry on the business of serving people, when these organizations don't seem to have accountability of their own. But then again, who am I?
I observe that elections get sillier and sillier as time goes on. Politicians want you to vote for them not on the basis of their own policies, but on the policies they want you to dislike of other politicians. To me, this doesn't make a lot of sense, as I prefer to vote for a candidate with the best policies from my perspective. I want to know what they want to offer me, and I don't care why they dislike the other guy. This is too much like going into a car dealership, where the man trying to sell you a Toyota spends all his time with you berating GM products and not telling you why you should buy a Toyota.
So, if an election is going to be held, and by the looks of things, it probably will - it is likely the Tories will put out ads depicting Stephane Dion as a bad leader, particularly given Dion's broken English (which again tells me nothing about Dion's policies or his leadership). The Liberals will probably put out ads about how they feel the Tories are a bunch of right-wing zealots that are going to sell us down the river to the United States, if they haven't already. The NDP will try to attack the Liberals, while unknowingly at the same time, boost the Tory votes. The Green Party will simply be taking a swipe at NDP votes, so these two parties can compete for third party status. The Bloc Quebecois will continue to run on the same agenda they always had, that Quebec should be given nation status and get out of Canada, all the while continuing to collect paycheques with the Canadian flag on them.
Cynical as my observations are, people reading this will know this is truthful. Virtually none of the parties will provide a clear message to voters as to why we should vote for them; just why we should not vote for the other guys. To me, all the political parties have positives in their platforms, as well as negatives. I would rather have each political party roll out their platforms, stick only to key promises and provide arguments to back each of them up. Then, let us as voters decide what party and platform we as Canadians like the best.
The Tories haven't really done anything to piss me off, but then they haven't done a whole lot to endear me either. I am sure that like any politician, they are subject to the whim of lobbyists and interest groups and have to respond to situations as they come up during their electoral term and frankly, most political leaders do try their best with these things. In the US, as Hurricane Gustav threatens to outdo Hurricane Katrina from three years ago, almost to the date, presidential candidates from both parties are doing their Sunday best to speak to the nation as leaders, while attempting to sidestep as many political differences they have at this time to allow the nation to deal with this new potential disaster.
I don't know if it is because it is an election year, or because the fallout from Hurricane Katrina gave the current administration such a big whopping when it did, but I notice the emergency response to Hurricane Gustav is much more organized and is ensuring that any citizen that wants to get the heck out of the way of Gustav can and will be safely housed until this storm literally blows over. There are also key steps being put into place to protect the property of citizens from those who decide to stick around to become looters, something not unheard of when disaster strikes.
But in many ways, our own country is going to Hell in a handbasket and Nero continues to fiddle while Rome burns; therefore, I want to know what our political leaders want to do about it. What do they want to do about the environment? What do they want to do about increasing poverty, instability of the labour market and massive layoffs in the manufacturing sector? What will they promise in terms of accountability and transparency, so that taxpayers can be assured that their monies are spent appropriately and in the best interests of all Canadians?
Canadians are getting more cynical about politicians, and not without reason ... particularly when promises are made and not kept, or politicians seems to get involved in scandal after scandal and later, vote themselves double digit increases and gold-plated pension plans the rest of us can only dream of. Politicians really need to understand this cynicism and do something about the root causes of it if they want to increase participation in elections, as well as increase popular support for the right reasons ... as I once asked, what would happen to our government if nobody voted?
Well, if the None of the Above Party gets into power, chaos would ensue. At the same time, government needs decisive direction based on consensus building, that is based on core values held by most Canadians. Unfortunately, we don't get this. We get vague promises never kept, while our country's suffering continues ... this is certainly not a treatise to tell people not to vote, as I do feel strongly that people should vote. However, our responsibility as Canadians does not end there. We must also hold our politicians to account, even after they return or newly get elected to office.
Among those reading this blog, what do you feel most strongly about at the federal level that must be addressed? Your thoughts?
Showing posts with label accountability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label accountability. Show all posts
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
TOO MANY AGENCIES, NOT ENOUGH ACCOUNTABILITY
At a recent meeting with a friend, she told me that in her immediate neighbourhood there were 240 agencies. If any of these agencies were effective at what they did, there wouldn't be a need for so many of them. She lives in Toronto and is self-employed in the arts. Her skills are such that she can make this into a self-sufficient enterprise, but the types of programs set up for entrepreneurs do not meet her needs -- so she continues to remain on ODSP. This was an interesting comment, because the next day on the bus I met another friend who referred to our COIN Niagara (now aptly named Niagara Employment Magazine), who commented that in it there were references to dozens and dozens of agencies set up to help people find work. She commented that the people who work in these agencies make good salaries - what are they actually doing to help people find jobs? This particular friend of mine is a typical over-skilled, over-educated person who works in a field beneath her to make ends meet ... and to even get THIS job, she has to commute to Toronto everyday. Not surprisingly, she still makes so little, that her husband who has medical problems, continues to qualify for some ODSP monies.
However, agencies continue to make money. They continue to rub elbows with the political and in some cases, the business elite, to make it look like something is being done about problems that lurk in our community. Their executive directors make between $50,000 a year for a small agency to over $150,000 a year for a larger one -- yet, despite all this money being poured into these organizations, there is little formal accountability. This does not mean that there are not some agencies that voluntarily subject themselves to a higher standard of accountability, but none of them are forced to. Politicians are unwilling to penalize agencies, even if they are not doing anything, because if they had to de-fund or penalize every agency that truly did nothing, it would be political suicide. Politicians rely on the very existence of these agencies to make it look like they are doing something to assist the less fortunate or disenfranchised. Because most members of the public do not have to rely on these agencies to get them out of serious life challenges, most people do not consider these accountability issues.
Accountability is only considered when it happens to you. If YOU are the one that was poorly served by an agency, or whose confidential information was improperly dealt with, or who did not get hired in favour of a candidate without any formal training, accountability tends to loom quite large. Unfortunately, there is none. You can complain, I suppose, to the executive director or to the board, but nine times out of ten, nothing changes. The agency prefers to operate its programs in a way that continues to maximize its funding, not its effectiveness. In fact, many agencies tend to "follow the funding" and apply for funds for programs that stretch or even exceed their mandate. You can complain to the funding agency or department, but nine times out of ten, this goes nowhere as well. Civil servants work for political masters who seek publicity and want to be seen as acting on important issues. The reality and the effectiveness of these actions are not left to question.
At the same time, these same governments, including the one here in Ontario, saw fit to regulate my profession (as well as a few others). The regulations on my profession were to "protect the public", as well as to provide some level of consumer confidence that when they come into my office, people can expect a certain level of service, a certain level of competence and a certain level of respect for the 'consumer'. I pay a lot of money to ensure that I remain in practice, let alone all my other costs I have to pay to keep the business running. People who get jobs at non-profits and charities are not asked about their level of education, their adherence to a mandatory code of ethics, the requirement they carry errors and omissions insurance, etc. While some are hired for the educational qualifications, others are not. No law says you have to have any education to run a non-profit. No law says you cannot have a criminal record or history in order to run a non-profit, although certain types of direct service workers may be required to submit to police checks (e.g. such as those workers and volunteers who work with children or older persons). However, nobody says a director cannot hire somebody who "fails" a police check. These things are still up the discretion of somebody within the organization. I've actually sat in meetings where a board actually decided it was okay to allow volunteers for a fundraising initiative whose police check included no violent or sexual offences, but may include offences related to fraud. Yet, if I had a rap for fraud, I may not be permitted to work in my own profession - despite the fact I net less money than the average worker in a non-profit setting.
I remember a conference I attended a couple of years back. As a part of this conference, several agencies were invited to give a fifteen minute presentation about themselves, as well as accept a couple of questions afterwards. Virtually none of these agencies really had an interest in ensuring people seeking work actually got it. Job placement, for some, was a priority, only because the funder made it that way ... unfortunately, their quest for job placement has made it extremely difficult for consumers with larger needs, bigger barriers or those with higher levels of skills and aspirations, to find assistance. They do not get paid to push for barrier removal. They do not get paid to seek higher paying employers and foster partnerships with them. They do not get paid to even provide pre-employment supports that some people need, especially if they were out of the workplace for so long. The agency can only see it as economically sound to make arrangements with large employers with many entry-level, high-turnover positions, to place their clients in. In other words, all the Wal-Marts, Starbucks, Loblaws, No Frills, hotels (e.g. cleaning staff), etc. can find placements this way. The service provider is not mandated to 'encourage' these employers to explore higher level positions for more skilled candidates or to even increase their pay for their entry candidates ... placement in ANY job = money.
For others, they are occupation-specific. That means, if you want to work in a call centre, answer phones at a customer service desk, or work in retail, this particular agency can work for you. This is the BUILT Network, although I am sure the BUILT Network is not alone in promoting and sending referrals to low-paid dead-end, often stressful jobs that rarely pay more than $8.75 to $10/hour. Some of the Goodwill programs are similar, except our local Goodwill is at least trying to get some people into the skilled trades. When one of their representatives appeared at the conference, I asked if they can confirm that the base pay rate for those they place was between $8-$10 an hour. She advised me it was. I then asked if SHE would do HER job for $8-$10 an hour ... probably not, she said. At least she was honest. For somebody who likely earns a good middle-class salary placing people into low-wage jobs, it is probably not much of an ethical consideration it is for her than it is for me, and probably for many others.
The unfortunate thing is these are the agencies that continue to relentlessly take millions of dollars from the taxpayers to achieve what is likely very little. All of these programs claim high placement rates. There is no way anybody can disprove these high placement rates, unless every single one of their clients signed a waiver and were willing to be interviewed on the spot as to whether or not they got a job from the program, as well as to verify each success with their respective employers. So, it is quite easy to lie or fudge statistics. To me, if an occupation-specific job program wants to continue, it should not be funded by the public. Instead, it should seek financial support from its employers. For example, if you are a call centre and want to accept ten people from that program to join your firm, you should be permitted to have a say as to who enters and the composition of the training initiative, and then pay a "tuition fee" for each participant they wish to train. That way, they will have invested in the program and be invested in hiring the said people. The way it is now, none of these employers have to accept anybody they churn out, as is likely the present case. If they can't sell this program to employers, then the public shouldn't be paying for it either.
The public and non-profit/ charitable sector has a major accountability problem. This is not because these organizations are inherently less competent or the people in charge don't know as much about their job as the people in private businesses, for example. It is because there are no 'market forces' in play for the public and not-for-profit sectors. At least if you don't like McDonald's, you can always go to a Burger King, a Wendy's, an Arby's or a Harvey's, or even Taco Bell. If you don't like the coffee at Tim Horton's, you can always go to Starbucks or Coffee Time, or even have a coffee at any of the myriad of mom and pop cafes in your community. Because of this competition, each of these businesses are under pressure to provide a good service to the customer, so the customer returns and/or refers other customers. In the non-profit sector, there isn't a lot of choice ... while there are some specialty agencies, such as those serving immigrants, there are really no competitive forces at play to ensure whatever agency you go to, is under any kind of pressure to keep you happy enough to prevent you from going elsewhere.
Further, there are some options for consumers who may have been injured or not served properly by a private business. For example, if you go to a Wal-Mart to get your oil changed and then as you drive your car out, your engine blows, there is some accountability there on the part of Wal-Mart if a connection can be made with the work done there. If you hire a contractor to fix your bathroom, but the company takes forever to acquire supplies, tears up the bathroom, ruins the plumbing and makes your home unliveable and still fails to complete the job in a reasonable time or with good workmanship, there are a number of options to take. If your contractor is a plumber, there is a technical safety inspection program. There is a Better Business Bureau. There is also small claims court. In certain cases, you can even make a claim on the company's insurance policy.
Not so for non-profits. If you are unhappy with their service, there really is nowhere to complain, let alone get actual redress. You can't really take the Job Action Centre to small claims court because they failed to provide the service. We don't have an ombudsman of any type that can review and oversee the resolution of complaints against publicly-funded services. As suggested earlier, you can go to the board or the executive director, but it is not likely anything will be achieved. Many of these programs do get audited, but the results of these audits are generally not available to the public (nor can you as a consumer give any input into such an audit). Many of these audits as well are not based on value for money or actual program effectiveness. They are usually just based on whether the non-profit spent its money in accordance to the way it promised when it signed the funding contract, which means basically nothing for the unserved consumer.
For "generic" or "demographic-based" programs, it is probably harder to subscribe to an employer buy-in, as these agencies seek a variety of types of jobs and likely work with many employers. However, it is fact that the increasing demand for accountability has actually brought in the wrong kind of incentives to these agencies. More and more agencies are only getting paid once the client is placed in a job and keeps that job for a certain length of time. On the surface, it looks good. If the agency sits on its butt, it gets nothing. However, this actually diminishes the quality of the jobs that people get. Such agencies will not work with clients with significant employment barriers (as barriers take too long to negotiate and remove) or persons with higher skill levels and aspirations than a low-paid entry level job (as this requires actual work and substantial education of employers to even consider opening up their higher paid positions to these people).
I've been to agencies as well that may not necessarily be paid on a per-placement basis, but the incentive I noted is to get me out of there as fast as possible. They'd give me references to jobs that I could find in any newspaper or job board, and then told to apply for them, even though I couldn't apply for most of them. They have no time to work with employers either to remove obvious barriers they put into place to keep the "uncleansed" out of their workplaces, e.g. no time to confirm why an employer is demanding a driver's license and a car for a job that likely doesn't require you to drive anybody anywhere. They expect the candidate to work out these details, which is likely to be unsuccessful, particularly when the employer can actually hire somebody else that can drive. It is obvious that the agency I was working with is unfamiliar with the Human Rights Code and the precedent for bona fide occupational requirements. To their misfortune, they probably believe most employers are in compliance, when in fact, the opposite is true.
While people like me, and countless others, are trying to get help at these various agencies, the staff that work there continue to earn decent middle-class salaries. Their performance is not reviewed on the basis of their successes, but on how well they meet the agencies' own agenda. Staff at some of these agencies are not even required to be trained or educated in any particular field, although some others are more careful regarding qualifications. Or, even when they do want qualifications, they may be asking for the wrong ones ... for example, social workers should not be administrators or executive directors, although in many of the direct service jobs, a social work background is useful. My background that made me qualified as an executive director includes business, financial planning and management, human resources, sociology (which includes quite a bit of background in evaluation and research design), public relations and communications. Most social workers are not trained in these areas. When I was an executive director, I hired staff that were not only trained in their specific jobs, but also had a track record in doing this work for others. If two or more appeared equally qualified, I picked the one with the best communications and people skills.
There are consumer organizations and even some individual consumers that detest my bias in this direction. They favour "life experience" over credentials. I always ask them without ever getting any appropriate answer as to exactly WHAT is "life experience" and how can one person's "life experience" be compared to another person's "life experience", particularly if the two are from the same demographic, e.g. disability, gender, culture. Further, they couldn't tell me how any kind of "life experience" teaches people how to plan for and manage multi-million dollar budgets, manage human resources, acquire a skilled workforce, develop and deliver an effective program, or even provide effective "spokepersonship" for the demographic. Because marginalized people often think very few of their peers are educated or qualified for anything, they think it's okay to hire somebody with no skills or education to "speak for" other marginalized people, including those among the marginalized that are. As somebody who is better educated, when I ever made representations on behalf of an organization I worked with, it was done in consultation with a substantial portion of its members, as well as an attempt at getting voices from people who were not members, but shared the same issues.
It is a difficult balance to strike. At the ODSP Action Coalition, we strive to speak for all people involved with ODSP recipients as well as the full range of ODSP recipients themselves. I have been forceful in my own advocacy efforts (without an organization at times) on pushing for reforms that benefited people without children (though I have kids myself), benefited people that are not well-educated (e.g. better user friendly materials, better access to programs that meet the needs of people with multiple issues, better access to education and training to secure better jobs), as well as programs for those that are well-educated, as well as people from different cultures and religious backgrounds (though I have no real cultural leanings given the absence of family of origin influence and I don't consider myself religious, although I recognize many people are).
It is a major fact that people with education and previous mid-level and senior job experience who are now unemployed and/or disabled, that they are ignored and marginalized ... even from within their own demographic communities. Some single disability communities, such as mainstream psychiatric survivor organizations, are actually anti-credential in nature, under the false impression that one cannot be well educated and qualified AND suffer from a major mental health disorder. Most of such persons that do get into senior positions in these organizations are eventually pushed out by somebody without any qualifications. I am aware of at least seven or eight major cases where this happened in Ontario, although if anybody asked a psychiatric survivor leader if this happens, they will deny it. Their victims become invisible and without a voice, which is the desired objective of these types of groups -- as those with the ambition to gain the title without the responsibility are certainly not going to care if they hurt anybody else on their way up. With cross-disability organizations and coalitions, their expectations vary ... because many such organizations also try to engage people who have become disabled later in life, as well as injured workers, many of whom may actually be quite skilled.
Anti-credentialism is anti-accountability and anti-transparency and anti-ethical. Because those who acquire positions without having proper training fail to understand the importance of many requirements, such as the right to confidentiality and the right to open and democratic processes within an organization, these organizations are even less likely to achieve their objectives. This is also ignored by politicians because politicians do not want to look like they are "attacking the consumers" or are "anti mental health" or whatever they might be seen as if they do decide to withdraw money from an organization, although in rare instances, it has happened (but I can count the number of times on my left hand when this happened for reasons other than political objectives ... such as ensuring a "politically friendly" or a "harmless" group of people get preference for funding as opposed to a group of people who might actually influence or force things to change).
To me, if non-profits want regular funding, they must be regulated -- period. Regulation simply means setting standards. Standards are different for each profession, some are tougher, some are less strict -- depending on the educational requirements and complexity of the job involved. A non-profit should be considered the same ... set minimum educational requirements for all positions. It may not necessarily be a specific type of education, unless the non-profit was involved specifically in something regulated, like child protection. For those involved in employment services, the candidate MUST have a university degree or education that leaves them with skills and knowledge in the following areas: human resources, labour law, human rights, marketing, communications, etc. Not all of this comes from a degree, of course ... but this is usually a foundation, then after that would be one's actual experience, both volunteer and paid or even as a self-employed business person.
For candidates without degrees, their skills and references need to be more closely scrutinized and proven. Sometimes, a position calls for business and marketing knowledge, for example, and a candidate without post-secondary education comes in strong because they worked for twenty years in a successful family business. In certain circumstances, the professions also consider these things as part of their admissions process. One year, the Law Society of Upper Canada came under scrutiny because it chose to admit about a dozen candidates who failed their bar admissions. These candidates were able to be admitted under other criteria that proved they were equally capable of performing the work required under a license. Some people just can't handle tests. In fact, the Law Society regularly admits people that do not always fit neatly in their licensed structure. There is an increasingly common provision for something called "peer review" in other professions, where an individual would perform under a few seasoned professionals and then later evaluated for the delivery of their services. Teaching is an example of where this provision might work well. However, despite their admission, all licensees are required to continue to upgrade and educate themselves in their fields.
In my own view, if the government wanted to discourage people from dropping out of high school, none of them should be able to access ANY publicly-funded job, even as a janitor at the school board, until they graduate or obtain an equivalency. The private sector can still hire them, as they have the market forces to contend with ... if they hire incompetent people, the business suffers. It is the investors choice as to how much risk they want to take. In the public and not-for-profit sector, because there is no market forces and little choice for those that need the services downloaded upon them by the government, standards must be in place. In addition to minimum educational requirements, a code of ethics must be drawn for all workers and tailored to the specific areas that they work in. There must also be a body to which to complain and get support. Because there is no such body to complain, many non-profits continue to practise nepotism, hire their own "friends" and not bother to perform at their top level (because after all, if people complain, nothing will happen anyways ...). They should also be insured personally in certain jobs, or bonded in others.
Under this new regulatory regime, personal information collected by an organization's worker will be protected and the worker that is careless in dealing with it CAN be penalized. The worker that fails to serve a certain person because it is not economical or it is too difficult to find a higher paid job for them, etc. (whatever their excuse is) may be FORCED to help or lose their own job and license to work in this field. This doesn't necessarily mean that the worker MUST be successful everytime, as lawyers who are licensed do lose cases too and this doesn't hurt them (unless the loss was caused directly by negligence). Doctors are also not expected to cure everybody either, but they are supposed to try. Accountability does not mean guaranteed results. It means guaranteed effort and professionalism in the delivery of services, while respecting the individual. Yes, many non-profits do hold themselves to voluntary high standards. I am asking for this to be a requirement.
Until then, I really don't choose to use a lot of services unless it can be shown to me that the agency is actually delivering on their promises (e.g. finding people housing, finding people jobs that match the person's skills and abilities, assisting people in accessing disability supports). I want a say in the agency's future without having to join their board or make friends with the senior staff. I want the power to control what is done with my information and how I am treated when I go to these types of places. I don't think I want anything more than anybody else does. I just think that politicians have to start demanding that agencies deliver ... until then, there will never be any accountability, transparency or in relevant cases, democratic processes within.
However, agencies continue to make money. They continue to rub elbows with the political and in some cases, the business elite, to make it look like something is being done about problems that lurk in our community. Their executive directors make between $50,000 a year for a small agency to over $150,000 a year for a larger one -- yet, despite all this money being poured into these organizations, there is little formal accountability. This does not mean that there are not some agencies that voluntarily subject themselves to a higher standard of accountability, but none of them are forced to. Politicians are unwilling to penalize agencies, even if they are not doing anything, because if they had to de-fund or penalize every agency that truly did nothing, it would be political suicide. Politicians rely on the very existence of these agencies to make it look like they are doing something to assist the less fortunate or disenfranchised. Because most members of the public do not have to rely on these agencies to get them out of serious life challenges, most people do not consider these accountability issues.
Accountability is only considered when it happens to you. If YOU are the one that was poorly served by an agency, or whose confidential information was improperly dealt with, or who did not get hired in favour of a candidate without any formal training, accountability tends to loom quite large. Unfortunately, there is none. You can complain, I suppose, to the executive director or to the board, but nine times out of ten, nothing changes. The agency prefers to operate its programs in a way that continues to maximize its funding, not its effectiveness. In fact, many agencies tend to "follow the funding" and apply for funds for programs that stretch or even exceed their mandate. You can complain to the funding agency or department, but nine times out of ten, this goes nowhere as well. Civil servants work for political masters who seek publicity and want to be seen as acting on important issues. The reality and the effectiveness of these actions are not left to question.
At the same time, these same governments, including the one here in Ontario, saw fit to regulate my profession (as well as a few others). The regulations on my profession were to "protect the public", as well as to provide some level of consumer confidence that when they come into my office, people can expect a certain level of service, a certain level of competence and a certain level of respect for the 'consumer'. I pay a lot of money to ensure that I remain in practice, let alone all my other costs I have to pay to keep the business running. People who get jobs at non-profits and charities are not asked about their level of education, their adherence to a mandatory code of ethics, the requirement they carry errors and omissions insurance, etc. While some are hired for the educational qualifications, others are not. No law says you have to have any education to run a non-profit. No law says you cannot have a criminal record or history in order to run a non-profit, although certain types of direct service workers may be required to submit to police checks (e.g. such as those workers and volunteers who work with children or older persons). However, nobody says a director cannot hire somebody who "fails" a police check. These things are still up the discretion of somebody within the organization. I've actually sat in meetings where a board actually decided it was okay to allow volunteers for a fundraising initiative whose police check included no violent or sexual offences, but may include offences related to fraud. Yet, if I had a rap for fraud, I may not be permitted to work in my own profession - despite the fact I net less money than the average worker in a non-profit setting.
I remember a conference I attended a couple of years back. As a part of this conference, several agencies were invited to give a fifteen minute presentation about themselves, as well as accept a couple of questions afterwards. Virtually none of these agencies really had an interest in ensuring people seeking work actually got it. Job placement, for some, was a priority, only because the funder made it that way ... unfortunately, their quest for job placement has made it extremely difficult for consumers with larger needs, bigger barriers or those with higher levels of skills and aspirations, to find assistance. They do not get paid to push for barrier removal. They do not get paid to seek higher paying employers and foster partnerships with them. They do not get paid to even provide pre-employment supports that some people need, especially if they were out of the workplace for so long. The agency can only see it as economically sound to make arrangements with large employers with many entry-level, high-turnover positions, to place their clients in. In other words, all the Wal-Marts, Starbucks, Loblaws, No Frills, hotels (e.g. cleaning staff), etc. can find placements this way. The service provider is not mandated to 'encourage' these employers to explore higher level positions for more skilled candidates or to even increase their pay for their entry candidates ... placement in ANY job = money.
For others, they are occupation-specific. That means, if you want to work in a call centre, answer phones at a customer service desk, or work in retail, this particular agency can work for you. This is the BUILT Network, although I am sure the BUILT Network is not alone in promoting and sending referrals to low-paid dead-end, often stressful jobs that rarely pay more than $8.75 to $10/hour. Some of the Goodwill programs are similar, except our local Goodwill is at least trying to get some people into the skilled trades. When one of their representatives appeared at the conference, I asked if they can confirm that the base pay rate for those they place was between $8-$10 an hour. She advised me it was. I then asked if SHE would do HER job for $8-$10 an hour ... probably not, she said. At least she was honest. For somebody who likely earns a good middle-class salary placing people into low-wage jobs, it is probably not much of an ethical consideration it is for her than it is for me, and probably for many others.
The unfortunate thing is these are the agencies that continue to relentlessly take millions of dollars from the taxpayers to achieve what is likely very little. All of these programs claim high placement rates. There is no way anybody can disprove these high placement rates, unless every single one of their clients signed a waiver and were willing to be interviewed on the spot as to whether or not they got a job from the program, as well as to verify each success with their respective employers. So, it is quite easy to lie or fudge statistics. To me, if an occupation-specific job program wants to continue, it should not be funded by the public. Instead, it should seek financial support from its employers. For example, if you are a call centre and want to accept ten people from that program to join your firm, you should be permitted to have a say as to who enters and the composition of the training initiative, and then pay a "tuition fee" for each participant they wish to train. That way, they will have invested in the program and be invested in hiring the said people. The way it is now, none of these employers have to accept anybody they churn out, as is likely the present case. If they can't sell this program to employers, then the public shouldn't be paying for it either.
The public and non-profit/ charitable sector has a major accountability problem. This is not because these organizations are inherently less competent or the people in charge don't know as much about their job as the people in private businesses, for example. It is because there are no 'market forces' in play for the public and not-for-profit sectors. At least if you don't like McDonald's, you can always go to a Burger King, a Wendy's, an Arby's or a Harvey's, or even Taco Bell. If you don't like the coffee at Tim Horton's, you can always go to Starbucks or Coffee Time, or even have a coffee at any of the myriad of mom and pop cafes in your community. Because of this competition, each of these businesses are under pressure to provide a good service to the customer, so the customer returns and/or refers other customers. In the non-profit sector, there isn't a lot of choice ... while there are some specialty agencies, such as those serving immigrants, there are really no competitive forces at play to ensure whatever agency you go to, is under any kind of pressure to keep you happy enough to prevent you from going elsewhere.
Further, there are some options for consumers who may have been injured or not served properly by a private business. For example, if you go to a Wal-Mart to get your oil changed and then as you drive your car out, your engine blows, there is some accountability there on the part of Wal-Mart if a connection can be made with the work done there. If you hire a contractor to fix your bathroom, but the company takes forever to acquire supplies, tears up the bathroom, ruins the plumbing and makes your home unliveable and still fails to complete the job in a reasonable time or with good workmanship, there are a number of options to take. If your contractor is a plumber, there is a technical safety inspection program. There is a Better Business Bureau. There is also small claims court. In certain cases, you can even make a claim on the company's insurance policy.
Not so for non-profits. If you are unhappy with their service, there really is nowhere to complain, let alone get actual redress. You can't really take the Job Action Centre to small claims court because they failed to provide the service. We don't have an ombudsman of any type that can review and oversee the resolution of complaints against publicly-funded services. As suggested earlier, you can go to the board or the executive director, but it is not likely anything will be achieved. Many of these programs do get audited, but the results of these audits are generally not available to the public (nor can you as a consumer give any input into such an audit). Many of these audits as well are not based on value for money or actual program effectiveness. They are usually just based on whether the non-profit spent its money in accordance to the way it promised when it signed the funding contract, which means basically nothing for the unserved consumer.
For "generic" or "demographic-based" programs, it is probably harder to subscribe to an employer buy-in, as these agencies seek a variety of types of jobs and likely work with many employers. However, it is fact that the increasing demand for accountability has actually brought in the wrong kind of incentives to these agencies. More and more agencies are only getting paid once the client is placed in a job and keeps that job for a certain length of time. On the surface, it looks good. If the agency sits on its butt, it gets nothing. However, this actually diminishes the quality of the jobs that people get. Such agencies will not work with clients with significant employment barriers (as barriers take too long to negotiate and remove) or persons with higher skill levels and aspirations than a low-paid entry level job (as this requires actual work and substantial education of employers to even consider opening up their higher paid positions to these people).
I've been to agencies as well that may not necessarily be paid on a per-placement basis, but the incentive I noted is to get me out of there as fast as possible. They'd give me references to jobs that I could find in any newspaper or job board, and then told to apply for them, even though I couldn't apply for most of them. They have no time to work with employers either to remove obvious barriers they put into place to keep the "uncleansed" out of their workplaces, e.g. no time to confirm why an employer is demanding a driver's license and a car for a job that likely doesn't require you to drive anybody anywhere. They expect the candidate to work out these details, which is likely to be unsuccessful, particularly when the employer can actually hire somebody else that can drive. It is obvious that the agency I was working with is unfamiliar with the Human Rights Code and the precedent for bona fide occupational requirements. To their misfortune, they probably believe most employers are in compliance, when in fact, the opposite is true.
While people like me, and countless others, are trying to get help at these various agencies, the staff that work there continue to earn decent middle-class salaries. Their performance is not reviewed on the basis of their successes, but on how well they meet the agencies' own agenda. Staff at some of these agencies are not even required to be trained or educated in any particular field, although some others are more careful regarding qualifications. Or, even when they do want qualifications, they may be asking for the wrong ones ... for example, social workers should not be administrators or executive directors, although in many of the direct service jobs, a social work background is useful. My background that made me qualified as an executive director includes business, financial planning and management, human resources, sociology (which includes quite a bit of background in evaluation and research design), public relations and communications. Most social workers are not trained in these areas. When I was an executive director, I hired staff that were not only trained in their specific jobs, but also had a track record in doing this work for others. If two or more appeared equally qualified, I picked the one with the best communications and people skills.
There are consumer organizations and even some individual consumers that detest my bias in this direction. They favour "life experience" over credentials. I always ask them without ever getting any appropriate answer as to exactly WHAT is "life experience" and how can one person's "life experience" be compared to another person's "life experience", particularly if the two are from the same demographic, e.g. disability, gender, culture. Further, they couldn't tell me how any kind of "life experience" teaches people how to plan for and manage multi-million dollar budgets, manage human resources, acquire a skilled workforce, develop and deliver an effective program, or even provide effective "spokepersonship" for the demographic. Because marginalized people often think very few of their peers are educated or qualified for anything, they think it's okay to hire somebody with no skills or education to "speak for" other marginalized people, including those among the marginalized that are. As somebody who is better educated, when I ever made representations on behalf of an organization I worked with, it was done in consultation with a substantial portion of its members, as well as an attempt at getting voices from people who were not members, but shared the same issues.
It is a difficult balance to strike. At the ODSP Action Coalition, we strive to speak for all people involved with ODSP recipients as well as the full range of ODSP recipients themselves. I have been forceful in my own advocacy efforts (without an organization at times) on pushing for reforms that benefited people without children (though I have kids myself), benefited people that are not well-educated (e.g. better user friendly materials, better access to programs that meet the needs of people with multiple issues, better access to education and training to secure better jobs), as well as programs for those that are well-educated, as well as people from different cultures and religious backgrounds (though I have no real cultural leanings given the absence of family of origin influence and I don't consider myself religious, although I recognize many people are).
It is a major fact that people with education and previous mid-level and senior job experience who are now unemployed and/or disabled, that they are ignored and marginalized ... even from within their own demographic communities. Some single disability communities, such as mainstream psychiatric survivor organizations, are actually anti-credential in nature, under the false impression that one cannot be well educated and qualified AND suffer from a major mental health disorder. Most of such persons that do get into senior positions in these organizations are eventually pushed out by somebody without any qualifications. I am aware of at least seven or eight major cases where this happened in Ontario, although if anybody asked a psychiatric survivor leader if this happens, they will deny it. Their victims become invisible and without a voice, which is the desired objective of these types of groups -- as those with the ambition to gain the title without the responsibility are certainly not going to care if they hurt anybody else on their way up. With cross-disability organizations and coalitions, their expectations vary ... because many such organizations also try to engage people who have become disabled later in life, as well as injured workers, many of whom may actually be quite skilled.
Anti-credentialism is anti-accountability and anti-transparency and anti-ethical. Because those who acquire positions without having proper training fail to understand the importance of many requirements, such as the right to confidentiality and the right to open and democratic processes within an organization, these organizations are even less likely to achieve their objectives. This is also ignored by politicians because politicians do not want to look like they are "attacking the consumers" or are "anti mental health" or whatever they might be seen as if they do decide to withdraw money from an organization, although in rare instances, it has happened (but I can count the number of times on my left hand when this happened for reasons other than political objectives ... such as ensuring a "politically friendly" or a "harmless" group of people get preference for funding as opposed to a group of people who might actually influence or force things to change).
To me, if non-profits want regular funding, they must be regulated -- period. Regulation simply means setting standards. Standards are different for each profession, some are tougher, some are less strict -- depending on the educational requirements and complexity of the job involved. A non-profit should be considered the same ... set minimum educational requirements for all positions. It may not necessarily be a specific type of education, unless the non-profit was involved specifically in something regulated, like child protection. For those involved in employment services, the candidate MUST have a university degree or education that leaves them with skills and knowledge in the following areas: human resources, labour law, human rights, marketing, communications, etc. Not all of this comes from a degree, of course ... but this is usually a foundation, then after that would be one's actual experience, both volunteer and paid or even as a self-employed business person.
For candidates without degrees, their skills and references need to be more closely scrutinized and proven. Sometimes, a position calls for business and marketing knowledge, for example, and a candidate without post-secondary education comes in strong because they worked for twenty years in a successful family business. In certain circumstances, the professions also consider these things as part of their admissions process. One year, the Law Society of Upper Canada came under scrutiny because it chose to admit about a dozen candidates who failed their bar admissions. These candidates were able to be admitted under other criteria that proved they were equally capable of performing the work required under a license. Some people just can't handle tests. In fact, the Law Society regularly admits people that do not always fit neatly in their licensed structure. There is an increasingly common provision for something called "peer review" in other professions, where an individual would perform under a few seasoned professionals and then later evaluated for the delivery of their services. Teaching is an example of where this provision might work well. However, despite their admission, all licensees are required to continue to upgrade and educate themselves in their fields.
In my own view, if the government wanted to discourage people from dropping out of high school, none of them should be able to access ANY publicly-funded job, even as a janitor at the school board, until they graduate or obtain an equivalency. The private sector can still hire them, as they have the market forces to contend with ... if they hire incompetent people, the business suffers. It is the investors choice as to how much risk they want to take. In the public and not-for-profit sector, because there is no market forces and little choice for those that need the services downloaded upon them by the government, standards must be in place. In addition to minimum educational requirements, a code of ethics must be drawn for all workers and tailored to the specific areas that they work in. There must also be a body to which to complain and get support. Because there is no such body to complain, many non-profits continue to practise nepotism, hire their own "friends" and not bother to perform at their top level (because after all, if people complain, nothing will happen anyways ...). They should also be insured personally in certain jobs, or bonded in others.
Under this new regulatory regime, personal information collected by an organization's worker will be protected and the worker that is careless in dealing with it CAN be penalized. The worker that fails to serve a certain person because it is not economical or it is too difficult to find a higher paid job for them, etc. (whatever their excuse is) may be FORCED to help or lose their own job and license to work in this field. This doesn't necessarily mean that the worker MUST be successful everytime, as lawyers who are licensed do lose cases too and this doesn't hurt them (unless the loss was caused directly by negligence). Doctors are also not expected to cure everybody either, but they are supposed to try. Accountability does not mean guaranteed results. It means guaranteed effort and professionalism in the delivery of services, while respecting the individual. Yes, many non-profits do hold themselves to voluntary high standards. I am asking for this to be a requirement.
Until then, I really don't choose to use a lot of services unless it can be shown to me that the agency is actually delivering on their promises (e.g. finding people housing, finding people jobs that match the person's skills and abilities, assisting people in accessing disability supports). I want a say in the agency's future without having to join their board or make friends with the senior staff. I want the power to control what is done with my information and how I am treated when I go to these types of places. I don't think I want anything more than anybody else does. I just think that politicians have to start demanding that agencies deliver ... until then, there will never be any accountability, transparency or in relevant cases, democratic processes within.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
POST ELECTION ... BACK WITH THE SAME OLD, SAME OLD?
The Liberals are back with another majority, this time with more seats predicated on even less popular vote.
It doesn't matter how much somebody lies, breaks promises and continues to ignore real issues, the sheep keep going back again and again and voting for the same old, same old. Maybe the 42% who voted Liberal are among the ones who are doing well, or maybe some of them got spooked over John Tory's proposal to bring faith-based schools that meet certain standards under the public system. A non-issue to me, but it is amazing how many people get spooked over what actually amounts to 1 - 2% of the tax paying population.
Doesn't the arrogance of voting themselves a 25% increase within the space of eight days sway people? How about the billions wasted at "year end" surpluses given away to so-called Liberal friendly organizations? How about McGuinty's originally signed pledge not to raise taxes, only to be broken in the first breath of his newly-minted government with a huge health tax, which not only took from higher income folks (which can truly absorb more taxes), but also low income workers making as little as $20,000 a year? What about McGuinty's phony-baloney feel-good pledges to help those living in poverty? There is still as much poverty, if not more, than there was at the time McGuinty first sailed into power in 2003. How about McGuinty's attacks on numerous professions, including my own? With this next four year mandate, one should ask themselves if their OWN profession is next. They mentioned nothing about their attack on paralegals while campaigning in 2003, so don't be surprised if other professions will be held to the fire during this next four year term.
From the day McGuinty got into power until today, I am: (a) financially worse off; (b) in poorer health; and (c) for the first time in my life, facing serious money issues. I know I am not alone because many of my own clients, even in the regular fee-paying category, are facing lay-offs, bankruptcies, foreclosures and other situations where many of them are feeling their backs are to the wall. A typical client who was able to regain employment after lay-off would move from a $25/hour job to a $10/hour job, yet still be saddled with the same expenses they had while earning $25/hour. The key issue that has been ignored in this election is that prices are going UP, not down. These 'regular fee-paying clients' are not the clients our office gets for financial or disability cases. These people are usually those who are trying to start businesses (and need a business plan), are involved in a Highway Traffic matter, or need assistance in a regular legal action (e.g. somebody owes them money, somebody damaged their property, a business owner has difficulty with a commercial landlord). These people can typically pay our fees, but more and more of them are having to borrow in order to do so.
Yet throughout his election campaign, McGuinty told the Toronto Star and anybody else who would listen that over 340,000 new jobs have been created under his watch, 90% of which paid $19.50 per hour or more. If this is true, Mr. McGuinty, maybe you can tell me where these jobs are so I can direct my clients who are losing their jobs as to where to find a new one ... Give me the names, addresses and telephone numbers of these employers who are now hiring at this rate (over $19.50 an hour). Don't tell us you can't do that, because if you were telling us the truth during your whole election campaign, somebody on your team was able to contact these employers and gather these statistics in order for you to make this wildly, ludicrous statement. Unfortunately, Mr. McGuinty, I am going to hold you accountable for every word you uttered during this election ... I need the facts, the names, the addresses, please ... my clients are looking up to you.
How about people with disabilities, Mr. McGuinty? Not much was said about them on your election trail. No promises of increased income. No promises of new job opportunities. Just more of the same old, same old. I worked with thousands of people with disabilities throughout Ontario, many of them through the Internet and others in person. Only a small fraction of them voted for you in this election. Why? Because, when you had nothing to offer them in your first four year mandate, why would these people expect you to offer them more in the next four years? I know what your response to this allegation will be ... that your government had given them a 3% and a 2% raise in 2004 and 2006 respectively, and another 2% in November. That is not good enough, sir. Inflation has eaten away at their benefits to the tune of 30 - 35% since their last increase in 1993. This is especially not good enough when you saw fit to increase your own salary at the stroke of a pen by $40,000, despite the fact that at that same time - a report was published that stated people are falling further and further into deepening poverty and that food bank use was at an all time high since October 2003.
I know many of these people. Our health care system and its costs are skyrocketing not necessarily because of our aging population, but because of realities that exist OUTSIDE of our health care system. Health care economists believe our aging population may contribute only a percentage point or two in difference in health care spending, but as there are MORE people living in poverty - many of these people are getting sicker and requiring much more expensive interventions at a much younger age. In my own office, in the past six months alone, I have encountered the following:
1. A man, 42, diabetic, cut back on his special diet allowance to the point that after his housing costs, he did not have anything left for healthy food. He is now blind and completely unemployable.
2. A woman, now 54, suffered from a particularly brittle form of diabetes that she inherited from her father. When she began to experience complications in her late 40's, she was unable to afford an insulin pump. She has now had both legs amputated, suffered two heart attacks and is going blind in one eye. Her kidneys are failing to the point she may soon require dialysis as well. Good money going after bad, all for the want of an insulin pump.
3. Another woman, 59 or 60, I am not sure. She was diabetic and obese from many years of improper diet and poverty. After housing, she had $75 a month left for food, transportation and clothing. She just had a major heart attack which her physician attributed directly to her diet, and because he was afraid that if she was discharged back to living on her own, she will likely have another heart attack, so he placed her in a nursing home, likely costing taxpayers at least double the amount of her disability pension itself, plus the continued payments of her ODSP which also go towards the costs of the facility, let alone the expensive health care she now needs.
4. One family, with three children, had two of their children removed by Children's Aid (which is still before the courts but their chances of winning are slim). The reason the children are in care relates to the health of the kids, which was too expensive to manage by the family, as it turns out. As a result, this family's shelter and basic needs allowance under ODSP was cut back, leaving this family very short of money to feed the remaining three. At the present time, our taxes are paying at least another $2,300 a month to care for these children elsewhere - money these parents will never get to see. They had a recent visit from a Children's Aid worker who told the family that if they cannot find better and healthier accommodations, they will not get the two children back and they may even lose the third one. The last time I checked, landlords do not decrease the rent for families when there are less people living in the household, nor do utility costs go down by very much.
5. Other people are dying young and of illnesses that middle-class families have never seen or if they did encounter them, they would not likely die of the conditions. Two of my clients died in the last month or so, one of a perforated ulcer (at age 42) and another of a staph infection (at age 37). These people got to this point after living very difficult lives. It is not that these people were not fighters - one in fact had recently attempted to lay a suit against a facility he was in where he was recklessly beaten up. A recent column by Dr. Gifford-Jones bemoaned the return of scurvy, a deficiency of Vitamin C. This doesn't shock me in the least, as I had at least one client come through my door that had that diagnosis.
Poverty is a NATIONAL EMERGENCY, Mr. McGuinty! It is not something that can be dealt with through a network of homeless shelters and food banks. I know these same organizations supported you throughout your campaign because for sure, it is known you'd keep them in business. The director of a food bank or homeless shelter does make very good money, many earning over $80.000 a year! Why would I want to put myself out of business if I am making that kind of money? Of course, that's why they supported you.
You also spoke on national TV about a specific business plan you intend to have in place to reduce poverty in Ontario. You said you did not have the specifics, but promised to have them within a year. I will be watching you, and I will also be watching for your specifics as well ... as you know, creating more low-income housing does not eradicate poverty, so I would expect this would not be a cornerstone of a true business plan for poverty eradication/reduction. Because 87% of those on assistance live in market housing or even in owned housing, it would make sense from my standpoint to ensure they all have enough money to cover their shelter expenses (including utility and telephone costs) WITHOUT dipping into their basic needs budget. This is particularly important for people with disabilities, as many of them cannot work.
I would also expect a substantial investment in economic development, as well as some use of public service jobs to get filled by persons with disabilities at reasonable wages. If people work forty hours a week, year round and still cannot support themselves and their families, a job is not necessarily the key cornerstone in anti-poverty policy. There should be more high paying jobs, as well as procuring people from disadvantaged sectors to work in these higher paid jobs, where qualified. It is good to see your government is trying to assist skilled immigrants who have trouble getting their foreign credentials recognized to get work in their fields, but what about people with disabilities, many of whom have university and college education that they are still paying for ... how come their credentials still go unrecognized and they are supposed to be enthralled with the prospect of having a job stuffing envelopes, packing boxes, answering phones or working in a low-paid office position? If you want to eradicate poverty, you have to be serious about it ... your Ontario Child Benefit does not cut the mustard for families on ODSP, particularly for those that have more than one child and pay market rent ... as after your planned "restructuring", they will be getting less, not more. Do the math. It will be better for your government in the long run to skip the restructuring bullshit and just issue the OCB and base it on taxable income only - similar to how the "working poor" will be dealt with. Because if you insist on this "restructuring", you are simply replacing one clawback with another clawback and that will not even make a dent in the poverty rate for these families! If ODSP recipients work, their earnings are clawed back and taxed anyways ... so why do you want to penalize ODSP recipients for reasons of their disability due to being on the higher paid ODSP, and having added benefits such as special diet, disability needs, etc.? If this is done, it is illegal and it will be challenged.
Tell me, Mr. McGuinty, what do I have to look forward to in the next four years? What do my clients have to look forward to under your leadership? How is the next four years going to be different than the last four years for me and the people I represent? Will my people REALLY notice a difference at all, or will the suffering continue? If you believe you truly have a majority mandate, which indeed I find debatable at best, then you must represent the interests of ALL Ontarians, not just those who drive the SUVs, could afford to take their kids to hockey practice, live in the GTA suburbs, have $500,000 homes and earn over $100,000 a year. If you need to hike taxes, hike them on people who drive gas guzzling vehicles, earn more than $80,000 a year and lower and/or eliminate your health tax for the working poor. If I had a job and made over $80,000 a year ... and I did at one time, I would not worry so much about taxes, because being a high earner is a privilege in itself. Just give me a chance to be a high earner again and then you can see how much more I can do for Ontario, as would the rest of my clients ...
... because TRUE anti-poverty initiatives will pay back big time in economic and political rewards, higher taxes paid to your government, more jobs in the private sector and more money for the things we all find important like health care, the environment and education. You will also earn my respect and that, Mr. McGuinty, can go a long way ... because I write for many publications, speak at many conferences, and have many e-lists that I work with ... and my clients. I have the capability of reaching many people with my words. I would love these words to be supportive of your leadership, as opposed to feeling more of the same old, same old. Ensuring the needs of my clients - including those 2/3rds that do not come to me for economic or disability issues and pay full fees - would also go a long way towards your continued popularity and legacy for your government. All I want is to see an end to this suffering ... soon, well before I am too old to enjoy it.
It doesn't matter how much somebody lies, breaks promises and continues to ignore real issues, the sheep keep going back again and again and voting for the same old, same old. Maybe the 42% who voted Liberal are among the ones who are doing well, or maybe some of them got spooked over John Tory's proposal to bring faith-based schools that meet certain standards under the public system. A non-issue to me, but it is amazing how many people get spooked over what actually amounts to 1 - 2% of the tax paying population.
Doesn't the arrogance of voting themselves a 25% increase within the space of eight days sway people? How about the billions wasted at "year end" surpluses given away to so-called Liberal friendly organizations? How about McGuinty's originally signed pledge not to raise taxes, only to be broken in the first breath of his newly-minted government with a huge health tax, which not only took from higher income folks (which can truly absorb more taxes), but also low income workers making as little as $20,000 a year? What about McGuinty's phony-baloney feel-good pledges to help those living in poverty? There is still as much poverty, if not more, than there was at the time McGuinty first sailed into power in 2003. How about McGuinty's attacks on numerous professions, including my own? With this next four year mandate, one should ask themselves if their OWN profession is next. They mentioned nothing about their attack on paralegals while campaigning in 2003, so don't be surprised if other professions will be held to the fire during this next four year term.
From the day McGuinty got into power until today, I am: (a) financially worse off; (b) in poorer health; and (c) for the first time in my life, facing serious money issues. I know I am not alone because many of my own clients, even in the regular fee-paying category, are facing lay-offs, bankruptcies, foreclosures and other situations where many of them are feeling their backs are to the wall. A typical client who was able to regain employment after lay-off would move from a $25/hour job to a $10/hour job, yet still be saddled with the same expenses they had while earning $25/hour. The key issue that has been ignored in this election is that prices are going UP, not down. These 'regular fee-paying clients' are not the clients our office gets for financial or disability cases. These people are usually those who are trying to start businesses (and need a business plan), are involved in a Highway Traffic matter, or need assistance in a regular legal action (e.g. somebody owes them money, somebody damaged their property, a business owner has difficulty with a commercial landlord). These people can typically pay our fees, but more and more of them are having to borrow in order to do so.
Yet throughout his election campaign, McGuinty told the Toronto Star and anybody else who would listen that over 340,000 new jobs have been created under his watch, 90% of which paid $19.50 per hour or more. If this is true, Mr. McGuinty, maybe you can tell me where these jobs are so I can direct my clients who are losing their jobs as to where to find a new one ... Give me the names, addresses and telephone numbers of these employers who are now hiring at this rate (over $19.50 an hour). Don't tell us you can't do that, because if you were telling us the truth during your whole election campaign, somebody on your team was able to contact these employers and gather these statistics in order for you to make this wildly, ludicrous statement. Unfortunately, Mr. McGuinty, I am going to hold you accountable for every word you uttered during this election ... I need the facts, the names, the addresses, please ... my clients are looking up to you.
How about people with disabilities, Mr. McGuinty? Not much was said about them on your election trail. No promises of increased income. No promises of new job opportunities. Just more of the same old, same old. I worked with thousands of people with disabilities throughout Ontario, many of them through the Internet and others in person. Only a small fraction of them voted for you in this election. Why? Because, when you had nothing to offer them in your first four year mandate, why would these people expect you to offer them more in the next four years? I know what your response to this allegation will be ... that your government had given them a 3% and a 2% raise in 2004 and 2006 respectively, and another 2% in November. That is not good enough, sir. Inflation has eaten away at their benefits to the tune of 30 - 35% since their last increase in 1993. This is especially not good enough when you saw fit to increase your own salary at the stroke of a pen by $40,000, despite the fact that at that same time - a report was published that stated people are falling further and further into deepening poverty and that food bank use was at an all time high since October 2003.
I know many of these people. Our health care system and its costs are skyrocketing not necessarily because of our aging population, but because of realities that exist OUTSIDE of our health care system. Health care economists believe our aging population may contribute only a percentage point or two in difference in health care spending, but as there are MORE people living in poverty - many of these people are getting sicker and requiring much more expensive interventions at a much younger age. In my own office, in the past six months alone, I have encountered the following:
1. A man, 42, diabetic, cut back on his special diet allowance to the point that after his housing costs, he did not have anything left for healthy food. He is now blind and completely unemployable.
2. A woman, now 54, suffered from a particularly brittle form of diabetes that she inherited from her father. When she began to experience complications in her late 40's, she was unable to afford an insulin pump. She has now had both legs amputated, suffered two heart attacks and is going blind in one eye. Her kidneys are failing to the point she may soon require dialysis as well. Good money going after bad, all for the want of an insulin pump.
3. Another woman, 59 or 60, I am not sure. She was diabetic and obese from many years of improper diet and poverty. After housing, she had $75 a month left for food, transportation and clothing. She just had a major heart attack which her physician attributed directly to her diet, and because he was afraid that if she was discharged back to living on her own, she will likely have another heart attack, so he placed her in a nursing home, likely costing taxpayers at least double the amount of her disability pension itself, plus the continued payments of her ODSP which also go towards the costs of the facility, let alone the expensive health care she now needs.
4. One family, with three children, had two of their children removed by Children's Aid (which is still before the courts but their chances of winning are slim). The reason the children are in care relates to the health of the kids, which was too expensive to manage by the family, as it turns out. As a result, this family's shelter and basic needs allowance under ODSP was cut back, leaving this family very short of money to feed the remaining three. At the present time, our taxes are paying at least another $2,300 a month to care for these children elsewhere - money these parents will never get to see. They had a recent visit from a Children's Aid worker who told the family that if they cannot find better and healthier accommodations, they will not get the two children back and they may even lose the third one. The last time I checked, landlords do not decrease the rent for families when there are less people living in the household, nor do utility costs go down by very much.
5. Other people are dying young and of illnesses that middle-class families have never seen or if they did encounter them, they would not likely die of the conditions. Two of my clients died in the last month or so, one of a perforated ulcer (at age 42) and another of a staph infection (at age 37). These people got to this point after living very difficult lives. It is not that these people were not fighters - one in fact had recently attempted to lay a suit against a facility he was in where he was recklessly beaten up. A recent column by Dr. Gifford-Jones bemoaned the return of scurvy, a deficiency of Vitamin C. This doesn't shock me in the least, as I had at least one client come through my door that had that diagnosis.
Poverty is a NATIONAL EMERGENCY, Mr. McGuinty! It is not something that can be dealt with through a network of homeless shelters and food banks. I know these same organizations supported you throughout your campaign because for sure, it is known you'd keep them in business. The director of a food bank or homeless shelter does make very good money, many earning over $80.000 a year! Why would I want to put myself out of business if I am making that kind of money? Of course, that's why they supported you.
You also spoke on national TV about a specific business plan you intend to have in place to reduce poverty in Ontario. You said you did not have the specifics, but promised to have them within a year. I will be watching you, and I will also be watching for your specifics as well ... as you know, creating more low-income housing does not eradicate poverty, so I would expect this would not be a cornerstone of a true business plan for poverty eradication/reduction. Because 87% of those on assistance live in market housing or even in owned housing, it would make sense from my standpoint to ensure they all have enough money to cover their shelter expenses (including utility and telephone costs) WITHOUT dipping into their basic needs budget. This is particularly important for people with disabilities, as many of them cannot work.
I would also expect a substantial investment in economic development, as well as some use of public service jobs to get filled by persons with disabilities at reasonable wages. If people work forty hours a week, year round and still cannot support themselves and their families, a job is not necessarily the key cornerstone in anti-poverty policy. There should be more high paying jobs, as well as procuring people from disadvantaged sectors to work in these higher paid jobs, where qualified. It is good to see your government is trying to assist skilled immigrants who have trouble getting their foreign credentials recognized to get work in their fields, but what about people with disabilities, many of whom have university and college education that they are still paying for ... how come their credentials still go unrecognized and they are supposed to be enthralled with the prospect of having a job stuffing envelopes, packing boxes, answering phones or working in a low-paid office position? If you want to eradicate poverty, you have to be serious about it ... your Ontario Child Benefit does not cut the mustard for families on ODSP, particularly for those that have more than one child and pay market rent ... as after your planned "restructuring", they will be getting less, not more. Do the math. It will be better for your government in the long run to skip the restructuring bullshit and just issue the OCB and base it on taxable income only - similar to how the "working poor" will be dealt with. Because if you insist on this "restructuring", you are simply replacing one clawback with another clawback and that will not even make a dent in the poverty rate for these families! If ODSP recipients work, their earnings are clawed back and taxed anyways ... so why do you want to penalize ODSP recipients for reasons of their disability due to being on the higher paid ODSP, and having added benefits such as special diet, disability needs, etc.? If this is done, it is illegal and it will be challenged.
Tell me, Mr. McGuinty, what do I have to look forward to in the next four years? What do my clients have to look forward to under your leadership? How is the next four years going to be different than the last four years for me and the people I represent? Will my people REALLY notice a difference at all, or will the suffering continue? If you believe you truly have a majority mandate, which indeed I find debatable at best, then you must represent the interests of ALL Ontarians, not just those who drive the SUVs, could afford to take their kids to hockey practice, live in the GTA suburbs, have $500,000 homes and earn over $100,000 a year. If you need to hike taxes, hike them on people who drive gas guzzling vehicles, earn more than $80,000 a year and lower and/or eliminate your health tax for the working poor. If I had a job and made over $80,000 a year ... and I did at one time, I would not worry so much about taxes, because being a high earner is a privilege in itself. Just give me a chance to be a high earner again and then you can see how much more I can do for Ontario, as would the rest of my clients ...
... because TRUE anti-poverty initiatives will pay back big time in economic and political rewards, higher taxes paid to your government, more jobs in the private sector and more money for the things we all find important like health care, the environment and education. You will also earn my respect and that, Mr. McGuinty, can go a long way ... because I write for many publications, speak at many conferences, and have many e-lists that I work with ... and my clients. I have the capability of reaching many people with my words. I would love these words to be supportive of your leadership, as opposed to feeling more of the same old, same old. Ensuring the needs of my clients - including those 2/3rds that do not come to me for economic or disability issues and pay full fees - would also go a long way towards your continued popularity and legacy for your government. All I want is to see an end to this suffering ... soon, well before I am too old to enjoy it.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Working for People with Disabilities?
For a long time, people with disabilities have been crying the mantra of inclusion. In fact, one federal coalition has set up a website called End Exclusion. This website was at first set up as an interactive website where people with disabilities, as well as their friends and family, can comment on issues faced by them in real life. One area of exclusion is the area of Employment and to a lesser extent, Self-Employment.
There are thousands of people, as well as for-profit and not-for-profit agencies that profit from the hopes and dreams of people with disabilities by promising or offering assistance to them by way of preparing them for, or actually finding them, work. People with disabilities flock over to these agencies because they want to work, just like anybody else without a disability. However, just how effective are these agencies in finding people work? If they do find people work, what are the quality of jobs offered when compared to the candidate's personal work history, education and career aspirations?
I personally don't know the "success rate" as one can call it of these agencies, or whether certain agencies have a better "success rate" than others. However, a few years ago, I ran a for-profit agency that assisted persons with disabilities in obtaining self-employment and occasionally, assisted them in finding traditional employment opportunities. My own "success rate" was fairly good, if "success" was actually measured against what the person or client came to our office looking for. Many of these folks were unable to work full-time or work in a traditional workplace due to a myriad of disability and environmental reasons. However, many were able to succeed in developing and continuing to operate their own small businesses for a year or more - even if the income from the business did not take them totally off income supports. Some never came to us to get off ODSP. They just wanted to earn some extra money through a small business. Others did start a business and get off the system and a couple moved on to hire others. I have also worked with people who have moved off ODSP through their businesses, but have incurred substantial overpayments. Our office would negotiate with the originating agency to reduce the overpayments, review actual business earnings, etc.
Besides myself, there are many other agencies that have once provided or currently provide supports of some type to persons with disabilities to enter employment or start their own business. I personally found few of them to be helpful. Unfortunately, it is hard to figure out what is making these agencies unhelpful. However, we need to understand that some of these reasons are borne with government funding requirements, employer biases, as well as limited community infrastructure, in addition to any skills or contacts that may be lacking by the agency itself. While I held my Employment Supports contract, I worked with other individuals and agencies also working under the same umbrella and to some extent, I can understand that not all of this is the fault of the agency in question. However, I DO believe that agencies themselves need to become stronger advocates for change in many ways to improve many of the factors they cannot control.
Some of these factors will be outlined here:
With this formula, many agencies will be unable to earn enough to pay their bills unless they contract with a number of large, (usually) low-waged employers with a high staff turnover, promising them to fill a certain number of positions with their clients and provide a range of coaching supports to them. A successful agency under this formula will contract with Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Tim Horton's and various call centres and send their clients there to work. While some clients will quit or get fired, enough of them will be able to stay at least thirteen weeks so the agency in question will get $6,000 a head, plus a certain amount of money per month for every additional month the client stays on that job.
However, what if you are a person with a disability that by education, training or work experience, you have *no* interest in taking one of these low-waged jobs? Then, you get no help. The argument or theory here is that if you have that kind of education, you don't need any supports - period. How about somebody who may have significant disabilities that apart from special equipment needs, may need a lot more time on the part of the provider to support them and assist them with daily working skills, such as facial interactions, social skills, memory tips, using public transportion, etc.? No additional funds are provided for this. Both types of people will not likely be served.
What is the problem with that, you ask? At least some people who never had jobs before or who just want to start fresh will now be able to work, when they may not have had this opportunity in the past. There IS a problem with this. It puts people with disabilities on a certain plane that guarantees they will never exceed a certain earnings limit. One article I read totally miffed me. You can read it yourself too, which is located here. In this article, ask yourself how much this man made as a plumber or plumbing contractor, then ask yourself how much he likely makes at Home Depot selling plumbing supplies. I doubt he makes more than $8 - $9 an hour now. Is this a success? Another "success" that was pointed out to me was a person with a disability getting a job stuffing envelopes for eight hours a week, when what she really wanted was to go back to school and train as a personal support worker. These agencies got their $6,000, but where are the clients? Are they really any better off than they were?
http://www.cwd-o.org/cwdo/activities/employment_committee.php?activities-employment=158
2. ATTITUDES
There is a prevailing attitude that people with disabilities cannot do work that has any degree of responsibility or authority in it. This attitude prevailed during the same period of time that people were placed in sheltered workshops and paid pennies a day for boring, repetitive work that nobody else will do. Unfortunately, many people carry this same attitude today, despite the fact that sheltered workshops are out of vogue and people want real jobs with real pay. The example given above for the individual given a job stuffing envelopes for eight hours a week is only one example of what I've seen. This individual was told the reason for this was because she never held a job before. So? Do young high school students vying for their first position have to engage in boring, repetitive labour such as stuffing envelopes or putting nuts and bolts together in a warehouse, before they can join McDonald's or Burger King or even have a paper route? Of course not! What about the woman in my example who wants to go back to school to become a personal support worker? There's no support for that, unless she went the OSAP route I hear.
How about those people with disabilities that are already educated? While statistics show it is better for people to be educated than less educated when looking for work, it is less effective for people with disabilities. There is a glass ceiling that holds people back; again, this is because many employers, including those that work with people with disabilities, feel that people with disabilities cannot do work beyond a minimal level. Many of these same agencies have tried to prevent people from disabilities from applying by throwing barriers in the way of the job, such as requiring candidates to have a valid driver's license and own a vehicle, requiring candidates to type at a certain speed, requiring mandatory shift work, etc. For those people with disabilities that apply anyways, they are screened out using quieter methods.
This attitude is slowly changing for people with visible and physical disabilities. However, those with less visible disabilities, the attitudes are still in the dark ages. Everyday I hear about people with mental health conditions, for example, as people either to be pitied or locked away, or thrown in jail (because they're all violent). I met a woman who told me there are so many people with mental illnesses that are allowed out in the community, but refuse to take their medications. I then say, "So what? There are people with cancer, people with diabetes, people with heart conditions, etc. that also don't want to listen to their doctors.". The point of her argument was that "people with mental illnesses" (and this I assume would mean almost all of them with few exceptions) don't know they need medication, etc. to function. If people like this believe folks with invisible disabilities like mental illness cannot even function outside of an institution, they certainly are not going to believe they can hold a job!
However, these same people are shocked when I refer them to the National Empowerment Centre that is operated by well-educated and respected professionals, including psychiatrists, psychologists, researchers and advocates, almost all of whom had been diagnosed with severe mental health problems, including schizophrenia and manic-depression. There are others who have made their careers in politics (e.g. Winston Churchill), the arts (e.g. Ernest Hemingway, Margot Kidder, Margaret Trudeau), science (e.g. Buzz Aldrin, Kay Redfield Jamieson), etc. There are others that may not be famous, but who have made careers for themselves in the field of law, medicine, psychology, teaching, research, etc. The movie A Beautiful Mind about mathematician and college professor John Nash was a hit a few years ago. People with mental health problems that can function are NOT an anomolie. There was a study a few years ago into what people with mental health problems who work in professional, executive and managerial positions need for support, the abstract for which can be found here.
However, when you are a person with a disability, have an education and/or substantially high level experience, you are told you don't need any help and are once again, left to your own devices. You are expected to follow the bootstrap theory and simply wave your magic wand to obtain the resources you need to fit in. This issue is not unknown to people. A new organization called the Canadian Association for Professionals with Disabilities is trying to educate employers, government, regulatory bodies and agencies that we want and need more than what is offered. What is often hurtful are comments that are made by well-meaning people that think people like this should just work in a low-wage job for the sake of re-developing work skills and connecting to people, etc. and then go that way back up the ladder. For professionals with disabilities that have worked in managerial, executive and professional positions, having a low-wage entry level job on your resume will only hurt, not help one's job search. To me, the words "damaged goods" will come up if I were a hiring manager receiving a resume of this type ... I will wonder why this apparently multi-talented person is not already working in a job like the one I am offering, as opposed to choosing a low-wage "survival job" (which for too many turns out to be a dead-end job).
3. FINANCES
For agencies and government, they actually believe people with disabilities ALL want to stay on ODSP for the rest of their lives. They fixed the ODSP program to make it easier to find work and keep more income. These are good measures in themselves, but when job development programs and agencies are set up to help people find these jobs, their assumptions need to change. For example, people get told they can take an $8 - $10 hour job and they can keep $4 - $5 of what they earn and keep most of their ODSP benefits. This idea is fine for some people - particularly people whose disability will likely not allow them to work more than a few hours a week, for example. What about people who want to join the normal world of work, where there are maternity benefits, health care benefits, retirement funds and other benefits besides a livable wage to work for? People on ODSP are not allowed to save or put money towards a retirement income, as stated in my last entry. People want to get OUT OF POVERTY. Unless the government plans on immediately issuing a 40-50% raise in ODSP rates, then people who work and keep some ODSP income will NEVER escape poverty. Many people with disabilities want an employment service that will help them find jobs that will pay them enough to get off ODSP and remain off it for life.
The desire to own, as oppose to rent a home, is no less among people on ODSP than among the general public. The desire to have disposable income to use for travel, hobbies, family and to purchase a motor vehicle is no less among people on ODSP than the general public. The desire to be seen as a "normal, contributing citizen" is no less among people on ODSP than the general public. People with disabilities that have higher-level skills need opportunities that will help them move off ODSP and out of poverty entirely.
4. AGENCY ISSUES
Agencies that work with people with disabilities for the large part live in an "us" and "them" dichotomy. The "us" include themselves and people from other agencies working in the same field. To some extent, some include employers and government as well among the "us" - because this is the middle class thing to do. The "them" part of this dichotomy includes the people with disabilities that they serve. It is an unconscious thing on the part of agencies that serve this group, but there is a prevailing belief among staff of these agencies that they all have qualifications and deserve to make the amount of money they are earning (or more, in some cases), while the people they work with should be happy with a minimum wage job. They don't perceive their clients as being equally or even more qualified than they are. The prevailing issue here is that if the client was more qualified, they'd be working!
After many years of seeing both sides of the system and working as an advocate, I feel I am entitled to my opinion and to voice them. At one conference that was held here in Niagara last year, a variety of employment support providers presented their programs and criteria to attendees, so they knew what options were out there if they wanted to choose. ODSP Employment Supports presented their program, but they were unable to answer the question as to how a person seeking higher level employment can obtain help under their new guidelines, which seem to restrict people to a "jobs first" mentality similar to that of Ontario Works. Another group I had a little fun with was the BUILT Network. BUILT Network is a network of agencies across Canada that provide training in computers, customer service and basic job skills for ten (10) weeks. I believe they only serve people with mental health problems, but I may be wrong on that. However, I did ask if the person presenting the program agreed that the average wage of a successful graduate from that program would likely be $8 - $10 an hour. The woman presenting agreed with this. However, she didn't know what to say when I asked if SHE was making $8 - $10 an hour to run and manage this program. If it is good enough for somebody like this program leader to make approx. $40,000 a year, why is it not good enough to expect the same for participants that join this program? I guess some consumers are better than others, as George Orwell implied in his book, Animal Farm.
5. SYSTEMIC ISSUES
People with disabilities face a substantial number of systemic issues when it comes to taking a job. I explored some of them in earlier posts, such as the strong disincentives to re-enter the workforce at all for those that live in subsidized housing as well as receive social income. I have never been a fan of social housing and no matter what people tell me about the wonder of social housing, I am never going to believe them ... particularly if the housing is meant for anybody who at some point may return to the paid labour force. For people who are retired or who have a disability that stops them from doing ANY paid work, it may be an option. However, I tend to not see it as viable for others, particularly if they want to avoid not only the clawbacks from ODSP or OW, but also the clawbacks that show up in the way of substantial and varied rent hikes over the course of several months. I also discussed barriers to work that are based on transportation issues. To me, municipalities greater than a certain size have not only a right to provide transit service, but should have a legal responsibility to do so. If there is a region that encompasses several municipalities, then there must also be transportation between the stated municipalities. If the personal automobile is relied upon by more than 70 -80% of the people living within a region, then the region has a problem.
Social agencies have for years attempted to set up volunteer driver programs for Niagara, but they have not been effective because they are essentially run by volunteers who can choose to work or choose not to. Reliability of service is not intact. Taxi services are available at great cost to people who choose to use them. It is available to some for medical travel, but not for employment purposes. Again, this goes back to attitudes - a belief that people with disabilities are sick and use greater medical resources than others, which is not necessarily true. Most people with disabilities apart from their impairment are as healthy as others in their respective age group. Further, many people without so-called disabilities or who may not identify themselves as being "disabled" do utilize a high level of health care resources, even if they may be working, have a family and function in the community. I am referring to your cancer patients, people with diabetes that need to bring their condition under control, obese people, etc - all of whom may not see themselves as disabled per se, but do have chronic conditions requiring the ongoing care of a doctor. People with disabilities are no more likely to be in this position than anybody else ...
Other external realities relate to the labour market at large. In Ontario, over 500,000 manufacturing jobs were lost within the past several years. Over time, these jobs are being replaced by lower paid light manufacturing, service and retail jobs that are not even nearly enough to support oneself, let alone a family. Work needs to be done to increase the number of higher paid positions for skilled workers and professionals. At the same time, agencies that work with people with disabilities need to work with those providing the higher paid positions, particularly those that have better benefits and security, to sell their qualified clients to them ... if an employer is stupid enough to require candidates to have their own vehicle when the job has no bona fide occupational requirements that require the same, employment agencies (not the candidate) should be advocating with these employers to either remove this restriction or find a way to accommodate a client that would otherwise qualify, but doesn't drive. After all, these people are PAID to do a certain job; they should do their job.
Other factors include training and skills development. As I stated above, somebody wanted to go for training as a Personal Support Worker, but was instead referred to stuff envelopes for a staffing agency for eight hours a week. Why are there no programs, or at least programs that will present themselves, that will PAY the costs of retraining for those that need it in order to become employable? Many people on ODSP cannot get OSAP. One out of six ODSP recipients are university graduates; others have college or some post-secondary training ... which means a great deal of them have unpaid student loans. When you have an unpaid student loan, you cannot go back unless it is paid off. If you get ODSP, you are lucky to be able to shelter and feed yourself, let alone repay a student loan. Further, most of those requiring retraining do not have enough recent attachment to the labour force to qualify for EI funding. Technically, the Opportunities Fund is supposed to help with some retraining costs, but I have encountered a number of people with disabilities facing more obstacles when they approach this program ... depending on which agency is funded to administer the fund, I have heard people who received comments made to them that (the worker) did not feel the person with the disability was able to handle the course, the course was too expensive (with accommodations built in, as needed) or the person would not be able to do a job in the field once they graduate. These again are assumptions made by agency workers about the alleged abilities or disabilities of the person they are working with, as opposed to any real assessments.
SOLUTIONS?
I am not sure what can be done, but whatever does get done needs to be done fast and in a much more aggressive way. Perhaps, lawsuits need to be filed against those who discriminate against people with disabilities. If an employer cannot show a bona fide reason for requiring a candidate to have a driver's license and a car, the employment agency worker needs to push the issue ... if they are not successful and the person would otherwise be eligible, a lawsuit may need to be filed, perhaps with attendant publicity. If the employer is publicly funded, a report to the funder as well should be made. Media reports of obvious acts of discrimination need to be made, such as one where I publicized a long running case against a transit service that tried to charge a blind passenger for her guide dog.
Employment and economic development agencies need to work with funders and investors to develop businesses that are marketable and productive that will hire people with disabilities. I am not referring to programs like OCAB, where permanent government funding is given to run the business (because it unfairly subsidizes the businesses of some but not others). I am referring to start-ups and working with individuals that may have the professional skills needed to run, market, do accounting or legal work for, the business, as well as others that have the skills to provide the services the business offers. This would eventually work like any other business works, e.g. funded by customers, contracts and fees w/occasional loans as the business grows and develops. However, support is needed at the start-up phase and in the consulting area (which is another area where professionals with disabilities can contribute). Such businesses may or may not want to refer to themselves as "disability-run" - let that be their choice, but let it be their policy to hire QUALIFIED persons with disabilities.
Further, jobs always come up in the public and non-profit sector. Employers in these sectors should provide leadership in hiring QUALIFIED persons with disabilities. The mistake many affirmative action policies often make is hiring less qualified persons with disabilities that may have some experience, for example. There are dozens of examples of people working in the government or non-profit sector (and likely the private sector too - but private sector is less of a concern because the owners of these companies absorb all the risk) ... that are poorly educated and have few qualifications. Executive director positions, for example, should require at least a relevant university degree ... yet, I know more than a few people who occupy these types of jobs who have less than high school and this is definitely reflected in the quality of service provided. With no standards to adhere to or aspire to, nobody can truly assess if these agencies are actually doing a professional job. As a professional in my own field, I have to pay a truckload of fees for exams, licencing, membership dues, conferences and continued education fees, etc. and account to a professional oversight body and I don't even make one quarter of what many of these drop-outs working in these agencies that account to nobody earn!
Because there are no market forces or personal risk at stake with government and non-profit agencies, stringent accountability processes and standards need to be in place to ensure that quality services are delivered and staff hired in these positions are qualified and accountable. At the present time, the only body these above referred to rogue managers account to is their boards and like many people, we are all aware of boards that do nothing or are simply hand-picked by the executive directors. This *has* to change ... maybe it's time for agency and staff licensing and/or the creation of a body that actually oversees the operation of these agencies. People need a place to complain to and be heard without getting the brush off from boards and even funders that somehow feel personally connected to the people they work with. Whatever body is put in place must be separate from the boards and the funders to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
I am all too aware of various publicly funded agencies that provide a myriad of services to individuals with disabilities that keep unqualified staff to deliver these services ... it is almost like people with disabilities don't deserve qualified, accountable services. This takes place all the while many qualified, educated people with disabilities are sitting on ODSP!
I want people's thoughts on this. Comments?
There are thousands of people, as well as for-profit and not-for-profit agencies that profit from the hopes and dreams of people with disabilities by promising or offering assistance to them by way of preparing them for, or actually finding them, work. People with disabilities flock over to these agencies because they want to work, just like anybody else without a disability. However, just how effective are these agencies in finding people work? If they do find people work, what are the quality of jobs offered when compared to the candidate's personal work history, education and career aspirations?
I personally don't know the "success rate" as one can call it of these agencies, or whether certain agencies have a better "success rate" than others. However, a few years ago, I ran a for-profit agency that assisted persons with disabilities in obtaining self-employment and occasionally, assisted them in finding traditional employment opportunities. My own "success rate" was fairly good, if "success" was actually measured against what the person or client came to our office looking for. Many of these folks were unable to work full-time or work in a traditional workplace due to a myriad of disability and environmental reasons. However, many were able to succeed in developing and continuing to operate their own small businesses for a year or more - even if the income from the business did not take them totally off income supports. Some never came to us to get off ODSP. They just wanted to earn some extra money through a small business. Others did start a business and get off the system and a couple moved on to hire others. I have also worked with people who have moved off ODSP through their businesses, but have incurred substantial overpayments. Our office would negotiate with the originating agency to reduce the overpayments, review actual business earnings, etc.
Besides myself, there are many other agencies that have once provided or currently provide supports of some type to persons with disabilities to enter employment or start their own business. I personally found few of them to be helpful. Unfortunately, it is hard to figure out what is making these agencies unhelpful. However, we need to understand that some of these reasons are borne with government funding requirements, employer biases, as well as limited community infrastructure, in addition to any skills or contacts that may be lacking by the agency itself. While I held my Employment Supports contract, I worked with other individuals and agencies also working under the same umbrella and to some extent, I can understand that not all of this is the fault of the agency in question. However, I DO believe that agencies themselves need to become stronger advocates for change in many ways to improve many of the factors they cannot control.
Some of these factors will be outlined here:
- FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
With this formula, many agencies will be unable to earn enough to pay their bills unless they contract with a number of large, (usually) low-waged employers with a high staff turnover, promising them to fill a certain number of positions with their clients and provide a range of coaching supports to them. A successful agency under this formula will contract with Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Tim Horton's and various call centres and send their clients there to work. While some clients will quit or get fired, enough of them will be able to stay at least thirteen weeks so the agency in question will get $6,000 a head, plus a certain amount of money per month for every additional month the client stays on that job.
However, what if you are a person with a disability that by education, training or work experience, you have *no* interest in taking one of these low-waged jobs? Then, you get no help. The argument or theory here is that if you have that kind of education, you don't need any supports - period. How about somebody who may have significant disabilities that apart from special equipment needs, may need a lot more time on the part of the provider to support them and assist them with daily working skills, such as facial interactions, social skills, memory tips, using public transportion, etc.? No additional funds are provided for this. Both types of people will not likely be served.
What is the problem with that, you ask? At least some people who never had jobs before or who just want to start fresh will now be able to work, when they may not have had this opportunity in the past. There IS a problem with this. It puts people with disabilities on a certain plane that guarantees they will never exceed a certain earnings limit. One article I read totally miffed me. You can read it yourself too, which is located here. In this article, ask yourself how much this man made as a plumber or plumbing contractor, then ask yourself how much he likely makes at Home Depot selling plumbing supplies. I doubt he makes more than $8 - $9 an hour now. Is this a success? Another "success" that was pointed out to me was a person with a disability getting a job stuffing envelopes for eight hours a week, when what she really wanted was to go back to school and train as a personal support worker. These agencies got their $6,000, but where are the clients? Are they really any better off than they were?
http://www.cwd-o.org/cwdo/activities/employment_committee.php?activities-employment=158
2. ATTITUDES
There is a prevailing attitude that people with disabilities cannot do work that has any degree of responsibility or authority in it. This attitude prevailed during the same period of time that people were placed in sheltered workshops and paid pennies a day for boring, repetitive work that nobody else will do. Unfortunately, many people carry this same attitude today, despite the fact that sheltered workshops are out of vogue and people want real jobs with real pay. The example given above for the individual given a job stuffing envelopes for eight hours a week is only one example of what I've seen. This individual was told the reason for this was because she never held a job before. So? Do young high school students vying for their first position have to engage in boring, repetitive labour such as stuffing envelopes or putting nuts and bolts together in a warehouse, before they can join McDonald's or Burger King or even have a paper route? Of course not! What about the woman in my example who wants to go back to school to become a personal support worker? There's no support for that, unless she went the OSAP route I hear.
How about those people with disabilities that are already educated? While statistics show it is better for people to be educated than less educated when looking for work, it is less effective for people with disabilities. There is a glass ceiling that holds people back; again, this is because many employers, including those that work with people with disabilities, feel that people with disabilities cannot do work beyond a minimal level. Many of these same agencies have tried to prevent people from disabilities from applying by throwing barriers in the way of the job, such as requiring candidates to have a valid driver's license and own a vehicle, requiring candidates to type at a certain speed, requiring mandatory shift work, etc. For those people with disabilities that apply anyways, they are screened out using quieter methods.
This attitude is slowly changing for people with visible and physical disabilities. However, those with less visible disabilities, the attitudes are still in the dark ages. Everyday I hear about people with mental health conditions, for example, as people either to be pitied or locked away, or thrown in jail (because they're all violent). I met a woman who told me there are so many people with mental illnesses that are allowed out in the community, but refuse to take their medications. I then say, "So what? There are people with cancer, people with diabetes, people with heart conditions, etc. that also don't want to listen to their doctors.". The point of her argument was that "people with mental illnesses" (and this I assume would mean almost all of them with few exceptions) don't know they need medication, etc. to function. If people like this believe folks with invisible disabilities like mental illness cannot even function outside of an institution, they certainly are not going to believe they can hold a job!
However, these same people are shocked when I refer them to the National Empowerment Centre that is operated by well-educated and respected professionals, including psychiatrists, psychologists, researchers and advocates, almost all of whom had been diagnosed with severe mental health problems, including schizophrenia and manic-depression. There are others who have made their careers in politics (e.g. Winston Churchill), the arts (e.g. Ernest Hemingway, Margot Kidder, Margaret Trudeau), science (e.g. Buzz Aldrin, Kay Redfield Jamieson), etc. There are others that may not be famous, but who have made careers for themselves in the field of law, medicine, psychology, teaching, research, etc. The movie A Beautiful Mind about mathematician and college professor John Nash was a hit a few years ago. People with mental health problems that can function are NOT an anomolie. There was a study a few years ago into what people with mental health problems who work in professional, executive and managerial positions need for support, the abstract for which can be found here.
However, when you are a person with a disability, have an education and/or substantially high level experience, you are told you don't need any help and are once again, left to your own devices. You are expected to follow the bootstrap theory and simply wave your magic wand to obtain the resources you need to fit in. This issue is not unknown to people. A new organization called the Canadian Association for Professionals with Disabilities is trying to educate employers, government, regulatory bodies and agencies that we want and need more than what is offered. What is often hurtful are comments that are made by well-meaning people that think people like this should just work in a low-wage job for the sake of re-developing work skills and connecting to people, etc. and then go that way back up the ladder. For professionals with disabilities that have worked in managerial, executive and professional positions, having a low-wage entry level job on your resume will only hurt, not help one's job search. To me, the words "damaged goods" will come up if I were a hiring manager receiving a resume of this type ... I will wonder why this apparently multi-talented person is not already working in a job like the one I am offering, as opposed to choosing a low-wage "survival job" (which for too many turns out to be a dead-end job).
3. FINANCES
For agencies and government, they actually believe people with disabilities ALL want to stay on ODSP for the rest of their lives. They fixed the ODSP program to make it easier to find work and keep more income. These are good measures in themselves, but when job development programs and agencies are set up to help people find these jobs, their assumptions need to change. For example, people get told they can take an $8 - $10 hour job and they can keep $4 - $5 of what they earn and keep most of their ODSP benefits. This idea is fine for some people - particularly people whose disability will likely not allow them to work more than a few hours a week, for example. What about people who want to join the normal world of work, where there are maternity benefits, health care benefits, retirement funds and other benefits besides a livable wage to work for? People on ODSP are not allowed to save or put money towards a retirement income, as stated in my last entry. People want to get OUT OF POVERTY. Unless the government plans on immediately issuing a 40-50% raise in ODSP rates, then people who work and keep some ODSP income will NEVER escape poverty. Many people with disabilities want an employment service that will help them find jobs that will pay them enough to get off ODSP and remain off it for life.
The desire to own, as oppose to rent a home, is no less among people on ODSP than among the general public. The desire to have disposable income to use for travel, hobbies, family and to purchase a motor vehicle is no less among people on ODSP than the general public. The desire to be seen as a "normal, contributing citizen" is no less among people on ODSP than the general public. People with disabilities that have higher-level skills need opportunities that will help them move off ODSP and out of poverty entirely.
4. AGENCY ISSUES
Agencies that work with people with disabilities for the large part live in an "us" and "them" dichotomy. The "us" include themselves and people from other agencies working in the same field. To some extent, some include employers and government as well among the "us" - because this is the middle class thing to do. The "them" part of this dichotomy includes the people with disabilities that they serve. It is an unconscious thing on the part of agencies that serve this group, but there is a prevailing belief among staff of these agencies that they all have qualifications and deserve to make the amount of money they are earning (or more, in some cases), while the people they work with should be happy with a minimum wage job. They don't perceive their clients as being equally or even more qualified than they are. The prevailing issue here is that if the client was more qualified, they'd be working!
After many years of seeing both sides of the system and working as an advocate, I feel I am entitled to my opinion and to voice them. At one conference that was held here in Niagara last year, a variety of employment support providers presented their programs and criteria to attendees, so they knew what options were out there if they wanted to choose. ODSP Employment Supports presented their program, but they were unable to answer the question as to how a person seeking higher level employment can obtain help under their new guidelines, which seem to restrict people to a "jobs first" mentality similar to that of Ontario Works. Another group I had a little fun with was the BUILT Network. BUILT Network is a network of agencies across Canada that provide training in computers, customer service and basic job skills for ten (10) weeks. I believe they only serve people with mental health problems, but I may be wrong on that. However, I did ask if the person presenting the program agreed that the average wage of a successful graduate from that program would likely be $8 - $10 an hour. The woman presenting agreed with this. However, she didn't know what to say when I asked if SHE was making $8 - $10 an hour to run and manage this program. If it is good enough for somebody like this program leader to make approx. $40,000 a year, why is it not good enough to expect the same for participants that join this program? I guess some consumers are better than others, as George Orwell implied in his book, Animal Farm.
5. SYSTEMIC ISSUES
People with disabilities face a substantial number of systemic issues when it comes to taking a job. I explored some of them in earlier posts, such as the strong disincentives to re-enter the workforce at all for those that live in subsidized housing as well as receive social income. I have never been a fan of social housing and no matter what people tell me about the wonder of social housing, I am never going to believe them ... particularly if the housing is meant for anybody who at some point may return to the paid labour force. For people who are retired or who have a disability that stops them from doing ANY paid work, it may be an option. However, I tend to not see it as viable for others, particularly if they want to avoid not only the clawbacks from ODSP or OW, but also the clawbacks that show up in the way of substantial and varied rent hikes over the course of several months. I also discussed barriers to work that are based on transportation issues. To me, municipalities greater than a certain size have not only a right to provide transit service, but should have a legal responsibility to do so. If there is a region that encompasses several municipalities, then there must also be transportation between the stated municipalities. If the personal automobile is relied upon by more than 70 -80% of the people living within a region, then the region has a problem.
Social agencies have for years attempted to set up volunteer driver programs for Niagara, but they have not been effective because they are essentially run by volunteers who can choose to work or choose not to. Reliability of service is not intact. Taxi services are available at great cost to people who choose to use them. It is available to some for medical travel, but not for employment purposes. Again, this goes back to attitudes - a belief that people with disabilities are sick and use greater medical resources than others, which is not necessarily true. Most people with disabilities apart from their impairment are as healthy as others in their respective age group. Further, many people without so-called disabilities or who may not identify themselves as being "disabled" do utilize a high level of health care resources, even if they may be working, have a family and function in the community. I am referring to your cancer patients, people with diabetes that need to bring their condition under control, obese people, etc - all of whom may not see themselves as disabled per se, but do have chronic conditions requiring the ongoing care of a doctor. People with disabilities are no more likely to be in this position than anybody else ...
Other external realities relate to the labour market at large. In Ontario, over 500,000 manufacturing jobs were lost within the past several years. Over time, these jobs are being replaced by lower paid light manufacturing, service and retail jobs that are not even nearly enough to support oneself, let alone a family. Work needs to be done to increase the number of higher paid positions for skilled workers and professionals. At the same time, agencies that work with people with disabilities need to work with those providing the higher paid positions, particularly those that have better benefits and security, to sell their qualified clients to them ... if an employer is stupid enough to require candidates to have their own vehicle when the job has no bona fide occupational requirements that require the same, employment agencies (not the candidate) should be advocating with these employers to either remove this restriction or find a way to accommodate a client that would otherwise qualify, but doesn't drive. After all, these people are PAID to do a certain job; they should do their job.
Other factors include training and skills development. As I stated above, somebody wanted to go for training as a Personal Support Worker, but was instead referred to stuff envelopes for a staffing agency for eight hours a week. Why are there no programs, or at least programs that will present themselves, that will PAY the costs of retraining for those that need it in order to become employable? Many people on ODSP cannot get OSAP. One out of six ODSP recipients are university graduates; others have college or some post-secondary training ... which means a great deal of them have unpaid student loans. When you have an unpaid student loan, you cannot go back unless it is paid off. If you get ODSP, you are lucky to be able to shelter and feed yourself, let alone repay a student loan. Further, most of those requiring retraining do not have enough recent attachment to the labour force to qualify for EI funding. Technically, the Opportunities Fund is supposed to help with some retraining costs, but I have encountered a number of people with disabilities facing more obstacles when they approach this program ... depending on which agency is funded to administer the fund, I have heard people who received comments made to them that (the worker) did not feel the person with the disability was able to handle the course, the course was too expensive (with accommodations built in, as needed) or the person would not be able to do a job in the field once they graduate. These again are assumptions made by agency workers about the alleged abilities or disabilities of the person they are working with, as opposed to any real assessments.
SOLUTIONS?
I am not sure what can be done, but whatever does get done needs to be done fast and in a much more aggressive way. Perhaps, lawsuits need to be filed against those who discriminate against people with disabilities. If an employer cannot show a bona fide reason for requiring a candidate to have a driver's license and a car, the employment agency worker needs to push the issue ... if they are not successful and the person would otherwise be eligible, a lawsuit may need to be filed, perhaps with attendant publicity. If the employer is publicly funded, a report to the funder as well should be made. Media reports of obvious acts of discrimination need to be made, such as one where I publicized a long running case against a transit service that tried to charge a blind passenger for her guide dog.
Employment and economic development agencies need to work with funders and investors to develop businesses that are marketable and productive that will hire people with disabilities. I am not referring to programs like OCAB, where permanent government funding is given to run the business (because it unfairly subsidizes the businesses of some but not others). I am referring to start-ups and working with individuals that may have the professional skills needed to run, market, do accounting or legal work for, the business, as well as others that have the skills to provide the services the business offers. This would eventually work like any other business works, e.g. funded by customers, contracts and fees w/occasional loans as the business grows and develops. However, support is needed at the start-up phase and in the consulting area (which is another area where professionals with disabilities can contribute). Such businesses may or may not want to refer to themselves as "disability-run" - let that be their choice, but let it be their policy to hire QUALIFIED persons with disabilities.
Further, jobs always come up in the public and non-profit sector. Employers in these sectors should provide leadership in hiring QUALIFIED persons with disabilities. The mistake many affirmative action policies often make is hiring less qualified persons with disabilities that may have some experience, for example. There are dozens of examples of people working in the government or non-profit sector (and likely the private sector too - but private sector is less of a concern because the owners of these companies absorb all the risk) ... that are poorly educated and have few qualifications. Executive director positions, for example, should require at least a relevant university degree ... yet, I know more than a few people who occupy these types of jobs who have less than high school and this is definitely reflected in the quality of service provided. With no standards to adhere to or aspire to, nobody can truly assess if these agencies are actually doing a professional job. As a professional in my own field, I have to pay a truckload of fees for exams, licencing, membership dues, conferences and continued education fees, etc. and account to a professional oversight body and I don't even make one quarter of what many of these drop-outs working in these agencies that account to nobody earn!
Because there are no market forces or personal risk at stake with government and non-profit agencies, stringent accountability processes and standards need to be in place to ensure that quality services are delivered and staff hired in these positions are qualified and accountable. At the present time, the only body these above referred to rogue managers account to is their boards and like many people, we are all aware of boards that do nothing or are simply hand-picked by the executive directors. This *has* to change ... maybe it's time for agency and staff licensing and/or the creation of a body that actually oversees the operation of these agencies. People need a place to complain to and be heard without getting the brush off from boards and even funders that somehow feel personally connected to the people they work with. Whatever body is put in place must be separate from the boards and the funders to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
I am all too aware of various publicly funded agencies that provide a myriad of services to individuals with disabilities that keep unqualified staff to deliver these services ... it is almost like people with disabilities don't deserve qualified, accountable services. This takes place all the while many qualified, educated people with disabilities are sitting on ODSP!
I want people's thoughts on this. Comments?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
