POVERTY A CASTE OF ITS OWN

Some of us believe that Canadians treat their low income individuals and families well, compared to say, what other countries do. The middle class folks who have always lived this way, without ever knowing the feeling of living from paycheck to paycheck for the most part do believe this country actually helps its poor. Most of these same people feel that low-income people can become middle-class if they really pulled up their socks and tried.

The reality according to many sources - particularly the lived experience of people living in poverty - proves differently.

There are many types of poverty in Ontario and for almost all types, it is getting worse and much harder to escape. Stereotypes about who the low-income and poor folks are is just a beginning and unfortunately, public attitudes turn public policy. In Ontario for the past twenty years, this public policy has become public disaster.

The first kind of poverty includes the unemployed. There are less and less Canadians eligible to collect Employment Insurance today than there were twenty years ago. Before the unemployed officially were pushed off the marginalized category of our society with the rest of the low-income population, benefit levels more closely reflected working income and at least 85% of those that paid into the program were able to collect if they lost their jobs. Today, nationally less than four in ten workers are deemed eligible for Employment Insurance, regardless that they paid into the program for years before losing their job.

What happens to the sixty or more percent of those that do not qualify? These people get thrown in the trash heap sooner than those that do; however, with the present recession, even among those that do manage to collect EI, the likelihood that they will fall into destitution is real, given that the next step off the ladder is Ontario Works - if they can get it. But, let's continue with the EI poverty folks first. Benefits are presently capped at 55% of one's earnings or $423 a week, whatever is less. For a single person living in a medium sized metropolitan census tract region, this may be approaching poverty line. For a family, it not even nearly adequate. Assuming one gets the full length of payout (which most don't), benefits "run out" in 45 weeks.

While on claim, one is expected to search for and accept any work for which one is reasonably capable of doing. One must also be deemed always available to start work at any time during their claim. Those that attempt to leave the country for a brief vacation can get caught and lose a period of their benefits, if they are not excused for this ahead of time. If it can be proven that a job offer was given, but turned down, one can lose benefits altogether. The only saving grace one really has is the fact that administrators of the program during a recession like this one tend to be overworked and lack the time to oversee many of these things; however, people have been "reported" and subsequently accused of not being eligible, or even committing fraud.

Work programs for those who are eligible for EI (or who qualify for "reach back" for benefits that have recently been received) tend to be of a higher quality than programs serving other low-income workers, although many are reportedly difficult to access. One example is the Second Career Program, which many people found to be Kafkaesque in its application process and subsequent approval, after which it is allegedly determined that person applying must "prove" the new career they are attempting is actually going to result in a job. If anybody can adequately predict this, then we should be consulting the same people about lottery numbers so more of us can be winning the millions. Nevertheless, once one gets onto this program, it offers not only payment for the training, but also living expenses -- something unheard of for other low-income recipients that want to return to work.

This category of people unfortunately has since become stereotyped by the federal Conservatives as a group of people paid to sit at home essentially, thus their reasoning for not reforming the EI program so that more people are eligible for this "insurance" policy. However, if you are sitting at a lower step of the ladder in this caste system, those on EI are probably the best treated group of people living in poverty.

First, EI is yours and even if your spouse was a millionaire that owns hundreds of properties, your EI is not impacted. Even if YOU owned hundreds of properties, your EI is not affected. While there is a bit of a boot given to you to "get a job", you are not immediately at least forced into destitution and desperation like hundreds of thousands of other Ontarians are. But at some point, EI will "run out". Some will be lucky enough to find a job before that happens. Others have family and savings to rely on to stretch this idiocy a little longer. However, many others are forced onto the welfare rolls.

The majority of middle-class Ontarians actually believe it is easy to get "on welfare". The truth of the matter is that it is not. In fact, you have to burn almost all of your bridges, including family support, retirement savings plans and in some cases, your vehicle, before you can access this system. For those who have been on both EI and Ontario Works, they will almost unanimously tell you that Ontario Works is a lot worse.

First, the amounts one can receive is a LOT lower. There is no rational connection between the actual cost of living and what one is actually given on welfare to live on. A single person is supposed to find living accommodations for under approximately $360 per month. This does not even cover the cost of a room in most jurisdictions across the province. However, somebody on welfare is supposed to find housing of that price range. For many, this means losing their current accommodations, as for most people on welfare, their current accommodations cost much more than the total amount they get one their cheque, let alone just the shelter allotment.

To make matters worse, some welfare offices have harassed recipients who were paying more than this amount for housing, threatening to cut them off if they don't find "cheaper" accommodations. Others are given a form to complete to identify their total income and how they cover their monthly costs. Most, if not all of them, either don't eat most of the month or rely on a patch work of food banks, soup kitchens and occasionally, family. If it is learned that one is getting help from family or friends, their next cheque can be deducted by approximately the same value as that "help" received. So most that do get any of this help don't mention it. The fear and reality of starvation are too closely aligned.

On top of financial humiliation and abuse received by people getting Ontario Works, they are expected to take the fastest route to a job. A lot of research has gone into this philosophy and it was found that folks that did just this ended up back on welfare shortly thereafter, as the jobs they would get would often be low-paying, short term and have no benefits. Of course, welfare recipients are a boon for slimy employers that want to refuse minimum wages, or even any wages at all, or to employers that have a management style that includes bullying their employees -- using of course, the three month quit or fire rule in the event that a person is forced from the job. Welfare offices do have discretion on how they handle this, but many people still end up in its quagmire, which ends in homelessness and often losing what little they have.

Many people on welfare are disabled or have multiple workplace barriers. If they didn't start off this way, many of them end up this way. Therefore, such folks often aspire to apply for the Ontario Disability Support Program, or ODSP. ODSP pays roughly twice the amount a single person on welfare gets and some of its rules around assets and income are more liberal. However, with regards to assets, transfers from Ontario Works to ODSP aren't usually concerned about this, as they lost almost everything they have just by trying to become and remain eligible for Ontario Works.

Those that later go onto the ODSP program that have managed to keep their housing or some kind of housing are often quite far into debt by the time their file gets transferred. ODSP rules help in this case, as one is paid back to the time they first applied to the program and many recipients get months, if not years, in retroactive adjustment payments to help cover these bills. Some end up above the allowable asset limits for ODSP and are told to discharge the excess in about six months' time (and some are granted a longer period for various reasons). Most have no trouble doing so, as housing itself takes up an average of 73% of a market renter's ODSP cheque anyways.

The unique circumstances of ODSP recipients are such that they are made to live their lives in a similar way to people who are welfare recipients, only they get paid a little more to do so. While not required to take a job, many ODSP recipients feel forced to work in order to make up the gap in income required to pay their basic living expenses. For those that cannot work at all, living on ODSP for the long term is unhealthy and downright dangerous. For the person who once pointed out that 'poverty kills', this is in fact a reality. While many people on ODSP may have shortened lifespans due to their disability that brought them onto ODSP in the first place, there is hard evidence that poverty itself is even a bigger contributor to this quandary.

Life on ODSP becomes very difficult and isolating once its recipients discover that:

1. They will unlikely attract a spouse or life partner, as if they do - that spouse or life partner ends up being on ODSP too, even if they never signed up for it in the past. All the asset rules, earnings clawbacks, etc. that apply to the recipient also apply to the spouse, so there is very little incentive for somebody who is not already on ODSP themselves to get involved with a recipient.

2. If they are working, they will not be able to contribute to a retirement pension (unless they are also eligible for a disability tax credit which has a strict criteria and the program that is tied to - the Registered Disability Savings Plan - depends an awful lot on having wealthy and generous friends and family that can contribute to this account on your behalf ...). If they aren't on an RDSP, then they can't put into an RRSP, even if they can afford to contribute something - as one's assets are capped at $5,000 (for a single person).

3. If they do work, half of one's NET income is deducted right away off their next ODSP cheque. While some costs can be written off, most costs for working cannot be. Therefore, you probably would be netting just as much money sitting at home picking your nose than you will by working and maintaining your eligibility with ODSP.

4. Employment supports provided as part of the ODSP program are available to any recipient that wants to try to work, but again, this is complicated. They must sign on with a "service provider" whose job it is to help one get and keep a job. Service providers are paid on the basis of being successful in doing so, which all sounds well and good for accountability's sake, but what this in fact does is encourage recipients to once again to take the fastest route to employment. Again, slimy employers love this program, so more under-employed people can be hired to work for low wages, no benefits and no security. After all, as some of these slimy employers told me, isn't ODSP supposed to subsidize the minimum wage?

5. There are a lot of stupid rules involving loans being defined as unearned income, which ironically makes the recipient pay it back twice - first to the lender, then back to ODSP as an overpayment. A particularly large loan that is not approved in advance can cause a recipient to be cut off altogether in the month in which it is received.

6. Sometimes the recipient waits for the requisite Godot and manages to get into rent-geared-to-income housing in their respective region (average wait is five to seven years for a single), and later learns that if they decide to work and collect ODSP, their rent-geared-to-income unit costs them more as they earn more money, thus even COSTING them to work at all. ODSP will catch up to some extent, but again, you are expected to find shelter that costs $456 or less (including all utilities - good luck!). Once you hit that magic number with ODSP, you are paying out of pocket for the privilege of having a paid job!

7. At the same time, while ODSP recipients want to work as much as anybody else, many cannot work and others try, but encounter many of these stupid rules and quit trying ... the middle class public believe most, if not all, ODSP recipients don't "really need" to be on it. It is like members of the general public suddenly become doctors and are capable of assessing people they don't know from a distance as to what they can and cannot do. While the same folks that approve people to get on ODSP in the first place are sort of like that, they do have medical training and their decisions can always be appealed. But stigma from the public cannot.

So, while one is treated a little bit better on ODSP than they are on welfare, it is a double-edged sword that one cannot help but wonder if it is its own "kiss of death". ODSP is a legitimate program with legitimate need, but major reforms must be done to make this program almost unrecognizable and thus, more useful for the person with the disability.

The fourth category of poor is the elderly. Middle class Canadians believe the government wiped out elder poverty with the Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The truth is unless you worked for a time as a public servant or were a well-adorned auto worker, it is not likely that you will be getting any pension other than that publicly offered by the government. CPP maxes out at just over $1,000 a month (and that is if you made over $40,000 most of your working career). OAS is just under $500. Guaranteed Income Supplement is for those seniors that do not get a pension and not enough CPP ... and I've had them in my office, folks. These people don't get much more than people get on ODSP (a difference of about $150 at most), plus these seniors lose the dental, special diet, medical travel and other benefits apart from drug coverage once they turn 65. Sounds like something to look forward to, eh?

This group of poor is not as stigmatized by the public as the other groups I identified above. It is just not recognized as being as large as it is by most Canadians. Something certainly has to be done with pensions to ensure NOBODY over the age of sixty-five lives in poverty.

The final group I want to raise is the working poor. These are folks that get no welfare, ODSP, EI, or pensions, but do get a wage - except the wage does not add up to enough money to pay the rent and feed the kids in the same month. It seems that more and more people are falling into this category and for many employers, it is perfectly all right as many of them do not want to pay what people need to live on or even what the skills of their workers are actually worth to the business. Many of these same employers are ironically great corporate citizens. They participate in the United Way drives, give major donations to the food banks and so forth, but lo and behold, they fail to realize that the majority of their employees are probably using these same stop-gap band-aid programs these employers praise in the media just to get by.

There is also a group of people that don't really fit in any of these categories, but may or may not be poor - at least at first, depending on the generosity of their accident employer. This is the injured workers under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, or the WSIB. At some point, I will write more about the politics of the injured workers' industry (and yes, this is a BIG industry) and what tends to happen to the person that actually got injured on the job through no fault of their own. In Ontario, since the early 1900's, employers bought into this 'no fault' formula that would pay workers financial compensation that does have some relevance to real wages (unlike most social programs like welfare and ODSP) until such point they recover or are able to return to work at a different job. The legal politics are there and the explanations complicated, but nevertheless, when the WSIB pie is divided up at the end of the day, it is always the injured worker that gets the smallest piece.

A colleague of mine called me up earlier in the year to ask me if I was noticing a widespread epidemic of injured workers being cut off of WSIB benefits at the drop of a hat, it seems. At that time, my caseload for WSIB cases alone had increased 400% - most of which include unpaid lost time claims and/or discontinued benefits. "Reasons" for being cut off are myriad, similar to those of people on Ontario Works and usually have something to do with "non-cooperation" and in the odd case, somehow a person turns up with a "pre-existing condition" they never had prior to the accident but this condition somehow has caused the injury and disablement blamed on the accident ... people working in this field learn how to speak a lot of double-speak and bureaucratise. If a worker has an honest claim, they will be paid, but it appears that the job of the WSIB is to either delay payment for as long as they can (hoping that a certain percentage will not bother to appeal) or try to deny it altogether by inventing some new rule or circumstance as to why the person is suddenly ineligible. The interesting thing is that the injured workers drawing the higher level of benefits tend to be the ones they want to kick off the system the fastest and the ones on the lower level of benefits tend to be steered into low-wage jobs ... sound familiar? I might sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe our own government is working hand in hand with these slimy employers to provide them with a cadre of desperate workers willing to work for next to nothing.

Your thoughts?
Further,

A POVERTY-REDUCTION PLAN THAT ISN'T...

The federal budget was what I predicted it to be.

A mish mash of handouts to big corporations, tax cuts, as well as billions of dollars in spending on so-called infrastructure. There was some promise of reform to EI, which it seems fewer and fewer people get each year, but this came up short whereby people are essentially getting nearly what they got ten years ago from EI and the same stringent criteria continues on. In my view, this budget does not put one more meal on anybody's table or another penny in anybody's pocket, other than those who already do okay.

I learned one so-called bright light yesterday as I watched Prime Minister Stephen Harper with his full set of teeth, sans blue sweater and hair greyer than it was before Christmas ... side by side with Ontario's Premier Dalton McGuinty, appearing skinnier and geekier than he ever was, both announcing new funds for better GO Train service in the Metrolynx boundaries, which of course do not go as far as Niagara.

Henceforth, when I attempted last year to get some answers as to why the GO Train is not even being considered for Niagara, the answers were sort of what I expected. First, you need to have a strong transit infrastructure, as well as convenient parking spaces for GO users. If you lived in Welland, for instance, and didn't drive, a GO Train service leaving Niagara Falls or St. Catharines would be useless to you. How are you going to get to the GO station? Even if the powers that be insisted on putting GO service here, they would defeat its purpose and not take a single car off the road, as there will still be too many of them, zinging from all points of the region to get to the GO station. This still does not change the fact that Niagara is more expensive to live in because having a car and driver's license is still your sole ticket to citizenship.

Poverty activists want to focus on the "housing" announcements. As I stated before, I see no point in making housing a social service. Housing is a necessary commodity, much like food, clothing and clean air. Unfortunately, "housing" in the eyes of many of these people comes attached to social workers that want to control the lives of more people who end up living in this "housing". To me, the less control you put into somebody's life, the better quality of life they have, but then I never have the final say in these things.

Further, others cry for "subsidized" housing or rent-geared-to-income housing. I have tried, but have been unsuccessful, in getting these folks to tell me how this takes people out of poverty. As one fellow blogger under the name of co-opcracy writes, working is counterproductive if one is living in subsidized housing and receiving some type of benefit, such as social assistance or even ODSP. First, ODSP chops your net earnings in half from the very first dollar and then "housing" increases the rent to a point of an additional clawback of thirty five cents on every dollar. Once the earnings are grossed up at the end of a year, even more money is lost. The intelligent and prudent thing to do when in this situation is to stay at home and eat your bonbons.

Further, because subsidies are calculated at far below the maximum "shelter" allowance given for social assistance and ODSP incomes, one would receive far less benefits from social assistance or ODSP than they would if they were housed in the free market. This means one's income would continuously remain under the so-called "poverty line". While housing costs are lower, this does not stop other costs such as food, clothing, transportation, telephone and other costs from skyrocketing. How subsidized housing reduces poverty has always been a trouble spot for me, possibly because of my background as a policy analyst as well as lived experience.

Thinking from the centre is not mediocre for sure. I get attacked from both the left and the right for my views, instead of either/or. I ask questions, but don't get answers. I own my own home, but still I am flat broke. What help is there for me? Certainly, me, my family and thousands of other homeowners in the same boat are not going to sell and move to some unit where they will be under the thumb of some crazy bureaucracy. People need to be as independent as possible, as well as free to advance their circumstances, or else poverty will become a permanent fixture in our society -- bringing even potentially middle-class families down with it.

I would tell the government to save the billions of dollars they would otherwise spend to build units of this type, but instead use it to increase the money in the pockets of individuals and families, so that people actually have choices. Right now, the low-income contingent of our society has no choices. They are told to live as their social worker tells them to, which is to never make a mistake ... therefore, never learn from them. They are told to live within their means, but are never given the means to live. They are told to "get a job", but employers are not told to hire such persons or to pay the people they have decently. As usual, society wants the poor to play a single handed tango, while the other partner can watch and criticize. How can we as a society possibly value people who have been so disadvantaged that we have to instinctively reach out and control their lives, as opposed to giving them choices and opportunities ... yes, some of these folks will fail, but then again -- many of us who have never been in this situation have also failed, many of us miserably.

How many so-called "normal" people have bankruptcies on their record? How many so-called "normal" people can't seem to ever lose weight? What about all those successful professionals that turn to drugs and alcohol to deal with the stress of it all? What about so-called "normal" people who drive a car one day and forget to do the all-important shoulder check and get into a horrible motor vehicle accident? How many "normal" people are smokers? How about the typical friend of ours that always seems to "pick" abusive partners? The rest of us herein do not have strangers telling us what we should be spending our money on, whether or not we should be driving a car, or whether we can manage our own bank accounts. So why are we allowed to pass judgment on those less fortunate than we are? Are we trying to block the way for the poor from becoming less poor, and perhaps, grabbing a bit of dignity while they're at it?

To me, there is maximum dignity in having choices and opportunities. Those of us who have had these things take them for granted. We "assume" that everybody else also has these things, or had them at one time. Then, we bash them for making "bad choices" or "failing to take advantage of opportunities" (even though they were likely never given any). This is not a leftist rant here. I have a legal practice full of people from all walks of life, some of whom were very advantaged and cultured, others that cannot understand what life would be like for them if they could make their own basic choices. The latter have had the system make choices for them all their lives: they were told where to live, had their money spent for them, what to wear and who to be friends with ... never being allowed to choose is tantamount to imprisonment.

I grew up in a rough kind of way. As a young adult, just before securing my post-secondary education and so-called empowerment as a professional person, I knew two things. One, people must have the right to make choices, even bad choices. Two, people have the right to have access to opportunities to advance themselves and improve their quality of life. I got into a lot of trouble for my beliefs. Many social work types tried to downplay my ideas and tell me to be more "realistic" and insist a certain portion of the population continue to be spoon-fed (while the social worker types continued to get good pay cheques for doing so).

When somebody is living on ODSP and in subsidized housing, they do not have the opportunity to advance themselves and improve their financial situation. Their efforts become like a hamster on a spinning wheel, whereby they work harder and harder but end up in the same place. For every dollar they earn, they lose just as much. People in "housing programs" have even less choices, as many of these programs disallow overnight guests, alcohol use, earning money from a home-based business, etc. I've seen people evicted from so-called "mental health housing" for stopping their own medications. This leaves people with no choice. When you can only make the "right" choice, you cannot make ANY choices.

When you take away the choices of people, you take away their dignity. You also reduce the value that society will have of that person. When people feel we have to make decisions for others for whatever reason, we are not valuing that person's own opinion, own tastes or own desires, nor are we allowing that person to fully develop as a mature human being. When we don't value somebody in this way, these folks DO feel it. They feel it when they have to go to the food bank to get their groceries. They feel it when somebody tells them where they have to live and what they can do and can't do when they live there. They feel it when nobody appears concerned about their lack of opportunities and options.

I meet people who want to move out of subsidized housing all the time. This is very difficult to do. Several relatives of my husband were living in subsidized housing twenty-five years ago when I met him and despite marriage, children growing up, etc., they continue to live that way today, as do their children. Enforced poverty breeds enforced poverty. This provincial government promises to "break the cycle" in one breath and even names its poverty reduction plan the same thing, while at the same time, wants to entrap more people ... this makes no sense to me. Open the doors, I want to say ... and make employers open them too.

Today, the employment standards development draft went to public review. This is from one of the committees I sit on, except with the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario ... where for the better part of a year, three dozen people worked hard to put together a set of standards we will be expecting of employers, spanning between one and five years from now, with respect to the hiring, retention, training and accommodations for persons with disabilities. To me, the standards don't go far enough, but we were working within a certain regulatory framework ... a framework that has to fit within the province's business model as well as reach the goal of bringing more qualified persons with disabilities into the paid labour force.

I am hoping that folks reading this will review the proposed standard on its website and send their input to the stated body on how our standard can be improved to meet the needs of persons with disabilities and get more of them into the workforce. The standard can be found by clicking here to the website. Your input must be given by April 15, 2009, in any of the given ways provided by the webmaster.

While access to employment and business opportunities will help improve the outcomes for people with disabilities, we also need to focus on bringing them out of poverty. Poverty is the killer of the soul. It is punishment for a crime one never committed. It kills any initiative one might have even had before they became poor. Both a focused effort on reducing and eventually eliminating poverty through the development of opportunity and increased access to meaningful choices in improving one's well being and quality of life, is what is needed. This would envelope both the needs of persons that can and want to work, as well as those that cannot.

We have to defeat the poverty industry, the set of organizations, leaders and spokespersons, that make a living or gain personal notoriety on the backs of the poor. These are the people that run the food banks, the homeless shelters, the "housing" programs, vouchers, consumer/survivor drop-in centres, etc. without considering that the people they are "helping" should learn how to fish some day and be given the tools and the right to do so. If this means some of the people in the poverty industry lose their jobs, so be it ... if one were an effective leader in a sense, this would not be a worry for them whatsoever.

I am very concerned that some of these organizations are now asking for government money. Should taxpayers be funding food banks, or should they be financing programs that allow people to choose and purchase their own food? Should taxpayers be funding homeless shelters and "housing programs" or should we be funding initiatives that help put money into people's pockets to the point they can reasonably choose where and how to live (within reason, of course ... not everybody's going to move to Forest Hill or Bridal Path).

What is really needed when the day is done are ideas on how to make this happen, not how to bolster the status quo, which we all know has failed us miserably. Your thoughts?

THE RISE OF THE MEDIOCRE

More people today than ever hold university degrees and college diplomas than before in our educational history. It is said that at some point in the future, 70% of all jobs will require some type of post-secondary education. More than one in five Ontarians have at least one university degree, and approximately one third completed training at a community college level. Students graduating from post-secondary institutions are fraught with problems of student debt. Others have trouble finding work in their field.

At the same time, we hear about employers crying out about a so-called 'skills shortage'. We hear that hundreds of thousands of civil servants, professionals, tradespersons, etc. are all going to be retiring in the next ten years and somebody has to replace them! The facts look grim. People are having less children. That means there will be fewer workers to support those who end up retiring in the years to come. Skills development is a major issue with many employers in both the public and private sectors. However, how come many services continue to provide what is at best mediocre responses to these problems?

For some of this, I blame the situation on 'consumerism'. In the past twenty-five years, consumers of a variety of types of services, ranging from addictions, to social services, to mental health to employment supports, have wanted and deserved a greater say in how these services are shaped and delivered. In fact, during the 1990's the move went to the point of hiring unqualified consumers to actually provide many of these same services that we generally expect to received from trained individuals. Consumers who were unable to succeed academically have decried what they referred to as 'credentialism' and pushed for the emphasis on 'life experience' as an actual criteria upon which to make hiring decisions, as opposed to actual skills for the job. People who lived in poverty can best help others who live in poverty. People with mental health problems can best help others with mental health issues, and the list goes on.

When somebody with any type of credential accidentally slips through the hiring process, movement leaders soon try to find a way to get rid of them, on the grounds that somebody with a disability that actually has legitimate credentials couldn't really be disabled or really couldn't be truly disadvantaged. While it is true that a lower percentage of persons with disabilities, for example, have completed college and university than their non-disabled peers, but the numbers among persons with disabilities are not insignificant. So throughout the 1990's, consumers were hired in a broad range of jobs to provide support services to other consumers, counselling, advocating on their behalf and to set up consumer-run initiatives, like drop-in centres and such. However, most of these programs -- though funded -- were not successful in capturing true consumer representation at the political level, or developing programs that truly met the needs of the whole population of consumers they were to serve.

Please do not take this as an anti-consumer rant, as the concept of hiring consumers in various positions is a good one, but required skills, qualifications and expectations of these positions should not differ whatsoever from the requirements for positions open to non-consumers. In discussing this with various consumer leaders in Ontario, I have still not ascertained from any of them how "life experience" can be measured objectively in a way to contribute to one's candidacy for a paid position. What about your "life experience" itself makes you more qualified to be an accountant? What about "life experience" and how it applies to your capability in handling a multi-million dollar budget and programming objectives? If you were a recovering alcoholic, does this make you more capable of running a large residential program for addiction treatment services?

In any kind of job, we set out what we require the worker to do on a regular basis and some tasks that may be done on an infrequent basis, and what types of skills or training we might expect in the individual at the minimum to fill these duties. For example, if you are looking for an administrative assistant for your non-profit organization that provides supportive housing to people, what skills and qualities might you look for in such an individual? I would expect that this person have excellent oral and written communication skills, significant skills in organization, training and experience in working with Windows business applications, good listening skills, and the ability to use accounting software and to manually re-check figures down to a monthly trial balance. A radical consumer perspective would say this person must be homeless or have been homeless, which to me is not as important as having those other above skills.

Why is it important to consumer groups that people have "been there"? They want people who have empathy and understanding toward their client group. They do not want to have people serve them that have bad attitudes and prejudice against people in their 'group'. Empathy is an important trait to have, but empathy does not necessarily come strictly from "being there" and even among those who have been there, this does not make them necessarily "empathetic". I have been in positions of authority that involved the hiring of personnel, as well as dealing with personnel issues and policies. In one agency where I was in charge of human resource issues, I successfully made an argument to the board to create a job sharing arrangement for the position of its executive director. This type of arrangement was practically unheard of at the time, as the board naturally would want a full-time executive to oversee its $2.5 million budget and 14 ongoing initiatives. The existing executive director wanted to temporarily reduce her hours as she had young children at home and the person with whom she would share her duties was somebody who was seeking greater challenges within the organization. At the time, I had no children. However, this executive director was a fine worker and did have children and it was important for her psychologically to seek a better 'work-life' balance. This would lead to her 'in office' hours to be even more productive, knowing that she had more time for her family.

I remember long after this initiative passed and she since returned to her full-time duties. She wondered why I was able to understand her needs, when I had no children at the time and wasn't concerned about daycare issues and so forth. I responded that as chair of human resources my responsibility is to our employees and to maximize their productivity and support a 'work-life' balance. For her, the issue was children. For somebody else, it may be the care of an elderly parent. For another person, it may be a disability issue. I do not have LIVE these issues in order to understand how they relate to that person's happiness and productivity within the organization. As human resource chair, I took the term resource seriously. How an organization sets up, designs and designates its human resources effects how services are delivered to those in need.

In another example, I have experience as a person with a disability. I know how it affects me, as well I know how I am best accommodated regardless of the type of job I am doing. However, a colleague of mine may also have experience as a person with a disability; her experience may have reflected even more negatively on her life or more positively than my issues did on mine. How does a potential employer of either of us justify hiring one or the other of us based on "life experience" as the primary factor when indeed both of our perspectives, while both valid, differ substantially from one another? Even two people with the same disability deal with their issues in completely different ways ... I've met many examples of the "angry blind man", as well as the "passive user of a scooter" (that didn't think social issues were important to her life). Again, both perspectives are important, but neither addresses how much skill either of these people have in doing a particular job.

What this "life experience" issue does is politicize the positions and make them open to a form of favourtism and bias, based solely on the opinions and political views of those doing the interviewing and hiring. I have heard from women who did marvellous work in the community for victims of rape and post-traumatic stress disorder, but who were turned away from prospective positions on a board or on staff because they did not believe Karla Homolka was completely innocent of her crimes, or that they did not share the sexual orientation of the key leader in the organization. I have nothing against persons with different political opinions or people with different sexual orientations; it is just that none of these things determine whether you can do or not do a particular job. People in these situations certainly do have a right to an opinion, but an opinion does not equal expertise.

For example, there was once a program where people who dropped out of high school were solicited to sit on a panel and write a report on how to keep people in school until they graduate. I don't think it is necessary to be a high school drop-out to provide expertise in this area, although I do feel high school drop-outs can contribute their opinions and experience to an expert panel that has training and knowledge in educational and curriculum matters to explain how their school experience could have been made different for them to encourage them to stay. Then the experts can translate that experience, while continuing to consult with the drop-outs and others with an interest in the issue, to re-formulate the school experience to make it better for everybody.

But unfortunately, this is not what we're getting. We have untrained mental health consumers providing counselling to other mental health consumers, many of whom could be quite fragile at that point in their lives. Some consumers do not believe in psychiatry and medicine, for example, for the treatment of mental health issues ... while this belief is not necessarily without grounds, it is risky to pursue this option with somebody who may be better in an environment where trained professionals can work with them. These same untrained consumers go to boards, councils and policy meetings to try to get more money for theirs and other similar organizations by trying to make the argument that consumers have some kind of "preference" to work with other consumers. This assertion is of course not backed up by research, but should be considered suspect once in funder's hands ... although it is never questioned in the way it should be, or are funders pushing for any kind of quality control.

Again, I am not saying people who have problems should not be delivering services to people of the same experience. Many independent living centres have developed a broad range of services for persons with disabilities and at least half of their staff must be persons with disabilities. From the want ads for many jobs in the independent living centre, they do expect some type of credentials as well as some "direct experience in working with persons with disabilities". Boston University's Centre for Psychiatric Rehabilitation has as its director a person who is trained as a Psychiatrist, but he has also been diagnosed as having schizophrenia. Jean Campbell runs a large consumer-controlled research and evaluation network and she is endowed with a PHd, as well as being a consumer herself. Mary Ellen Copeland has written a number of books on coping with various mental health issues, and has herself advanced to a Master's Degree. However, this does not seem to be the case here in Ontario, where anti-education and anti-credentialism continue to rule the roost.

This does not only apply at the local level but also at the provincial and federal level as well. An experiment people can try is to ask the paid leadership of consumer-based organizations what levels of education they have and if they claim nothing beyond high school (or even nothing beyond grade ten or eleven), ask again how they feel they developed the skills to do the work they are doing. If they are doing legal research, this takes training. If they are doing financial management and budgetary planning, this also takes training. If they are doing public relations and advocacy, this also takes training. If they are developing a skills-based course, and are attempting to evaluate its effectiveness, this also requires training. No amount of "personal life experience" in the world is going to teach people how to do these essential elements of a job.

One does not need to look very far to learn that many (though not all) of these organizations provide mediocre services and advocacy work. I personally do not feel I am represented as a person with a disability by any of the mental health and most of the cross-disability groups although a few of the cross-disability groups are starting to "get it" and understand what a democratic process is about and what inclusion really means. For example, I enjoy working with ODSP Action Coalition, Citizens with Disabilities - Ontario, Canadian Association of Professionals with Disabilities, as well as a few more traditional groups that are attempting to develop and broaden their democratic processes. The leadership of these organizations structure themselves into committees which everybody with a disability can join and everybody's voice gets heard on a near consensus basis. While not a disability organization, but utilizing a 50% structure of persons with disabilities on all committees, the work being done on the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act is also very broad-based, representative and has the set-up to bring in broad public input into its deliberations.

But what is mediocrity? Mediocrity is a consumer offering 'self-help' group meetings, where the facilitator often does not show up and if they do, they do not know how to truly facilitate discussion and maintain confidentiality of their proceedings. I once managed a small consumer group here in the Niagara Region that was set up for both families and consumers and some of my members attended meetings and events held by other groups, both in the region and the province. In the small meetings, discussions tended to go off course. People's private information somehow accidentally gets disclosed or discussed in other groups. At the provincial level, a workshop on board development ended up to be a rant on how the gays and lesbians empowered themselves, as the facilitator for this workshop walked around the room smoking a cigarette. I've also heard of cases where people were seeing these consumer leaders for "counselling", often coming back more confused ... often they were told they should be going off their drugs or seek so-called "naturopathic therapies". While I have nothing against these choices, these choices need to be delivered and explained by a professional person and monitored as they are chosen.

People who are paid to facilitate these groups must have training in human behaviour, as well as how to deal with people who may be in deeper need than what the group situation can offer. Psychologists and social workers that operate these types of groups have this training. Others do as well, but most "consumer" leaders don't. Just as I, as a Licensed Paralegal, has to know the difference between the type of work I can competently assist or represent a client with ... and what work I either should or must refer to another Licensed Paralegal or Lawyer. As part of being licensed, regulated and accountable, you are ensuring that a consumer of service is receiving the right type of service and is getting it from the most competent provider. For example, many of my colleagues in the legal profession - Paralegal or Lawyer - know very little about human rights law, so they refer to me. I, in turn, refer them work in provincial offences or bankruptcy matters. Other times, economics rules and Lawyers refer to Paralegals that specialize in certain areas because the law office cannot complete a certain type of file economically (e.g. an accident benefit claim that does not have a tort component, a landlord/tenant issue).

I also speak up a lot at Coalitions, meetings, councils, position papers, etc. While I do not disclose private or confidential matters of clients, I generally speak of how people are affected by a certain law or policy. I talk to my clients too on important matters and register their concerns. For example, many of my clients cannot work at all, so I do talk a blue streak about how this group of disabled persons is being discriminated against. This does not include me, as I consider myself in the labour force, just not happy being self-employed (though the work I do is fine). I continue to speak of single people with disabilities, even though I am married with children. I speak of those with additional income sources, such as private pensions, EI, etc. and how unfairly they are treated. For me, I only push the CAP-D agenda and the need for more accountable services.

In employment, for example, our only national mental health consumer group thinks it is fine to replicate a program of somebody else's creation, BUILT Network, and develop and enhance its growth across the province. But, did any of you who have mental health problems ever get asked by anybody about the type of work you want to do? Of course not. BUILT Network, while suitable for mildly disabled individuals who are job ready and possibly high school educated who may know their way moderately around a computer, is not suited for everyone. This will not get people with higher education and professional qualifications into their careers. It will not help those for whom only self-employment is an option, nor will it help people that require a substantial amount of job coaching. For those entering call centre type careers, this is high risk ... most of those jobs have high turnover and for many employees in this type of work, they find it stressful - particularly somebody with problems to begin with.

Did anybody ask ME what I wanted? Of course not. Nor is there a detailed evaluation of the program carried out by an external body with no interest in the results. BUILT Network is not the only program that is guilty of mediocrity and promotion of mediocrity; many job programs are developed so that participants do not enter jobs that pay more than $8 - $10/hour. BUILT Network is just following where the money is, as opposed to what consumers really want and need, much like other programs. I said the same about the Job Bus, ODSP, Ontario Works, etc. It is easier to put your eggs in one basket and not challenge the status quo by truly improving the lives of your consumers. A large component of these programs must be advocacy, but unfortunately, this is sadly lacking - possibly because many of these organizations are based as charities, or because the people running them do not know how to effectively "bite the hand that feeds them, but still get fed".

But unfortunately, as long as the public and those served by the various programs passively accept less than satisfactory and services that are not consumer-based, individualized services, the majority of people needing these types of supports will continue to be without service or receiving ineffective service. It is important now to look at what qualifications these jobs require, hire better trained and skilled staff and invite professionals with disabilities, skilled immigrants, older persons with significant experience in these areas, and our labour market needs will be more than met ... until then, we are wasting too many people who are now wasting their lives on OW, ODSP or in low-paid jobs that do not take their skills into account or even pay their bills ... while some others continue to work in jobs that are well over their heads and remain accountable to nobody.

ACCESSIBILITY IS MORE THAN A RAMP!

In 2005, Ontario passed its Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), or Bill 118. The intent of the legislation is to bring Ontario to a state of full accessibility for all persons with disabilities in Ontario by the year 2025. Accessibility and measurements toward the same are intended to be taken in five year increments, with barriers that are easier to remove to be removed immediately, while other barriers make take more time for removal. For example, it is much easier to legislate that transit operators call out all stops to assist riders with visual impairments than it would be to make all of Toronto's subway stations fully accessible and barrier-free. While both of these issues will be law either today or at some point in the future, the AODA is moving things along to make Ontario an accessible province. In order to implement the Act, the Ontario Government is setting up a number of Standards Development Committees, recently which were strengthened with an increased 50% presence of persons with disabilities to participate as voting members. Each Standards Development Committee is supported by a group of expert advisors, as well as Ministry staff and members of the main Accessibility Standards Advisory Committee that is in place to advise the Minister, who is currently Madeleine Meullieur who also holds the position of Minister of Community and Social Services.

Standards Development Committees currently exist in five social areas: customer service, information & communications, transportation, built environment and employment. Each Standards Development Committee works within its own context, as well as works with other committees to coordinate the development of accessibility standards for Ontario. This is a very interesting and consultative public process, whereas at the end of the day, ordinary people from all walks of life with a strong component of persons with disabilities will be making law for businesses, transportation services, municipalities, public services, employers and others that interact in any way with Ontarians that have any kind of disability. The definition of disability is the same definition that is currently applied by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

In general, I feel this is something that is being done right in many ways. It is hoped by disability advocates, persons with disabilities and the organizations that serve them that at the end of the day, the new laws will be as broad and encompassing as existing court-made law and human rights law, using the same tests from leading cases and Tribunal rulings in a variety of matters. It is an exciting process, but because it is new - no government in the Western world has tried to achieve the same result as intended by the AODA ... so there will be speed bumps along the way. For me, the important thing is to maintain that key communication and consultation vehicle with persons with disabilities, not just organizations but *any* person with a disability that wants to be heard. It is also very important to ensure that input from persons with a variety of disabilities encompassing the full range of disabilities outlined by the Human Rights Code are heard. One of the issues I often encounter when dealing with municipal accessibility advisory committees (which are mandated under the Act for any community with a population of 10,000 people or more) is that the focus tends to be on physical access, but not the broader issues of accessibility that the provincial standards development committees are attempting to work on.

Niagara Region - for example - has not taken a broader approach in its definition, selection and application of setting accessibility guidelines and action plans for the municipalities affected. This is by no means a criticism, but it is something that takes considerable forethought and awareness in order to determine what the broader accessibility issues are. One of the main issues I have with respect to Niagara's determination process is that it fails to include a number of real barriers that truly hinder a significant number of persons with disabilities from fully participating and enjoying full citizenship. Transportation is believed to be only a barrier for persons with severe mobility disabilities that must be transported to medical appointments, then recently as an afterthought, trip purposes for employment and educational purposes were added. However, their eligibility criteria remains strict and tends to utilize an unworkable definition as to who is and who is not eligible. In short, if you want to become eligible for Niagara's specialized inter-municipal transit service, you have to be unable to walk so many metres (as believed to be the average distance between bus stops) or to board a regular bus (even those with a lift). When Niagara Region does not have a regular or conventional transit service to which to compare in order to determine such eligibility on this criteria, it finds itself in conflict with most accessibility and human rights standards I am aware of ... because to me, accessibility ALSO means AVAILABILITY.

Niagara Region is the only incorporated regional municipality in Ontario that does not have its own inter-municipal transit service. I have copies of over twenty reports written over the past thirty-five years that indicate that such an inter-municipal transit service is not only a good idea, but a necessity for the Region. But let's look at access for persons with disabilities first, which also affects other kinds of access as well which are also important. Most persons with disabilities are NOT eligible for the specialized service. From my last read, there were just over 700 regular users of the service, when during the 2005 AODA or Bill 118 Hearings, we learnt that over 50,000 to 60,000 persons in the region live with at least one disabling condition. In addition to the reports, I also have anecdotal proposals and initial evaluation reports of what has become known as the Niagara Job Bus. While certainly not a long-term solution by any stretch of the imagination, the Job Bus has led to significant enough numbers of people being removed from the welfare rolls ... it more than paid for itself. These evaluations were only based on the results of service to two communities, Fort Erie and Port Colborne. I don't know which vehicles are being used for the Job Bus and if such vehicles are accessible, i. e. have a lift and space within to secure a wheelchair or scooter. This is certainly an important consideration, but the long term goal should be a fully accessible, available, convenient and affordable inter-municipal transit service that serves all of Niagara's twelve municipalities, perhaps starting with its biggest four, then expanding west until all communities are involved.

The problem with Niagara's specialized transit service is that although they are now permitting trips for employment or educational purposes, I don't sense there will be a lot of uptake with its current clients. There may be a few, but an expansion of the eligibility criteria or better yet - a conventional service that serves everybody, augmented by the specialized service for those that cannot use the broader conventional system, will benefit almost all people with disabilities (and others). The definitions for employment and education for those reliant on the specialized service are also relatively stringent, leaving it difficult for somebody who works out of more than one location or may only need to travel out of town once or twice a week, for example, to be eligible for those trips. People with disabilities do not fit any mold, despite our broader society trying to impose the same.

What happens to persons with disabilities that are not eligible for the specialized transit service? It has actually been stated that they were supposed to rely on the mythical "family and friends" that are always supposed to step in to help, or use taxis. If the person is on Ontario Disability Support Program assistance, they can use a taxi and direct bill it to O.D.S.P. if the trip is a pre-approved medical trip. However, those same people cannot direct bill O.D.S.P. or anybody else if the trip is for any other purpose, such as school or employment. It is even more difficult for people who are self-employed and have a disability in Niagara. Because most businesses involve some commute from one part of the region to another, it is difficult for the disabled entrepreneur to function without having a driver's license and a vehicle. It is true that some businesses can be designed so that clients and customers come to them or the person can telecommute and work online, but this is not the majority. It assumes that ALL of the disabled entrepreneur's customers are mobile themselves and can get to the disabled person's home or work site to receive service or that all work can be done online. In my practice, about 80% of my clients can probably come to my office, but I have to visit them about 10 - 20% of the time in order to deliver service and without a vehicle, this is very costly for me. Also, because Niagara Region has implored itself to divide into north and south, we serve two judicial districts meaning there is no transportation available for myself or any of my clients to travel from one judicial district to the other unless they had a vehicle.

There are thousands of people in the Niagara Region who for disability reasons alone cannot drive a vehicle. The reasons may be temporary or permanent and they vary from person to person as to what the condition is and why the license has been suspended. Thousands more have been advised or cautioned by their physicians not to drive due to disability or medical conditions or have self-excluded as a result of a variety of issues, such as side effects of medication or chronic pain. Most of these individuals who have been suspended or cautioned do not have mobility impairments that would make them eligible for the Niagara Specialized Transit service. Many are blind which in itself does not make one eligible. Others are simply aged and experiencing the first stages of a dementia whereby they may not be able to navigate transportation services, even if they were available. These people are also not eligible. Others may have mental health or chronic pain difficulties that result in the need for sedating medications that interfere with sleep and can make it hazardous to drive. Some are suspended and some are simply cautioned. Niagara's physicians tend to prefer cautioning as opposed to outright suspension because they are well aware of Niagara's poor transportation system and are only likely to report if the health condition deems the patient a safety risk, although many of my clients will argue with that one ;-)

Add to this the obvious barrier that many persons with disabilities face with poverty, even if they have no driving restrictions. According to CAA, it costs over $7,800 a year on average to own and maintain a vehicle. Low-income people often drive vehicles that are in poor condition that require expensive repairs and may be off the road for lengthy periods. If they seek financing at all, they are unlikely to find financing at favourable rates and many are stuck into high short-term leases. Many low-income drivers that I know do not have insurance and many of them are driving under suspension for unpaid fines. These circumstances are for the "lucky" ones that can afford to keep a vehicle at all. Most people on O.D.S.P. or Ontario Works cannot afford to own a vehicle at all. Many can't even afford bus fare to get around in their own communities, although some employment programs (but not all) do cover bus fare for short periods of time. Therefore, accessibility concerns must also include availability as a key requirement.

In terms of employment, people with disabilities do not do very well either. As a whole, twice as many persons with disabilities are not working than persons without disabilities. About half of the persons with disabilities recently surveyed for the PALS Survey are "out of the labour force". While there was not a lot of detail provided as to why there are a substantial number of persons with disabilities who are "out of the labour force" specifically in the PALS survey, other parts to this survey and other unrelated studies possibly give an indication as to reasons. While some are simply unable to work due to their disabilities or health conditions, others report barriers, such as inadequate transportation, impact of employment on income support benefits, impact of employment on subsidized housing, lack of training for what employers are expecting, perception of discrimination against people with disabilities (while many have also actually experienced discrimination), caregiving responsibilities and so forth. There are also twice as many disabled persons who identify as being in the labour force but who are unemployed than those without disabilities. Among those who are working, some surveys have suggested that up to a third or more feel they are overqualified for the jobs they are doing.

These statistics are well-known in policy circles. Another study sponsored by the Abilities Foundation (and available in my office) that was also completed online and with focus groups asked persons with disabilities who were working or were in the labour force to any extent a number of questions. It was learnt from that survey that those that had jobs tended not to find them with the assistance of employment agencies. This also appears to be true through my own informal discussions among my clients with disabilities. One fellow in particular recently told me how many agencies he tried to work with in order to find a job, but none were successful in placing him. He did however find a job when a friend of his told him a particular employer was hiring, then he applied directly to that employer and was hired. He later lost that job only to be hired at another firm where he is currently working and providing the same type of service. However, for the majority of persons with disabilities, there is not a lot of help out there. This is not a condemnation of the folks that try to support people to return to work, but a reflection of how little their work has influenced the workings of the labour market, which is why making all these accessibility regulations are essential. This has to come from employers themselves.

Employers put up a range of barriers, often times without being aware of it. I have read job ads that were progressive in nature, high paying but when required qualifications were spelled out, several items stood out that would exclude rather than include a lot of people, including people with disabilities. In that same ad, ironically, is a statement at the bottom of it stating how they are an "equal opportunity employer". When I speak with people with disabilities, they generally do not apply for these jobs, because they fear if they raise the issue of access or accommodations (such as the possibility of job sharing, task switching, minor job modifications, etc.), they feel they would not get the job at all. In Niagara Region, we have a disproportionate number of people on Ontario Works (many with disabilities that are for some reason unable to get on to other programs), as well as Ontario Disability Support Program. It is also stated in Niagara Region's most recent statistical report that the rate of growth (or the rate of increases in the number of persons) receiving or getting approved for O.D.S.P. is also disproportionately high in Niagara Region. Our overall unemployment rate tends to be higher than average, as well, our average annual income is among the lowest in Ontario.

There are many reasons for this that people like me raise again and again to what seems to be deaf ears among Niagara employers and even to some extent, political leaders. When a company moves to Niagara-on-the-Lake, for example, where there is no transit service going to and from it, only people who drive can access these jobs. Other employers unequivocally require all candidates to agree to work all shifts, which for some people with disabilities (and others with care-giving responsibilities) is a barrier. Call centres for example have day shift and afternoon shifts. I have spoken to a number of students that would love to work the afternoon shifts as they have classes during the day, but these employers appeared to be reluctant to hire them on the real or imagined necessity of every last employee having to work all shifts. Others can only work days as it fits with their daycare arrangements. To me, something as simple as allowing some shift accommodations would open the jobs to more people, many of whom are likely self-excluding now when they read "must work all shifts". For other jobs, most of which are the better paying jobs, require all candidates to have a driver's license and their own vehicle. In a dual income family, this would involve a household owning two vehicles, which according to CAA's last survey, the cost of vehicle ownership tends to exceed $7,800 a year. This leaves out: most people on social assistance, many people with disabilities and most people who recently graduated from a university or college and are carrying an exceptional debt load. Employers need to *carefully* consider this requirement. These qualifications are not just for taxi, courier and delivery companies. I've seen these qualifications stated for a very broad range of jobs, from education, social services, public relations, business management, administrative assistant, legal secretary and many more. While some of this also means Niagara Region needs to improve its transportation services, employers *also* have the responsibility to ensure their jobs are accessible as possible to the broadest range of qualified persons. Bona fide occupational requirement is in part settled by the Supreme Court in several of its decisions, as well as some Tribunal decisions impacting on gender, disability and age. As a result of vehicle requirements, I know many people in this region who are severely under-employed or who spend significant periods of time out of work. They again may hold all of the qualifications for the job, but will self-exclude because they feel the employer will not even consider them.

One needs to ask why 1 out of 6 Ontario O.S.D.P. households have a university education, while at the same time, a politically incorrect but necessary examination of existing senior employees of the public service, non-profit agencies and regulated industries needs to be done to learn of actual qualifications held by all of them. We learnt from the high profile Walkerton tainted water affair that the top guys that were looking after the water supply for that community had no qualifications. We learnt of several privately run retirement homes hiring people with little or no qualifications to provide health care to residents. We learnt of some mental health organizations that hold the ideology that all that is important is one's personal contact with the mental health system as a means to qualify for a job in working with vulnerable persons. My own profession has recently been regulated because of a few 'bad apples' that knew little of the law and seriously harmed their clients. Yet, 1 in 6 household heads on O.D.S.P. have university education that is either not being utilized or substantially under-utilized. Politicians talk about critical skills shortages in almost every sector, yet very little is being done to: (a) ensure people who get jobs that entail responsibility involving money, people or policies that affect people are qualified; and (b) to ensure that qualified persons who are under-utilized in the labour force for reasons of disability, age or country of origin access these positions. Some of this has to do with the inner workings of some of these organizations, or what some refer to as 'organizational culture'. Some of it has to do with barriers that are presented and prevent qualified persons from accessing the position or opportunity. Some of it may also involve the need to change some policies, such as how earned income affects O.D.S.P. and C.P.P. supports. Regardless of the source of this "disconnect", it needs to be corrected YESTERDAY!

I don't have all the answers. However, I do believe that moving toward the regulation of various social sectors to improve access to all Ontarians is the right move. I don't feel it is happening fast enough to satisfy me, or many of the people I work with; however, I also know how important the educational and consultative component is when imposing these regulations. Most of these regulations will cost an employer nothing, other than taking a little forethought and planning their workforce more inclusively. Some accommodations may cost something (though most studies show the majority of accommodations that cost money are under $500), and hopefully - to be fair - if there *is* a significant cost incurred or significant expenses become necessary in order to comply with any of these regulations, that those who comply are consequently rewarded or given some kind of break or financial assistance in order to assist them in meeting their requirements.

This is not rocket science. Ontario is trying to move beyond the 21st Century. It is hoping we will be there by 2025, a long ways away -- but it hopes to make incremental changes that will be noticeable as we reach that stage. Niagara has to move beyond the nineteenth century and open its eyes to opportunities that are here within the region already ... or risk the very people who are currently feeling excluded moving away and leaving it in the dust for years to come. The time is NOW for progress. The time is NOW to act. The time for defining accessibility beyond the obvious physical barriers in all aspects of its operations and sphere of influence is NOW. I speak for many of those who 'self-exclude'. Because for most of them, they feel if they approach an employer to ask if accommodations can be made regarding a listed requirement, they will NOT get the job. That's why they don't ask. That's why more and more people are relying on O.D.S.P. or staying on Ontario Works or switching between Ontario Works and low-wage temporary employment. The issue is that because more and more people -- up to one third of the labour force are involved in precarious arrangements (and becoming more common every year) - means there are less taxes being paid and less money will be around in a short period of time when we will need it to finance our future and ageing population. The time is NOW to think ahead. The time is NOW to include, accommodate and facilitate ... because our future is NOW.

Your thoughts?

OPEN LETTER TO DALTON MCGUINTY

Dear Dalton McGuinty:

Last year about this time, your government extended its sitting in the House to ram through a substantial 27% pay increase for yourself and other MPPs. Your argument was that if this did not take place, the legislature would have difficulty attracting competent candidates. At the same time this raise was being debated, a Private Member's Bill was in the house, which if passed, would hike the minimum wage to $10 per hour. Certainly, it was no coincidence that no debate took place on that minimum wage Bill, while the rest of your Government took the raise. Personally, Dalton, I would do your job for the salary it was prior to your raise without a complaint. So would millions of other Ontarians, many of whom also are skilled, competent leaders and professionals.

You may respond to this by saying that in October 2007, Ontarians gave your Government a second mandate, somehow excusing the fact that your pay raise was "approved" by the public. I dispute that. Of the total number of eligible voters, only 52% of them bothered to cast a ballot, and among these people - only 42% voted for candidates in your Party. This is hardly a majority mandate, but then again - very few governments have been elected on a true majority basis. However, given this fact, please note that I read the polls differently, and I certainly hope that as the Leader of the Province, you do too and will govern in the interests of all, not just those doing financially well. I am referring to the Poor.

An interesting proposal came from your recent Throne Speech on your Government's plans to develop and set targets with respect to the reduction of poverty in Ontario. Some might have referred to this as the 25 in 5 Plan, which was promoted by groups like Campaign 2000. If your intent is to reduce poverty by 25% in the first five years, please tell me where I can get in line and be among your first. I am well-educated, highly literate, possess excellent organizational and communication skills, and have held senior level positions in various organizations in the past, holding titles including Executive Director, National Coordinator, Policy Analyst, Policy Facilitator, Organizational Development Consultant, Senior Moderator, President & CEO, as well as at present, Independent Paralegal.

I know the English language quite well, and can speak and read passably in French (though I am by no means bilingual). I read three newspapers a day, listen to two news broadcasts a day and read a novel or two every week. I have also been published numerous times in forums, ranging from street newspapers, newsmagazines, academic peer review journals and daily newspapers. I work with people ranging from those living on the streets to people who are presidents of their own companies. I treat everybody I work with well, as well as deal respectfully with parties my clients have concerns to address with. I also moderate several Internet forums on a range of topics; my reading audience from all of my moderated groups exceeds 10,000 readers.

I have no criminal record, nor have I ever had any civil judgment against me. The last time I checked, I had a good credit rating. I have managed budgets in the multi-million dollar range, as well as those budgets of only a few hundred thousand. The audits of these organizations have always indicated my management skills were excellent and accurate. I am also the type of person who could find a purse or a wallet, bearing hundreds or even thousands of dollars ... but my only interest would be to return it intact to its owner.

So, why Mr. Premier, am I seeing people who have poor qualifications, inadequate education and/or have some criminal record being hired in responsible positions, where they have some control over money, or worse, people's lives? Don't tell me this doesn't happen - while this is not the forum to name names or to "out" any organization, but legal actions have been filed against organizations repeatedly because of decisions the organization made that hurt somebody, or has had legal implications. In none of these actions were any of the people responsible ever fired or charged with anything; even when they have proven themselves to be serial workplace bullies, or just plain incompetent, they are still the ones that get to stay in the organization, not the person or persons they have hurt. The decisions to hire these people in the first place are purely political and have nothing to do with that specific person's actual ability to deliver. Yet, while this is going on, many people like me, as well as those people who were bullied, are sitting in the sidelines, receiving ODSP or other forms of assistance, wanting nothing more than to work in a decently paid job that we know we are capable of handling.

Most members of your caucus are university graduates, whether that be in law, medicine, education, business or social work. Pre-election jobs range from Lawyer to Nurse to Business Owner to Administrator; however, I have yet to see somebody get elected whose last job was working at McDonald's flipping burgers. At some point, when you folks either leave politics behind or get voted out, whatever happens first, I can bet my whole life that none of you - absolutely NONE of you, will be seeking work at Starbucks, McDonald's, Wal-Mart or one of the numerous call centres that are set up. Why should you? You are educated. You are experienced, and you have many other skills. I can't argue with that. But, what makes somebody like me, as well as many of my cohorts, who also have advanced skills, any different? We have the same skills, many with even a higher education than I have, but we are all shuffled off to work for Starbucks, McDonald's, Wal-Mart and many of the call centres. Why is it good enough for you folks to demand and be placed in a post-political career that suits your skills and salary needs, while it is not good enough for us to expect and want a similar career - and have help obtaining it?

If your answer is that somebody has to do the scut work, then why does it have to be us? There are many people who do not have skills, or who just need a temporary job while they upgrade their education to the point they can accept a higher paid job. There are others who have dropped out of high school, who do not have the motivation to learn or to finish their education, for whatever reason, who can probably do this type of work until they either climb the corporate ladder, learn a trade or decide to further their education. I am often accused of bias, but then again - I ask why am I being discriminated against in the workplace because I am overqualified, while the jobs that are out there that I can do and pay well tend to value somebody with a driver's license more than a university degree? It is my understanding that if driving a vehicle is not a bona fide occupational requirement, then they cannot require a candidate to have a driver's licence. This is done all the time to people with disabilities, and then study after study is done asking why people with disabilities have a lower workplace participation rate than people without disabilities. When is that going to change?

I certainly hope that it will in MY lifetime.

I note your Government is making efforts at recognizing the credentials of many newcomers who have earned various degrees and professional skills outside of Canada. However, it is time that your Government begins to recognize the credentials of people with disabilities who have earned them, usually here in this country, and will work with them to obtain work that resembles their chosen field, thus getting us truly out of poverty.

If your Government does not want to see newcomers with high level skills working at driving taxis, cleaning hotels, working at McDonalds, etc., which is a fine goal that I also agree with, why is it okay to push people with disabilities in this direction regardless of how much education, how many skills and what our career aspirations are? When are we going to be heard?

Once again, when your Government starts to reduce Ontario's poverty rate, I want to be first in line. Just tell me where to sign up.

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:

1. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS

In Ontario, the Employment Supports component of the Ontario Disability Support Program has substantially changed in April 2006. As a result of this, many agencies, including my own, were terminated for no good reason. For those left wanting to continue to provide services, the funding arrangements were changed to a performance only based model. That means, the agency in question will not get paid a dime until they are able to place a client for a period of at least thirteen weeks in a job!

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?