When the B.C. government went looking for input about increasing accessibility for disabled people, it heard plenty about making its own systems easier for clients to navigate.
One of the themes from thousands of comments solicited while putting together a discussion paper on the topic was that clients wanted more accessible service delivery, from better-trained staff using better-designed delivery systems.
“Participants frequently commented that it was exhausting to have to explain again and again what their disability entailed to different government organizations.”
At the same time the consultation was underway, auditor general Russ Jones was independently reviewing the disability-assistance program. He delivered an audit last week that put an exclamation mark on some of the early findings about the way clients view the system.
He pointedly noted that the financial support rates for shelter and basic necessities under the program have not increased since 2007. It’s a complex program facing an increased demand for services, but funding is limited.
Seven years without an increase would make it clear to almost everyone that the program’s ability to meet people’s needs has been compromised. But Jones found that the Social Development Ministry hadn’t defined the extent to which basic needs should be met in the first place. It has limited information on how effective the program is in helping people.
The impression is left that the ministry has set benefit limits at an arbitrary level based on what the government can afford, and hasn’t got much hard information on whether it’s enough.
The audit found there is no comprehensive evaluation of the program outcomes. “The ministry has not clearly defined objectives for clients, nor confirmed a suite of standard measurements and corresponding targets to gauge results.”
It does track some indicators, and the ministry’s own data suggest that some basic needs aren’t met. For example, by the ministry’s own report, 69 per cent of clients pay more for shelter than the maximum. And 65 per cent of them live below the low-income cutoff, understood by many to be the poverty line.
The monthly support for persons with disabilities is $531 and the maximum shelter amount is $375, for a total of $906. It’s fifth among provinces. There are various supplementary benefits for health supplies, medical premium coverage and transportation, and clients can earn up to $800 a month without losing benefits.
The current caseload is 95,000 people — it has doubled in 10 years — and the program costs $1 billion a year.
As for delivering the program to clients, the audit expected the system should be simple and accessible, given the challenges they face.
The finding: “It’s not.”
There’s a five-step process that includes online, telephone, personal meetings and mail to apply for and maintain benefits. It’s not always accessible for everyone. Clients often need help using a system that is “administratively complex and difficult to navigate.”
The ministry’s written response to the findings pins a lot of hope on the conclusion of the disability discussion paper. It begs off the question of a rate hike by saying other ministries also serve the disabled and a “holistic assessment” would be necessary to understand the range of supports available.
On the key recommendation about measuring whether the program is meeting clients’ needs, the ministry promised to expand the number of indicators now in use. It will work with other agencies tracking health and social indicators to see if it can use the information.
The government has put a lot of emphasis on the discussion paper. It was promised during the election campaign, with a view toward making B.C. the most progressive jurisdiction in Canada for people with disabilities. The provincewide consultation will culminate in a day-long summit meeting June 16 devoted to meeting that goal.
The government noted in the process that it is committed to balancing the budget, so talk of improving accessibility “must include an honest conversation on how this fiscal commitment can be met.”
It’s not up to an auditor general to recommend a rate increase. That’s a policy decision that is outside his authority. But everything in the report suggests it’s time for one.
