NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/can/general/6184

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 5.5 KB

Xref: sparky can.general:6184 can.politics:11078 soc.culture.canada:9655
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!emory!gatech!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!mala.bc.ca!oneb!oneb2!lisa
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: No More Sheltered Work Shops
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 12:33:18 PST
References: <13763@grayt>
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac
Lines: 94

[e-mail] (Tom Gray) writes:

>
> The Ontario (NDP) government has announced that it intends to close
> all sheltered work shops for the developmentally handicapped (the latest
> euphemism for the group which was previously called the mentally
> retarded).

Jeez...last I heard the politically correct terminology was "developmentally
challenged", and I work in the field.  But I'm sure not arguing, the preferred
terminology wrt the above seems to change mo'ly, or from person to person:-)

> The government intend to close the work shops in favour of "community"
> solutions.
>
I must say that in my experience ("Day Programme" worker; "Key Worker";
"Recreational Coordinator" for adolescents w/ acute "challenges" and
multiple diagnosis; and "Licenced Person in Charge"  *Mgr.* of Adult Care
Facilities), I have not seen one sheltered work shop that I felt was
providing a beneficial service to its clientele.  The ones I'm familiar with
typically have 15 to 40 clients, 4 to 8.5 staff, and are often situated in
some warehouse district. One even IS an old warehouse, built of concrete
blocks, with a cement floor, heating in only one section of the work shop and
is located in a back alley near the Barnet Hwy., on the lower mainland.

Typically, (in my experience), those folk that are willing and able to work
at these places (not staff, the clients), are "prompted" to perform very
repetitive tasks, day after day, (ie. make, count/bag plastic wedding flowers)
which nets them about $9/week.  Not surprisingly, behavioural "incidents",
etcetera, result and next thing you know, a "review meeting" is held to
determine a new "behaviour intervention" policy wrt the individual who is no
longer interested in bagging wedding flowers!  The salaries of those attending
the meetings are generally funded by the taxpaying public, and trust me, there
are a whole lot of these meetings, few of which ever accomplish any meaningful
progress, when the solutions are typically blatently obvious!

Those folk who do not participate in the available "work projects" at these
workshops go to MacDonalds for coffee ("Restaurant Training", give me a break!),
go for van rides or help set the tables for lunch.  While all of these activities
have some value for a lot of folk, the orientation of these programs, IMHO,
generally lack integrity, creativity, meaningful and "proactive" individual
consideration, etcetera.  Far too often, sheltered workshops become more of a
daycare service for the residential caregivers than a service to those with
"developmental handicaps".

Furthermore, many folks attending these "workshops" are non-verbal, deaf,
visually impaired, etcetera, and few staff have adequate sign language skills,
nevermind an appropriate understanding of augmentative communication
principles/practices, and related training.

In short, I advocate that sheltered workshops should go the way of the
dinosaurs!


> So far the government's actions have been to delete five million from the
> budget for work shops and provide two million for "community" services.
> The government does not have or intends to provide a defintition of
> a "community" service. Instead it expects the "community" to come up with
> services which it will fund.
>
No question that the government's priorities are not in implementing
valuable, supportive and appropriate services for those we call the
"developmentally handicapped" (or whatever the latest euphemism is in your
locale).  "Pass the Buck" is not a new policy/practice here, anymore than it is
anywhere else.  Funding cuts to these services is criminal, however, even in
our present system, the government ministries involved are more funding oriented
than service oriented.  That would probably be okay if the government's vision
wasn't so short-sighted here.  Many hundreds of thousands of dollars could no
doubt be saved, if funding budgets were geared toward long-term planning FOR
INDIVIDUALS.

 Program services that have integrity and work for the persons in question,
ought to be the goal here.  My guess is that it would cost everyone a lot less,
in every way, for a lot more in terms of service and benefit.  The governments
and the general public have a long way to go wrt this matter.  If the "community"
is truly left holding the bag on this one, at least there's the hope that then
people will become more motivated to do something about improving the services
and support systems for those individuals we've kept in institutions all these
years.  "Out of sight, out of mind"?

> Rumour has it that the NDP government intends to implement the same policy
> with the psychiatrically impaired although no such policy has been announced.
>
> Essentially, the policy is to remove the government from services to these
> groups and the institution of a new policy of politically correct rhetoric.
>
Agreed.  So what else is new, and what are we going to do about it?

Lisa

               [e-mail] (Lisa Lambeth)
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!