The Project

Background

There have been a number of suggestions in that we are at a crossroads in disability policy in Canada (McColl & Jongbloed, 2007; Boyce, 2007). Some argue that what is needed is an omnibus federal disability legislation such as exists in other western democracies. In the last federal election, the Conservative government promised to pursue an integrated disability policy by enacting a Canadians with Disabilities Act. To date these promises have not been fulfilled.

Our colleagues at various levels of government agree that the main reason for this is the lack of a sound evidence base upon which to build disability policy. Difficult questions and significant ideological tensions persist about how disability policy should be framed (Prince, 2004). These issues have in the past made it difficult for policy-makers to relate to the disability community and to achieve consensus on the needs of people with disabilities (Joiner, 2007). The debate is typically highly polarized and inflamed by the rhetoric of rights (Bickenbach, 2007). A number of areas exist where there are strong disagreements about how disabled citizens should be viewed, what they need, and how they can be best served by governments in Canada (McColl & Jongbloed, 2006). Examples of such questions are:

• What is the best way to provide services to people with disabilities - a minority group approach or a universalist approach? The minority approach effectively segregates people with disabilities from the rest of society, but provides them with excellent, targeted services. The universalist approach considers disability as part of mainstream society, and therefore designs service for the norm.


• What should be the target of disability policy - disabled people themselves or the society that presents obstacles to inclusion and integration? Should disability policy focus on the person with the disability or on the environment that fails to provide adequate support or consideration for disability?


• Is the identity of the disability community sufficiently clear to evoke a clear policy response? Cameron & Valentine (2001) state that the lack of an authoritative definition of disability is one of the major impediments to coherent policy. Is it possible to establish an identity for the disability community that is recognizable to decision-makers, that resonates with people with disabilities, and that adequately captures the problems that need to be addressed?


• Is there public support for disability issues, or do policy makers perceive that the majority of the electorate is either indifferent or opposed to further disability policy initiatives? With higher visibility of disabled parking spaces and washrooms, the public perhaps assumes that the situation for people with disabilities has improved in all respects, and the need for special disability considerations and supports has decreased in priority.

In addition, many issues still exist at the program level where the services that are provided are inadequate or are offered in a way that does not facilitate full participation in society. Policies between departments of the same government are sometimes inconsistent, creating barriers to accessing services. Other policies are less than ideal in their portrayal of people with disabilities.

This study will examine these inconsistencies and gaps in service through an extensive scoping review in each of our four policy areas. Key recommendations for policy development will be identified, and knowledge will be mobilized to those who can most benefit from it with the help of community and policy partners. For more information on the methodology of the scoping review please see Arskey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework, international Journal of Social Research Methodology 2005 8(1):19-32.

Next: Goals and Objectives