Reforming the Disability Support Program must be a BIG part of overhauling the Dept of Community Services

 

 By Kendall Worth

 

Over the years, much of my writing and advocacy has focused on the need for a major reform of the Department of Community Services, including many long overdue changes to different programs. Today’s blog focuses on the Disability Support Program (DSP).   

I want to start off by letting readers know a bit about the DSP.  As the Government website explains, the DSP “serves children, youth and adults with intellectual disabilities, long-term mental illness and physical disabilities” with various programs. These include community-based, residential and vocational / day programs.

However, as I discussed in last month’s BLOG, much needs to be done to reform the Disability Support Program.

Most fundamentally, many Persons with Disabilities have been making the case that Nova Scotia should replace its miserly DSP payments with a living allowance for Persons with Disabilities. Such an allowance would enable Persons with Disabilities to actually meet ALL their basic requirements of life. This idea has been around for years, sometimes as part of a broader discussion of “a universal basic income” program for all Canadians, and sometimes with specific reference to persons with disabilities. In 2018, in an article in the Nova Scotia Advocate, I addressed what a living allowance for Persons with Disabilities could look like.

The recent announcement of a $300 supplement to Income Assistance for those who cannot work but are not currently in the Disability Support Program was a good first step. But there are bigger issues related to DSP that need to be addressed. Given the marginalised situation of Persons with Disabilities in Nova Scotia, I strongly believe that overhauling the DSP should be the next step in the long process of reforming the Department of Community Services.

Let me share the issues and concerns with DSP that I have heard directly from a large number of people in my community. They have identified a number of systematic barriers and bureaucratic nonsense that constrain access and limit effectiveness of these programs.

Many of these issues are not new: in 2018 I wrote an open letter to the Minister of Community Services that was published in the Nova Scotia Advocate. In the letter, I addressed issues with the Flex Program.  That program is supposed to provide a flexible funding window through which Nova Scotians living with disabilities can access supports customised to their needs. But access to Flex funding remains highly restrictive and the amounts totally inadequate.

Other issues with DSP programs that warrant attention and action include:

●  There is too much uncertainty and confusion in the community with regards to who amongst Income Assistance recipients can access the different DSP programs. If there are qualifying and disqualifying types of disabilities, there needs to be much greater clarity on the criteria and definitions.

●  There needs to be greater scope for third-party advocates to support the applications of Income Assistance recipients to qualify for DSP programs and benefits. People often struggle with the many bureaucratic requirements but support organizations are limited in what they can do. Even Constituency Offices of elected MLAs struggle to support the applications of local residents with disabilities.

●  Some Persons with Disabilities have proposed that some of the non-financial services offered through DSP should be shifted over to the Dept of Health and Wellness which seems to have a more client-centred way of dealing with people that does the Dept of Community Services.

●  The review process under DSP programs also appears to be much more onerous than the regular Income Assistance review.  Under Income Assistance there is an annual review process that as I have written in the past is very intrusive and problematic.  Under DSP, the review process is EVEN MORE intrusive and can include many more visits, including regular – even weekly - visits of the case worker to the clients’ homes. Are such regular and intrusive reviews REALLY a requirement for being a client of DSP? If so, this practice really needs to change.

●  There seems to be a wide disparity in terms of the payments and allowances that individuals receive under the different DSP programs. The standard household rate on Income Assistance is clear: $950 a month. However, under DSP, there seem to be wide variations of benefits received with no obvious clarity or criteria. Some DSP clients report that they receive a monthly $125 Accessibility Allowance. Others somehow qualify for a $415 Personal Allowance. Others receive a monthly Rent Allowance of $1800. When talking with Persons with Disabilities who try to access these programs, decisions about eligibility and amounts seem to be opaque, inconsistent and unfair. What can be done to standardize these different programs and make the process more transparent?

●  Some applicants to DSP programs have been informed that acceptance into DSP favours or prioritises those who are living in a group home or small options home. This strikes me as a huge insult to those living with disabilities who are able – or who aspire - to live Independently.  Do not get me wrong, I certainly do not begrudge support for those living in group homes or other facilities. But I think every effort should be made to support those with disabilities who chose to live independently.

●  This brings me to my final concern: I have heard from several members of my Community that once accepted into the DSP, the policies and procedures then make it difficult for a client to pro-actively try to improve their life by going back to school, getting a job or doing volunteer work in the community. The constraints and penalties under DSP show no respect for clients undertaking these sorts of personal improvement and quality of life initiatives.

Given all these different concerns with DSP being expressed by members of my community, I felt it necessary to present these in a single, summary blog.  Recipients of social assistance are already stigmatized in society, as I have written about here and here. They should not be further abused by unclear, restrictive and punitive policies that both limit access to programs and diminish the possibility of positive impact.  Major changes are required to DSP policies and procedures, and the community needs to be better informed of the terms and conditions of the different programs.

In these unhappy circumstances, I do not see another way forward other than a full review and revision of the Disability Support Program as part of the much larger and long overdue “transformation” of the Dept of Community Services.

 Kendall Worth is an award-winning anti-poverty activist who lives with disabilities and tries to make ends meet on income assistance.