Catalyst for Change

By Aldred H. Neufeldt

Changing the course of public policy is about as difficult as turning the great ship Queen Mary around, it’s often been said. Yet, that is the daunting task the Premier’s Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities in Alberta has set itself. The Council is a bold experiment in catalyzing changes in the way one particular government does business as it affects people with disabilities. This is the first in a series of four articles which examines the Council, its function, how it is being received, and how it compares to other efforts at change in North America.

Addressing A History of Paternalism

In Alberta, as elsewhere in North America, today’s public policies are rooted in paternalistic assumption of the past - a past in which society viewed people with disabilities as not "able", not "well", and in need of "cure", "care" and "protection". It is not long since people were removed from their homes to what was presumed to be the better care of institutions.

Thanks to the civil rights movement of the sixties and rise of the disability movement of the seventies, the most blatant forms of paternalism no longer are present. Organizations of persons with disabilities have had a profound influence on both public attitude and political environment. Declaration by the United Nations of the Decade of Disabled Persons, inclusion of people with disabilities in Canada’s Charter of Rights, and the recent passage of the American Disability Act in the United States indicate widespread support for the concerns of people with disabilities. Yet, vestiges of historic attitudes still lead people with disabilities to feel left out of full participation in society.

To argue that governments are solely at fault would be overstating the case. Government may as much a victim as the author. Yet, governments represent the most critical focal point through which both public policy and community change is effected. It takes not only well intentioned leadership within governments, both political and bureaucratic, it takes persistence to refocus inconsistent public policies around the possibilities and contributions people with disabilities may make to society.

The Alberta Context

Alberta had the good fortune of oil wealth in the 1970s. A ready supply of money allowed the government to be quite generous. But, having money created its own problems. With social attitudes about disability in flux, public policy evolved in response to pressure points. Conflicting ideas, often from different groups within the disability community, led to a proliferation of programs.

When oil prices plummeted in the 1980s, keepers of the public treasury shut down growth. Developments of the ‘70s were seen as an explosion in cost of social programs that had to be contained. Some progressive programs were reorganized. Others were reduced or eliminated. "Privatization" became a rationale for encouraging new small non-governmental organizations. At the same time, severe limits on the amount of money for these same agencies led to an increasing discrepancy between wages paid in the government as opposed to the voluntary sectors.

Consumer groups and organizations for persons with disabilities sensed they were losing ground. Leaders were frustrated that they didn’t seem to have a meaningful impact on improving either programs or policies. They tried to convince politicians and bureaucrats that the issue was not one of an explosion in social programs cost, rather it was a problem of resource allocation -there was a need to shift resources from institutions to communities. But no one seemed to be listening.

Government leaders interested in disabilities also had reason to be frustrated. They were hearing very specific proposals from different interest groups, and often these proposals conflicted with each other in philosophy and direction.

Frustrations and tight money also gave room for sober reflection. There was general consensus that many programs were fragmented, uncoordinated and difficult to access. Policies and programs of government didn’t seem to reflect a common mission or goal, and often appeared contradictory. And, there was little coordination between departments of government in either shaping a common direction or in delivering existing programs.

The ’Man in Motion’ Tour Presents an Opportunity

In 1986 Rick Hansen returned to Canada from wheeling his way around the world. Publicity mounted as he journeyed across the country. "What can I leave you with when I come to Alberta?" he asked of his Alberta organizing group, a question asked in each province. Representatives from a large number of groups got together and brainstormed ideas on how to capitalize on the heightened public awareness so as to influence public policy. A working group was formed to develop a paper encapsulating what was wrong with disability initiatives. It recommended that a mechanism be set up to advise government - a Premier’s Council. The concept grew out of New Brunswick’s experience. But, this council should have teeth and reflect a commitment to continued consumer input.

Rick liked the idea and arranged a meeting with Premier Don Getty and his Cabinet on arrival in Edmonton. At this meeting a brief was presented by 17organizations representing persons with disabilities. The timing was right. The Premier embraced the recommendation, committing himself in principle to establish a Premier’s Advisory Council on the Status of Disabled Persons. He also named the Honorable Mr. Jim Dinning as responsible to follow up on the idea. Mr. Dinning has a reputation as Minister who likes innovation.

Getting a premier’s commitment is one thing. Getting it transformed into helpful action is another. The natural response of government ministers is to turn the task over to "my people." "My people" usually turns out to be a senior civil servant. And, senior civil servants’ primary concerns are for the welfare of their portfolio, not necessarily the person on the street.

To counter such a response, leaders of the planning group arranged a meeting with the Premier and Mr. Dinning within a week of the commitment in principle. They brought with them a proposed terms of reference for a group that should study how best to set up the Council. Rather than a committee comprised of civil servants they suggested a Steering Committee comprised of individuals from a cross-section of concerns about disability. And, rather than simply hiring some consultants to give the committee its advice, they suggested a consultative process with Albertans. "We really wanted Albertans to have a say" observes Eric Boyd, Executive Director of the Council, "...this was quite out of keeping with how the government usually did business." They also asked the government to front the process with $100,000.

The recommendations were accepted within days, and by September of 1987 a Steering Committee was appointed "to manage the development of a detailed proposal leading to the establishment of the Council." Comprised of six individuals, only one of whom was a civil servant, the Committee contacted over 400 groups for input. A total of 175 agencies, government representatives and individuals responded. From the wealth of material collected, plus its own research, the Steering Committee prepared a proposal for the Premier.

In the spirit of engaging Albertans, the Premier asked the Committee to undertake one more round of consultation. This consultation was to ask Albertans with disabilities whether they supported the proposal for a Premier’s Council. After resounding endorsement, and non-partisan acceptance of the proposal, government enacted legislation in May 1988. By October a twelve member Council had been set up and Gary McPherson was appointed Chairman.

Mission, Role and Structure

The Council’s Mission as outlined in the Premier’s Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities Act is "to enhance and promote the opportunity for full and equal participation of persons with disabilities in the life of the province." To accomplish its mission the Council has the responsibility to inform the Premier, the public and the government about issues of interest and concern to persons with disabilities.

The Council has no immediate authority over any existing government department. However, it does have a number of means to influence the way in which various departments of government work apart from regular liaison and collaboration with senior officials. By reporting directly to the Premier the Council by-passes the narrow interests of specific government departments. An annual report to the legislature enables the Council to speak to the government as a whole. And, regular contacts with the Alberta community at large on any matter concerning the status and quality of life of persons with disabilities ensures the Council remains grounded in the concerns of the community, as well as keeping advocacy groups aware of emerging issues.

A stroke of genius, in my view, has been to make the Council subject to a sunset clause. The Council’s mandate comes to an end ten years after its beginning. This places a sense of urgency on the Council. It also deflects concerns of potential opponents, both within and outside bureaucracies, that the Council will be around forever. Rather than getting into non-productive intra-governmental battles, the Council has a heightened chance of achieving its objectives.

Beginnings

In its first two years of activity the Council has achieved a positive profile with wide recognition. In June 1989 it published "Towards a Vision of Abilities in Alberta", a document that sets out the philosophical framework of the Council, the challenges facing people with disabilities, and a vision for the future. Endorsed both by the community and people within government, this vision paper set the stage for an action plan published in the spring of 1990. The action plan makes a series of significant recommendations for the reallocation of resources.

The easy part of the job has been done, members of Council readily acknowledge. Now comes the tough part - persuading entrenched bureaucracies that the directions of the ACTION PLAN are not only desirable philosophically, they need to be acted on. The next article in this series will examine the PLAN, the barriers it is likely to face (indeed, is already facing), and strategies being used by the Council to have the plan acted upon.