Christy Clark must hate disabled folks getting bus passes

[Urbane]

It wasn't as easy as I thought it would be but thought I would try to find out what some other provinces are providing in terms of monthly benefits for the disabled. I couldn't find a single chart anywhere and there are factors (e.g. bus passes) which make it difficult to compare apples to apples. However, for what it's worth here's what I came up with - rates for a single person:

BC $906.42


Alberta $1,588


Saskatchewan $931 – 1,064


Manitoba $894


Ontario $1,110


Quebec $471.40

PEI

a) 75% or more functioning (High) $ 400.00/month

b) 51-74% functioning (Moderate) 800.00/month

c) 26-50% functioning (Low) 1,600.00/month

d) 25% or less functioning (Very Low) 3,100.00/month (overall program funding ceiling)

Nova Scotia

$508 (up to $740 depending on need to rent / own some sort of home)

- Dental plan and extra money provided for phone, clothing, and some other areas

New Brunswick $663

ETA: Maybe others will do some research as well and fine tune and/or correct any of the above numbers. At first glance it looks like BC is providing an amount to the disabled that's not out of line with other provinces.

[GordonH]

It wasn't as easy as I thought it would be but thought I would try to find out what some other provinces are providing in terms of monthly benefits for the disabled. I couldn't find a single chart anywhere and there are factors (e.g. bus passes) which make it difficult to compare apples to apples. However, for what it's worth here's what I came up with - rates for a single person:

BC $906.42


Alberta $1,588


Saskatchewan $931 – 1,064


Manitoba $894


Ontario $1,110


Quebec $471.40

PEI

a) 75% or more functioning (High) $ 400.00/month

b) 51-74% functioning (Moderate) 800.00/month

c) 26-50% functioning (Low) 1,600.00/month

d) 25% or less functioning (Very Low) 3,100.00/month (overall program funding ceiling)

Nova Scotia

$508 (up to $740 depending on need to rent / own some sort of home)

- Dental plan and extra money provided for phone, clothing, and some other areas

New Brunswick $663

ETA: Maybe others will do some research as well and fine tune and/or correct any of the above numbers. At first glance it looks like BC is providing an amount to the disabled that's not out of line with other provinces.

Looking over those numbers (thank-you for finding this Urbane) those with disabilities deserve National standard, from sea to sea to sea.

[Veovis]

Looking over those numbers (thank-you for finding this Urbane) those with disabilities deserve National standard, from sea to sea to sea.

I'm not certain that would be any form of solution as costs are far different in different provinces, however when it comes to individuals with disabilities some form of country wide standards might be a good idea.

For instance the different levels in PEI. Though I completely understand the idea, the High/Medium/Low functioning evaluations are subject to some situations that seem really cut and dried and some that really won't be and someone changing the level and calling people no longer Medium as a cost savings measure (with some small study to back it up) is a concern that could occur.

[rustled]

I agree with your point about the different costs, Veovis. We already contend with a one-size-fits-all payment despite the varying costs to live in different areas of the province, along with varying availability of services. Many of these services are subcontracted to various agencies. We're fortunate to live in a well-supported community, but I've lived in other areas of the province which aren't so lucky. Many disabled people must move away from their familiar environments and all the supports they're already accustomed to, in order to access the services they need.

While the financial side of the equation is important, it's all of these services that, as Urbane alluded to, make it really difficult to compare apples to apples. That disparity of available services makes it impossible to come up with a financial equation that makes practical sense for all.

And then there's "need" itself. If we consider the wide range of services actually needed to assist those with different physical disabilities, never mind those with cognitive impairments (everything from constant care to occasional support for independent living), it's really difficult to visualize any financial equation or system that's flexible enough to work reasonably well for most.

There is no perfect solution, but from experience I'd say the less flexible the system is, the more people will fall through the cracks. On the other hand, I share your concerns about the PEI model.

Our own system seems to be moving toward treating people less like widgets, and more like human beings with varying abilities and varying needs. It's a trend I hope will continue.

[mysideofthings]

The amount a person in BC starts at who has PWD status is currently as low as $906.42. There are some supplements people can get depending on their needs (medical conditions) where a person has to meet specific criteria to qualify for.

A person who is able to work can now make up to $800 a month or $9600 a year; it used to be $500 a month.

The issue is more along the lines of the cost of living, food prices, and everything else increasing while the disability amount remains the same which leaves a person on PWD at or below poverty level. The shelter portion is only $375, meaning that if a person lives on $906.42 a month, they are expected to use $375 of that to go towards rent or a mortgage and use the rest for food and bills. So, when the average cost of a one bedroom suite in many BC towns is $800+ (which doesn't often include utilities), that is a problem.

Not only that, but the supports really are inadequate as well for those who have a mental health issue OR physical or developmental issues. If you are on PWD and have mental health issues, you can see a psychiatrist for free and get meds, but you cannot access an actual therapist; you will pay out of pocket for that.

As for supports for those with physical/cognitive disabilities, I currently have an uncle who is no longer able to work after a stroke. He has mobility issues and cannot speak. He doesn't qualify for assisted living, and there is a very long wait for housing through BC housing. He will be living alone as long as he is safe enough to and having support daily for a few hours (if that ends up happening), but there are long wait lists (months or longer) for other services he needs ASAP like physiotherapy and speech therapy as well as other community activities he can access. Not only that, but the referral process and trying to navigate that system has been another nightmare, trying to figure out who can refer him to what program, who is in charge of doing what with his case, etc.

Now that they are changing the bus pass program and he only lives on $906.42 a month (all of which will be going towards rent at this point), family members will have to pay for the extras (which it's great that it can be done but still shows how inadequate disability amounts are overall when they don't cover the cost of monthly rent, utilities, and food). For a person in his situation, that 'extra' $77 won't do ANYTHING in the end. It just takes more money from his overall monthly amount which isn't even enough to live on to start with. His entire check will be eaten up in rent (oh, and I guess now that 'subsidized' bus pass), leaving the rest to come out of family members' pockets just so he can eat. And for people who don't HAVE family to help them with food and don't have others to live with, it's NOT okay. NONE of this is okay.

So, for anyone who thinks that things are actually changing for the better for those who are vulnerable and on PWD in BC, I am sorry to say that it is not. I have been on PWD since around 2003, and very little has changed within that system. There is not enough help really in any part of the system, and if you have seen otherwise, you must be one of the lucky ones.

[rustled]

You've done a good job of describing a lot of what goes on, mysideofthings.

Just to clarify, the change to the $9,600 threshold (instead of the former threshold of $800 per month) is quite an improvement. People who are able to earn are now able to keep more of what they earn, up to $9,600 more. That is a good thing, and it's important for those reading these threads who aren't aware of the change, to know about it.

Likewise, the asset increase, allowing people who can save to keep a lot more of what they've saved (or inherited, or been gifted), instead of having to spend it before accessing benefits: that is a good thing, too.

Giving everyone a transportation stipend instead of only giving bus passes to those who can use them is an improvement, too.
Of course, if you've always had access to a bus pass, and you never did realize that you were accessing a benefit unavailable to many, you might see it as a negative that now everyone is simply given the money instead. But those who still think it is unfair might imagine this:

Your place of employment has always covered the cost of parking for its employees. When the human resources department reviews the benefit package, they realize only 4 out of 10 of their employees drive to work, and they decide it would be more fair to give everyone money instead (enough to cover parking, maybe a little more). There's no actual loss to the people who have always had free parking, but now they feel terribly wronged. Should they still get free parking, and the money, too? Most reasonable people wouldn't think so.

That's pretty close to what's happened here. And what's gotten lost in this "its just so unfair!" argument is the far more important issue. For most, the entire benefit package is still inadequate.

Most people on disability are badly in need of a raise. We also need more people working the front lines to shorten lineups and wait lists. The ministry's labyrinth is far too difficult to navigate, and the whole system relies much too heavily on computers, entirely inappropriate for those with cognitive impairment and probably for many with physical impairments, too. The decisions made are often very disconnected from the realities facing the people the system is intended to serve.

No, there is not enough help in any part of the system for most of the people who need it. (I say "most" because those with the most severe disabilities are relatively well looked after.)

Anyone who's had to help friends and family deal with the system welcomes any improvements they do come across. We know full well there's still plenty of room for more improvement.

But raising a hullabaloo about the switch from bus passes to money is just soapbox politicking, nothing more. Those grandstanding on this issue have no genuine interest in fixing any of the very real problems facing those on disability.

[mysideofthings]

You've done a good job of describing a lot of what goes on, mysideofthings.

Just to clarify, the change to the $9,600 threshold (instead of the former threshold of $800 per month) is quite an improvement. People who are able to earn are now able to keep more of what they earn, up to $9,600 more. That is a good thing, and it's important for those reading these threads who aren't aware of the change, to know about it.

Technically, it's not really a change if you are a person who is able to work. It still amounts to $800 a month and adds up to a total of $9600 a year, so you have to be careful and watch where your annual amount is at or you could end up with ZERO assistance until it resets annually.

Likewise, the asset increase, allowing people who can save to keep a lot more of what they've saved (or inherited, or been gifted), instead of having to spend it before accessing benefits: that is a good thing, too.

That's only really beneficial for people who will ever actually get an inheritance or gift or have the means to somehow save up that amount (hard to do though if you live check to check even with working). It doesn't benefit a lot even though it's a nice 'perk.'

Giving everyone a transportation stipend instead of only giving bus passes to those who can use them is an improvement, too.
Of course, if you've always had access to a bus pass, and you never did realize that you were accessing a benefit unavailable to many, you might see it as a negative that now everyone is simply given the money instead. But those who still think it is unfair might imagine this:

Those who couldn't use a bus pass because there was no public transit in there area, i thought, could get a certain amount to help them with transportation (taxis, etc.).

Your place of employment has always covered the cost of parking for its employees. When the human resources department reviews the benefit package, they realize only 4 out of 10 of their employees drive to work, and they decide it would be more fair to give everyone money instead (enough to cover parking, maybe a little more). There's no actual loss to the people who have always had free parking, but now they feel terribly wronged. Should they still get free parking, and the money, too? Most reasonable people wouldn't think so.

That's pretty close to what's happened here. And what's gotten lost in this "its just so unfair!" argument is the far more important issue. For most, the entire benefit package is still inadequate.

Most people on disability are badly in need of a raise. We also need more people working the front lines to shorten lineups and wait lists. The ministry's labyrinth is far too difficult to navigate, and the whole system relies much too heavily on computers, entirely inappropriate for those with cognitive impairment and probably for many with physical impairments, too. The decisions made are often very disconnected from the realities facing the people the system is intended to serve.

No, there is not enough help in any part of the system for most of the people who need it. (I say "most" because those with the most severe disabilities are relatively well looked after.)

Anyone who's had to help friends and family deal with the system welcomes any improvements they do come across. We know full well there's still plenty of room for more improvement.

are you on disability yourself? or do you work for the ministry? just curious where you are coming from in general.

But raising a hullabaloo about the switch from bus passes to money is just soapbox politicking, nothing more. Those grandstanding on this issue have no genuine interest in fixing any of the very real problems facing those on disability.

[rustled]

I've been responsible for a family member with a developmental disability (high functioning) for over a decade now, and I'm friends with a family with a severe developmental disability. I'm afraid I could never work for the ministry. What a difficult job, especially the front line workers who never have enough time and resources, and so often have to deal with frustrated and desperate people.

Learning how the system works is really tough, isn't it? And keeping up with it is like navigating a minefield.

I understood the $9,600 threshold the way you interpreted it, but I've been assured that it only affects earnings after the $9,600 threshold, not assistance. The worker insisted my family member (let's call her Jane) would be eligible for the standard assistance if she no longer had earnings. She'd lose assistance dollar for dollar that she earned after that. Sounds horrid, doesn't it? She loves to earn her own way as best she can. But the point is, she would be taken care of if there was no more income, she wouldn't be getting "zero" until the annual reset. They made that change because people earning seasonally were often able to keep quite a bit more of their earned money than people who had steady income.

The assets limit won't help everyone, but it will help those who are trying to save and be independent, especially if they have some little windfall to tuck away. And it helps those who are earning to save in case their hours or cut, or the job is no longer suitable for them, etc. Previously, people in Jane's situation always felt they had to spend it or, in effect, lose it because their savings could make themselves ineligible for financial support. Under the old system, the guy who blew it all on a bigger flatscreen was always better off than the saver.

You may be right that there have been some transportation subsidies available in places without transit. If so, I wasn't aware of them (another problem is knowing what you're eligible for). Applying for any of these grants and supplements is another minefield, and I think most people would far rather be given the cash instead.

There are a lot of problems with the system. It's far from perfect. But I'm so very grateful for the agencies we've been able to access since my family member's disability status was reinstated. (Long story, and lord knows how someone born with a permanent disability can ever be dropped from the system in this day and age. And it's happened more than once since, another serious problem that should be rectified.)

I've always said our MLAs and the bureaucrats making the decisions that turn our lives inside out should have to walk a mile in our shoes. I know some have tried living on disability for a month, but that's relatively easy (here's the cheque, here's where you sleep each night) compared to the rest of it. At the very least, they should have to help five people with varying issues gain access to the system to start with. That'd be an eyeopener.

[mysideofthings]

I understood the $9,600 threshold the way you interpreted it, but I've been assured that it only affects earnings after the $9,600 threshold, not assistance. The worker insisted my family member (let's call her Jane) would be eligible for the standard assistance if she no longer had earnings. She'd lose assistance dollar for dollar that she earned after that. Sounds horrid, doesn't it? She loves to earn her own way as best she can. But the point is, she would be taken care of if there was no more income, she wouldn't be getting "zero" until the annual reset. They made that change because people earning seasonally were often able to keep quite a bit more of their earned money than people who had steady income.

Maybe I understood that one wrong. It probably is how you say in that you would still get assistance. So, if a person supplements their PWD amount by working, it still would affect a lot of people who rely on their work income to pay the remainder of bills and buy food that the assistance amount doesn't cover if they go over that annual amount allowed. That's how it is for me anyway. If I didn't work the little I do, there is no way I could pay all the bills and buy food. It kind of creates a whole other level of anxiety for me, also because it runs into January the following year. It kind of confuses me actually more now than it used to.

You may be right that there have been some transportation subsidies available in places without transit. If so, I wasn't aware of them (another problem is knowing what you're eligible for). Applying for any of these grants and supplements is another minefield, and I think most people would far rather be given the cash instead.

Yeah. It was put in place for people in rural areas.

There are a lot of problems with the system. It's far from perfect. But I'm so very grateful for the agencies we've been able to access since my family member's disability status was reinstated. (Long story, and lord knows how someone born with a permanent disability can ever be dropped from the system in this day and age. And it's happened more than once since, another serious problem that should be rectified.)

It's good that you have had some luck with some places. I am still unsure how my uncle will do since he needs a lot of different supports. It's hard having to chase after people for answers for months due to red tape when a person can't advocate for themselves, yet no one else can get too far trying either. I was trying to find some kind of advocate either for caregivers or for him, but there is nothing. Just referred to another place that has nothing to do with people in his kind of situation.

I've always said our MLAs and the bureaucrats making the decisions that turn our lives inside out should have to walk a mile in our shoes. I know some have tried living on disability for a month, but that's relatively easy (here's the cheque, here's where you sleep each night) compared to the rest of it. At the very least, they should have to help five people with varying issues gain access to the system to start with. That'd be an eyeopener.

Definitely.

[rustled]

I'd need to spreadsheet earnings under the new threshold system to see if there'd be a downside for some earners. I suspect you're right that there would be if you consistently made, say, $1,000 per month and relied on all of it. Because you'd reach the threshold before the end of the year, and have to live on only your benefits until the reset date, so if you hadn't saved enough you would be in trouble. Plus, there's no financial incentive for keeping a job if you're no further ahead than you would be if you stayed home. It almost always costs money to get to work (plus little bits here and there), so financially you'd actually lose if you kept the job. So if you're right, that would make it harder for people to convince employers to hire people like Jane.

The confusion around benefits is huge. Uncertainty and stress only add to an already difficult situation. When you know that doing it wrong can cost you everything, it's small wonder people with disabilities often choose to work only to the $800 allowed, even if they are capable of being more self sufficient for periods of time, with the right employer.

After we re-established Jane's designation, I found out the local women's centre in our community could have helped us get through some of the red tape more easily. They helped both men and women, of all ages.

(One of the things they did was work with the area physicians to help them understand what the medical forms meant. A lot of doctors aren't aware of the importance of the forms we bring them, and they don't realize that if they only take a stab at understanding what the government is asking, the words they use can mean a legitimate claim will be denied. Isn't it ridiculous that the wording in those forms is so murky that a doctor can't understand them? We also discovered that if you want the form filled out, don't drop it off. Make an appointment and sit there while it's getting done. And we were glad we took a copy before we submitted it, because bizarre though it may be for a permanent disability, the doctor had to fill it out again in five years and it's helpful for him to know how he worded it the first time around.)

It seems to me that instead of all the people who have to find their way through the maze, it would make sense that there should be advocates in the community. But finding those advocates isn't easy, either.

If I had it to do over, I'd knock on more doors. I'd start out with the community resources centres, contact anyone from child developmental services to seniors advocates, the community living organizations, people who work with the homeless, and even the Boys and Girls clubs. Any of them might not be able to help, or they might send people to the wrong place, but when you're dealing with two levels of government bureaucracy, you really do need all the help you can get.

With a little luck you'll find someone who sits on a community board with someone who can actually help.

[GordonH]

^^^ With everything said in this thread, just knowing any disable person wanting to be independent in City of Kelowna has large item to deal with thats rent.

Finding half descent apartment for under $750 per/month or 9,000 per year (utilities are rarely included), very hard. So to live on the remainder is challenge.

[Veovis]

^^^ With everything said in this thread, just knowing any disable person wanting to be independent in City of Kelowna has large item to deal with thats rent.

Finding half descent apartment for under $750 per/month or 9,000 per year (utilities are rarely included), very hard. So to live on the remainder is challenge.

There is something else that should be broken down by region. (maybe it already is), and that is the amount on assisted living. Be it a home share model, group home etc. Many of the people do not use their small monthly allowance for independently renting in kelowna. Often even the fairly independent ones live in a home share model often governed by CLBC.

There are difficulties certainly, but many will want to paint a far more doom and gloom scenario than actually exists for many individuals.

[GordonH]

^^^ With everything said in this thread, just knowing any disable person wanting to be independent in City of Kelowna has large item to deal with thats rent.

Finding half descent apartment for under $750 per/month or 9,000 per year (utilities are rarely included), very hard. So to live on the remainder is challenge.

There is something else that should be broken down by region. (maybe it already is), and that is the amount on assisted living. Be it a home share model, group home etc. Many of the people do not use their small monthly allowance for independently renting in kelowna. Often even the fairly independent ones live in a home share model often governed by CLBC.

There are difficulties certainly, but many will want to paint a far more doom and gloom scenario than actually exists for many individuals.

1) Independent = not group home
2) no doom & gloom just reality

[mysideofthings]

There is something else that should be broken down by region. (maybe it already is), and that is the amount on assisted living. Be it a home share model, group home etc. Many of the people do not use their small monthly allowance for independently renting in kelowna. Often even the fairly independent ones live in a home share model often governed by CLBC.

There are difficulties certainly, but many will want to paint a far more doom and gloom scenario than actually exists for many individuals.

It all comes down to a person's needs. I don't know what CLBC has for people housing wise with developmental disabilities since it's not an organization I've ever had connections with.

I do know that for people with mental health difficulties, group homes are often not healthy (speaking from personal experience). They also take about half, if not more, of your monthly check.

Getting into independent living has wait lists for years, if it even exists and you are a person who can qualify. Even general low income apartments have wait lists for years. Where I am, the wait lists are at least two years, if not more. I was told that people will not move out for years at a time because they know how hard it is to find something else.

It is a difficult situation for people on a low income or disability. It's not that easy to find affordable housing, especially when some areas have a vacancy rate of around 1%, and you compete with often several dozen people for a chance at one of the places that comes up for rent.

For people who don't have family or friends to live with and other options aren't possible, it's difficult to find a safe, affordable place to live. It's not people people making it 'worse' than it is, it actually IS that difficult. I've LIVED it.

[Veovis]

1) Independent = not group home
2) no doom & gloom just reality

Not true. There are many individuals that do not need a group home that do not live by themselves. It's been called pricare, homeshare,assisted, whatever term people want to change it too every couple years as someone has decided to get offended about whatever it was called.

So implying that if you aren't in a group home your are on your own isn't always the case, so yes you are making some doom and gloom statements that are not true.

Truly independent people have a very very tight budget, no question, not disagreeing with you at all. But the stats of completely independent, semi independent, group homes etc could shed light on what % are really in a tough spot if improvements are to be made, instead of the same old "All people with disabilities are hard done by", as some might live quite well, while others who actually work hard on top of lifes challenges get an even harder time from living arrangement complications.

Until we know more of those details a true evaluation for change cannot really happen and the bus pass issue doesn't even become a blip on the radar one way or the other in the real evaluation of what can be improved in the systems we have.