— Read on dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-earthquake-emergency-kit-2019
— Read on dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-earthquake-emergency-kit-2019
Factsheet for employers and employment
Blind and partially sighted people at work
– Guidance and good practice for Risk
About this factsheet
This factsheet is for anyone who needs help with safety management in a place where blind or partially sighted people work. Blind and partially sighted people compete for, perform and succeed in a wide range of jobs. Many need little or no adjustment to their workplace or to working practices, and yet many employers worry about employing blind and partially sighted people, sometimes having concerns for their safety and for the safety of others.
This guidance has been compiled in consultation with: health and safety professionals; people in the workplace who assess the risks to employees; employers; and with blind and partially sighted people. We aim to help risk assessors by providing the information they need to reach decisions, and ensure a safe environment with safe working guidelines.
1. The need for Guidance
2. Blind and partially sighted people at work
3. The process of Risk Assessment
4. Key points for Risk Assessment
5. Common issues
5.1 Dealing with Guide Dogs
5.2 Mobility and travel
5.4 Trip hazards
5.5 Lone working
5.6 Evacuating the building
5.8 Safe use of computer systems
5.10 Caring for others
7. Sources of help and further information
1. The need for guidance
Carrying out a risk assessment of the workplace or an activity for blind or partially sighted people doesn’t have to be difficult, but it can sometimes be a daunting prospect. If you haven’t worked with blind people before, it can be very easy to over-estimate risks or make assumptions about what blind people can or can’t do.
People who risk assess the workplaces and activities of blind and partially sighted people, looking for advice, often approach RNIB. While we are aware that mistakes can be made, we also know that risks can be managed successfully and we want to share good practice.
This guidance has been produced to highlight some of the things that we’re often asked about, share examples of successful risk management and suggest sources of help.
We are also aware that risk assessment, or health and safety in general, has been used as an excuse not to employ blind and partially sighted people (Hurstfield et al, 2003). We hope that the guidance we have put together will help to overcome unnecessary barriers.
Most importantly, we hope that this guidance helps you to reach informed decisions and, in so doing, ensures that blind and partially sighted people can continue to work effectively and safely.
2. Blind and partially sighted people at work
In the middle of the last century, blind people were encouraged to work in specific occupations. These included jobs as switchboard operators, masseurs, piano tuners and even basket weavers.
Things have changed quite considerably and blind and partially sighted people now succeed in a range of jobs across different sectors. “This IS Working 2” (RNIB, 2009), gave examples of ten people working as: a company director, senior physiotherapist, sales and marketing manager, shop owner, policy officer, development and funding officer, teacher, administrative assistant, and outreach worker. A copy of this document, which includes testimonials from employers, can be fond here: http://www.rnib.org.uk/livingwithsightloss/working/successstories/Pages/success_stories.aspx
Blind people do succeed at work. When safety management works well, we know that all employees, including blind and partially sighted people, can work safely.
3. The process of risk assessment
Employers are required by law to manage health and safety in the workplace. Each organisation will have their own ways of doing this and the roles of individual risk assessors can be different.
This document does not deal with the mechanics of undertaking and recording risk assessments. The principles are the same for everyone, but guidance is already available on dealing with “disability” in relation to safety management. See, for example, ‘Health and Safety for Disabled People and Their Employers (Health and Safety Executive and DRC).
IOSH, the Chartered body for health and safety professionals, offers advice on their website about the responsibilities that the Equality Act imposes on those who manage safety.
They specifically suggest that:
• the Equality Act has an effect on the way you
• manage safety.
• while you may be able to use health and safety issues related to disability as a reason not to employ someone – or to refuse a service to someone – you can only do so if certain conditions are met.
• if the safety of a task may be affected by someone’s disability, then a risk assessment should be carried out for everyone, not just for disabled employees.
• if you don’t document the steps you’ve taken to consult disabled workers or customers, and to make reasonable adjustments, your organisation could be involved in an expensive tribunal case.
This factsheet will focus on how risk assessment can affect blind and partially sighted people at work.
4. Key points for risk assessment
In general, the following points will help to shape your risk assessments:
4.1 Risk assessments should address a task and everyone
Whilst the legislation requires employers to identify groups that might be at risk of harm, telling someone that “you must be risk assessed” sends out a negative message. In a way, it suggests that the individual is the issue, when this is clearly not the case. It sounds much more positive to tell someone that activities are being assessed.
4.2 The individuals involved must be consulted
The Health and Safety Executive’s “Five Steps to Risk Assessment” recommends that: ‘In all cases, you should make sure that you involve your staff or their representatives in the process. They will have useful information about how the work is done that will make your assessment of the risk more thorough and effective.’
Your blind or partially sighted employee is usually the best person to describe how their sight loss affects them and you should be able to tap in to that knowledge. Risk assessments carried out without the involvement of blind and partially sighted employees are significantly more likely to be inaccurate.
4.3 “Adjustments” must be considered as part of the process
Employers have a responsibility to make “reasonable adjustments” to working practices and physical features. This is likely to include the provision of auxiliary aids. While this might be beyond your area of responsibility as a risk assessor, you must be prepared to take proposed changes into account.
4.4 It is important that you do not make assumptions about
the level of someone’s functional vision
Most blind people have some useful vision. Some people will be able to see fine detail, while some may have very good peripheral vision. Even people with the same eye condition can have widely different levels of useful sight.
Employers often ask for medical guidance to help understand what people can or can’t see. However, this is often presented in medical terms and is usually lacking an occupational focus.
Asking the individual to describe their sight is often the best way to gather information to assess risk. Professionals who work with blind and partially sighted people at work can be another source of information. Making assumptions about what people can and can’t see will produce flawed risk assessments.
5. Common issues
Employers often contact RNIB to ask for advice about specific worries they have about the safety of a blind or partially sighted colleague. Things we have been asked about include:
5.1 Guide Dogs at work
Guide dogs are one example of an aid to mobility. However, it has been estimated that as few as one or two per cent of blind or partially sighted people use guide dogs to get around. It is therefore important that you don’t assume that people either use guide dogs, or choose to bring them to work.
Having said that, if an employee brings a guide dog to work, proper planning is required to ensure that things run smoothly.
We have been asked about accommodating guide dogs at work and, in most cases, working practices can be adopted to ensure a safe and comfortable working environment.
Some of the common questions revolve around:
Toileting – a suitable area must be identified for the guide dog. While in some places there are very obvious locations for this, some companies (particularly in town centres) find this difficult.
Moving around building – the extent to which a blind person uses a guide dog once at their workstation will vary, depending on the person’s other mobility skills and knowledge of the environment. It is important that the guide dog user is aware of his or her responsibilities. Working rules should be established. These could include where the dog goes when not “on harness” or how often breaks are required.
Induction/emergency procedures – it may be necessary to review your evacuation plans. There may already be a structure in place (such as personal emergency evacuation plans) to facilitate this within your organisation. Standard instructions, such as those issued during induction should be available in the correct format for the employee to read.
Colleagues – the extent to which colleagues interact with guide dog users is likely to vary. There are both positive and negatives to this. For example, colleagues can distract a working dog, or alternatively can assist with “walking” the dog. Colleagues may need to be told of their responsibilities. For example, they may need to know when it might be appropriate to play with or to walk the dog, or to know when the dog is working.
Allergy/Fear of dogs/cultural influences – Some thought may need to be given to where guide dogs are based while people are working to allay concerns.
If in any doubt about any aspect of working with Guide Dogs, representatives from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association will want to help you with this.
5.2 Mobility and travel
When considering potential risks involved in travelling, it is important to bear in mind that most blind or partially sighted people will travel easily with no problems. Some may need support.
Blind and partially sighted people have varying levels of sight and particular eye conditions affect sight in different ways. We can’t assume that people with the same eye condition are affected in the same way, as people with the same eye condition often see the world in entirely different ways. Familiarity with the area and environmental factors, such as lighting, are other things that can affect someone’s mobility.
Additionally, people adjust to sight loss in different ways. It is safe to say that the mobility skills of blind and partially sighted people vary considerably. Some people travel independently, while others use mobility aids or support from others to travel.
It probably goes without saying that an individual should be consulted when considering potential risks with travel. It is also good practice to ensure that any concerns about mobility are kept in perspective – issues should not be allowed to be blown out of proportion.
If an individual is looking for mobility support for specific parts of their travel, two agencies might be able to help.
In each local authority area, there are mobility specialists, sometimes known as rehabilitation workers, who can teach people how to use mobility aids and help them learn to navigate routes. They either work for the local authority social work team, or the organisation that holds the register of blind and partially sighted people.
The Access to Work programme supports people at work and individuals can apply for financial assistance to travel to and from work and within work. The Access to Work programme can only cover the additional costs of travelling to meet disability-related and it is not intended to replace the standard costs involved in business use.
Both the quality and quantity of lighting has a significant impact on all working environments. For some people, it can help to create a comfortable workplace. For others, lighting can pose a barrier to effective working.
Guidance on lighting levels tends to be either general, aimed at a technical audience, or individual, based on one person’s experience. For example, Building Site (1995), suggests that light levels are crucial. It suggests that lux levels (a measure of luminance) for blind and partially sighted people should be 25 per cent to 50 per cent above the “general” level.
The difficulty with such generalised recommendations is that individual blind and partially sighted people have very different needs. Increasing the general “background” lighting levels might not necessarily make a working environment safer or more comfortable.
For some people, increasing background light would be helpful. But it might be more effective to introduce additional light sources, rather than make the existing fittings brighter. This is particularly true if units can be switched on and off to allow more control over lux levels.
Other people find it difficult to work with high levels of lighting and prefer a darker working environment.
As well as the amount of light, the source of light is also an important factor. Many people find that natural light is best. This can mean that making the best of light from windows is preferable to using electric lighting. Similarly, some people find that light fittings emulating natural light (daylight bulbs) are very effective.
The key to resolving lighting issues is to talk to the people involved and call in specialists where necessary. Sometimes simple changes can make a huge difference to a working environment. At other times, more work is required to strike a balance between the needs of one individual among a group of other employees.
5.4 Trip hazards
Research suggests that blind and partially sighted people are more likely to trip than sighted people (Legood et al, 2009). Yet, when we introduce controls to reduce risk, it is very important to keep a sense of perspective. Introducing “no-go” areas, such as stairs or in specific areas you perceive as dangerous, can be discriminatory. It is very unlikely that the only way to manage potential trip hazards is to exclude people from certain areas, as other alternative steps can be taken to reduce risk. Most blind and partially sighted people can navigate around buildings and other workplaces. If you feel strongly that there are parts of a workplace that are not safe, you should seek advice.
5.5 Lone working
Working alone is an integral part of many jobs. Whether this involves visiting customers at home, working from other premises, travelling either locally or more widely or working at home.
Lone working is an area that often raises concerns for employers. But while there may be occasions when a blind or partially sighted person is exposed to risk, these risks are often no greater than a sighted colleague would face.
It is very easy to make assumptions about potential dangers and introduce unnecessary risk controls. And yet, very many blind or partially sighted people work successfully and safely on their own, sometimes in challenging environments.
It is important to consider how an individual is affected by sight loss. Some people travel independently and confidently. Others look for support, particularly in unfamiliar environments.
Some employers have found it helpful to consider the extent of an individual’s sight loss. Having an understanding of what a person can or cannot see can make it easier to discuss risks. Medical “evidence” is not likely to help with this. A diagnosis does not usually describe the extent of functional vision. Most of the time, your blind or partially sighted employee is the best person to describe this to you.
Your starting point for managing risks should be the systems you already have in place for your lone workers. Your local working practices must be robust and comprehensive, so that the work of all of your lone-working employees is covered. Your blind or partially sighted employee is no different in this respect.
5.6 Evacuating the building
Most blind and partially sighted people will understand the need for plans to deal with unexpected evacuations, for example, in the case of fire. Employers generally deal with evacuation routes, procedures and assembly points during an employee’s induction period.
It is important to ensure that written evacuation procedures are available in different formats during induction. For example, having a Word version of the procedures available will allow most users of access technology to read them.
Some blind or partially sighted people would welcome the chance to familiarise themselves with the main routes and practise leaving the building by emergency exits. This could be arranged with their line manager when starting work.
If a blind or partially sighted person is finding it difficult to learn routes and needs some support, it may be appropriate to allocate a “buddy” to assist with evacuation until routes are learned.
Further information can be found in the publication “Fire Safety Risk Assessment: Means of Escape for Disabled People”, Department of Communities and Local Government, 2007.
While risk assessing the use of stairs, your starting point should be to assume that blind and partially sighted people are subject to the same risks as any other employee. Therefore, any steps you might take to reduce risk apply to all employees.
If you believe that there are risks to stair users, you may want to consider the following extracts form Building Sight:
“Lighting on stairs should be sufficient to highlight any obstructions on the flight of the stairs, but should highlight the treads as opposed to the risers to emphasise each step. It is very important that ceiling-mounted luminaires do not become a glare source – they should be well shielded. Alternatively, large-area, low-brightness sources can be mounted on a side or facing wall.”
“The stair covering should not have a pattern that can cause confusion between tread and riser or between one tread and another.”
It is worth pointing out that making physical changes of this type may be the responsibility of your landlord, but this does not mean that you shouldn’t raise the issues with them.
5.8 Safe use of computer systems
Employers are required to “analyse workstations, and assess and reduce risks. Employers need to look at the whole workstation including equipment, furniture, and the work environment; the job being done; and any special needs of individual staff. The regulations apply where staff habitually use display screen equipment as a significant part of their normal work.” (HSE, 2006).
It is entirely likely, then, that the needs of blind and partially sighted people will be highlighted as part of a general risk assessment of display screen equipment.
In addition to this, employees will often highlight difficulties in using computer systems related to their sight. Unless the individual has a good idea of their requirements, it is usually a good idea to seek specialist advice. RNIB or Action for Blind People offices will be able to recommend ways to make it easier to change the way screens look, or alternative ways of accessing screen content.
Employers often have legitimate concerns about blind or partially sighted people operating power tools, hand tools or other machinery such as grass cutting or gardening power tools.
There will be times when you will need to eliminate risk by specifying tools that should not be used at work.
However, it is very important to discuss with an individual exactly how their sight restricts them and how real the risks are. Bear in mind that some new employees may underplay any difficulties as they may have had negative experiences with past employers.
Another factor to take into account is the environment in which people will be working. If you can control the immediate work area, machinery can be made safe to use. For example, in a factory, machines can be fitted with guards and walkways restricted to improve the safety of the work environment. If you are in doubt, ask for advice.
5.10 Caring for others
Many blind and partially sighted people work in jobs where they provide social care services. This can include working in nurseries, care homes and delivering community services.
As you would expect, the generic risk assessments carried out to cover the working routines of care workers are often sufficient to ensure a safe working environment for blind and partially sighted people.
However, employers sometimes have concerns about certain aspects of working that could be perceived as dangerous. These could include, for example:
Reading facial expressions to predict behaviour:
This is a contentious issue. The vast majority of blind or partially sighted people will be able to read facial expressions, but some will find it difficult or impossible. Logically, this could suggest that a blind person may be at higher risk of sudden changes in behaviour.
However, there is a considerable body of research that shows how people are able to perceive mood or feelings from verbal communication only. So the extent of the risk involved is not at all clear.
Reducing risk in this situation calls for a balanced judgement based on an understanding of an individual’s sight and the requirements of the job.
Missing visual cues, such as evidence of substance misuse or
Potential hazards of this kind could be addressed by adopting working practices that apply to all employees. This could include ensuring that thorough background information is obtained with referrals. Additionally, initial assessments of the individual customers should cover the likelihood of issues arising. There may be situations where it is safer for people to work in pairs.
Reading correspondence while visiting customers:
In some jobs, workers may be required to read forms or letters when visiting people in their homes or other settings. Generally, this can be overcome by using access technology, such as portable video magnifiers or scanners.
Perceived difficulties dealing with children:
Nurseries, after school clubs and similar establishments that provide childcare services have well-developed risk management systems in place. If a blind or partially sighted person starts work, the working practices in place are often robust enough to ensure safe working.
Occasionally, parents have concerns about blind or partially sighted people caring for their children. Concerns could include tripping, not seeing children putting things in their mouths, escorting children in the local area or identifying parents when children are collected.
In your role as a risk assessor, you should discuss concerns with the individual to establish whether any of these concerns are genuine and if so how they could be minimised. For example, another worker could check the identity of parents collecting children.
It is really important that the concerns of parents are not confused with actual risk.
‘Building Sight: A handbook of building and interior design solutions to include the needs of visually impaired people’, P Barker, J Barrick and R Wilson, London HMSO in Association with RNIB, 1995
‘Fire Safety Risk Assessment: Means of Escape for Disabled People’, Department of Communities and Local Government, 2007
‘Five Steps to Risk Assessment’, Health and Safety Executive
‘Health and Safety for Disabled People and Their Employers’, HSE and DRC
J Hurstfield et al, ‘The extent of use of health and safety as a false excuse for not employing sick or disabled persons’, research report 167, HRC/DRC, 2003
JMU Access Partnership, Fact Sheet 24 – Lighting
Legood R, Scuffham PA and Cryer C, “Are we blind to injuries in the visually impaired? A review of the literature”, June 2009
RNIB and Thomas Pocklington Trust, ‘Make the most of your sight, Improve the lighting in your home”, RNIB and Thomas Pocklington Trust, 2009
‘This is Working 2’, RNIB, October 2009
‘Working with VDUs’, HSE leaflet INDG36(rev3), revised 12/06
7. Sources of help and further information
7.1 RNIB and Action for Blind People
Employment services for employers
We can help you retain a current employee who is losing their sight, and we can help you to take on someone who is visually impaired.
Advances in technology mean that visually impaired people can now overcome many of the barriers to work that they faced in the past, and government schemes like Access to Work mean that many of the costs can be met.
We provide a number of services that can be directly commissioned by employers. These include:
• Work-based assessments – a visit to a workplace, by one of our specialists, to evaluate the potential for equipment, software, and adjustments that would better allow an employee to fulfil their role.
• 1 to 1 access technology training. Our technology specialists can visit your workplace and provide training tailored to suit your employee’s needs.
• Visual and disability awareness training.
For further information about any of these services, please contact us via our website or directly via our employment services mailbox:
We currently produce the following factsheets for employers and employment professionals:
• Access to Work
• RNIB work-based assessment services
• Blind and partially sighted people at work – Guidance and good practice for Risk Assessors
• Testing the compatibility of access software and IT applications
• Guidelines on meeting the needs of visually impaired delegates on training courses
In addition to this you may like to check out our ‘This IS Working’ documents, which showcase blind and partially sighted people working in a range of occupations, and include testimonials from employers, as well as our ‘Vocational rehabilitation’ document, which sets out the business case for retaining newly disabled staff.
All of these factsheets and documents can be found in the employment professionals section of our website http://www.rnib.org.uk/employmentservices which also contains the latest research in the field, as well as information on IT and accessibility, the Equality Act, success stories, and more.
We also produce a number of factsheets aimed at blind and partially sighted people, on a range of employment related issues. These can be found at http://www.rnib.org.uk/employment
The RNIB Helpline can refer you to an employment specialist for further advice and guidance. RNIB Helpline can also help you by providing information and advice on a range of topics, such as eye health, the latest products, leisure opportunities, benefits advice and emotional support.
Call the Helpline team on 0303 123 9999 or email email@example.com
7.2 Access to Work
Access to Work is a scheme run by Jobcentre Plus. The scheme provides advice, grant funding, and practical support to disabled people and employers to help overcome work related obstacles resulting from a disability. Read our Access to Work factsheet, or visit the Access to Work pages at http://www.rnib.org.uk/employmentservices to learn more about qualifying for the scheme. Further details are also available at http://www.directgov.uk
7.3 Guide Dogs
The best place to find out information relating to guide dogs. Visit: http://www.guidedogs.org.uk
7.4 The Health and Safety Executive
HSE is responsible for enforcing health and safety at workplaces. Visit: http://www.hse.gov.uk
7.5 Equality and Human Rights Commission
The Equality and Human Rights commission have a statutory remit to promote and monitor human rights; and to protect, enforce and promote equality across the nine “protected” grounds – age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership, sexual orientation and gender reassignment. The website includes a section on employment.
Factsheet updated: April 2013
As previously promised, we are pleased to share a summary of the recently concluded tele town hall that was held on October 29.
We invite you to share your feedback with us by writing to LetUsGetItOutThere@gmail.com.
Please find our summary notes pasted below.
Some time in January, the Let’s get it out there tele town hall team will be convening to plan another meeting which we are hoping to host in the early spring and we will be keeping you abreast of our plans.
In the meantime, may we take this opportunity to once again thank you for your continuing interest and to wish you the very best for the holiday season. May 2017 be a bright and prosperous year for you.
The Let’s get it out there tele town hall team
Summary of Proceedings: Let’s Get it Out There Teleconference Town Hall October 29th, 2016, 1pm – 3:30pm Eastern
Moderator: Jane Blaine of Canadian Blind Sports
Special thanks to Louise Gillis of Canadian Council of the Blind, Pat Seed of Citizens with Disabilities – Ontario, and Robin East for their behind-the-scenes work on this teleconference session. CCB generously provided teleconferencing services for the call.
– Richard Marion (British Columbia) – He has been involved in blindness
and cross-disability advocacy for over 25 years. Richard has seen many improvements in accessibility over the years but at the same time, he feels that the issue of accessibility for people who are blind still needs to gain greater attention by society and decision makers.
– Albert Ruel (British Columbia) – A 60 year old totally blind father,
grandfather, and brother, as well as a partner for life to Brenda Forbes. He worked for 19 years in the forest industry when the visual world was available to him, and in the not-for-profit rehabilitation and consumer sectors since 1992 when his vision was perfected to total blindness.
– Melanie Marsden (Ontario) – Has been an advocate for over 30 years.
She has a degree in social work which she obtained while raising two boys.
She is the mother of three. Personally and professionally, Melanie advocates for safe, effective parenting and believes that when we all work together, acknowledging that each person has a voice, we accomplish more.
– Anthony Tibbs (Quebec) – Has more than six years of experience on the
national board of the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, as treasurer and then president, and has served on a number of other boards over the years including Guide Dog Users of Canada and Media Access Canada. With a business and law background, Anthony’s day to day job is as a litigation lawyer, but he continues to support the charitable and not-for-profit organizations that play such an important role to the community.
– Paul Edwards (Florida) – Was born in San Francisco and has lived in
Canada and Trinidad. Currently living in the U.S., Paul is a father and grandfather and has been a teacher, rehab counsellor, and administrator.
Retired now, Paul derives much pleasure as a volunteer advocate at the local, state, and national levels. Paul is proud of what every blind person everywhere accomplishes every day.
Notice to Readers
The notes below represent a summary of the comments, positions, and anecdotes which were made during the course of the town hall teleconference call. They are not attributed to any particular participant. While the comments have been paraphrased and edited for duplication and redundancy, a conscious effort has been made in the preparation of these notes to ensure that all perspectives on the issues raised have been acknowledged. All views are those of the speakers alone and do not necessarily represent the views or positions taken by any of the panelists, organizers of the teleconference call, or any organizations that any participant or organizer may represent or be involved with.
Question 1: In order to ensure that people who are blind, partially sighted, or deaf-blind continue to have a strong voice in Canada, what do you think the national consumer movement should look like in the future?
– All consumers organizations need to actively engage with youth to
introduce them to advocacy, and give them the tools, networks, and experiences to engage in advocacy
– Many basic needs now better met (thanks in part to technology), so need
to determine the burning issues for the next generation
– Need to recognize and acknowledge the history and move on, albeit hard.
But as people who are blind and visually impaired, we need to be at the table in a united front and a united voice.
– Find consensus on issues between organizations. United voice is
important because when there are disagreements within the community, government and others do not take us seriously or choose to do nothing rather than choose one competing view.
– Organizations must provide some personal benefit to members in addition
to advocacy activities
– Must remain independent (acknowledge difference between a service
provider and a consumer organization) and have respectful relationships
– Collaboration does not mean uniting into a single organization
– Major challenge is to ensure we can obtain enough financial funding to
carry out the organization’s activities. In order to do so, we have to ensure our organizations’ respective mandates are strong enough to put forward to potential funders
o How do we fund what is seen by many as an “intangible” (advocacy)?
Organizations have to find creative ways to raise funds, perhaps by providing value-added consumables or services, because the reality is that advocacy is what we do today to improve the situation five or ten years down the road – the results are not immediately measurable.
o Pursuing funding opportunities requires a specific goal. For example,
many people with physical disabilities are eligible for direct funding (attendant care), and that program has just been given a significant funding increase. Establishing projects and programs to support blind and visually impaired people may be one way to attract funding
– Question: How have ACB and NFB worked together in the U.S.?
o ACB and NFB in the U.S. are not necessarily a great example to follow
because while they sometimes work together and are strong when they do, information exchange, collaboration, and communication do not happen (at the national level at least) nearly as much as they should. At the local and state level there are some stronger ties.
o Setting up systems for continuing sharing of points of view and
building consensus is a key to success.
– How do we include youth from various backgrounds (sighted youth/blind
parent, blind parent/sighted youth, etc.)?
o With respect to the college and university population, many of our
organizations offer scholarships or other programs that touch this population, but we do not offer much beyond that to keep them connected.
Need to look at what we can offer these future leaders: networking?
– Need to look at other countries and other communities (e.g. women’s
movement) where organizations are operating effectively: how did they do it and what can we learn?
o Consider whether this research is itself a fundable (capacity-building)
o In the UK, there is a model whereby consumers have “taken over” what
was originally a service provider organization. How can we move from a “for-the-blind” service agency to an “of-the-blind” service agency?
o In Australia, there is a very strong single consumer organization that
provides input at the state and federal level
o In New Zealand, there is a hybrid model
– Multiple Canadian organizations should join together to establish an
arms-length advocacy entity to pursue common issues
o CNIB has a new more proactive advocacy program that may help to unite,
but in the end advocacy must be consumer-led
– Must recognize and, without judgment, accommodate stratification and
the multiple dimensions within the “blind” community:
o vision level (low vision, legally blind, totally blind, deaf-blind)
o newly blinded/experienced blinded/congenitally blind
o retired vs working vs unemployed vs student
o anglophone vs francophone
o independent travellers vs those who rely on other means (ParaTransit,
o technologically equipped and literate vs others
Question 2: Canada is a small country in population; however, it is geographically quite large. Would it be better in Canada to ensure that, on a national level, there is one organization of blind working on projects and advocacy to help strengthen community activities provincially and locally?
– The answer is not “one organization” as each organization may be
meeting different needs within the community. Working together in a cooperative and collaborative way is more important than the form it takes.
– Each organization should allocate resources (people, etc.) to
developing joint position papers that could then be supported by all the organizations that exist in Canada
– Need to strengthen existing coalition-building activities to ensure
these can withstand changes in personalities at the coalition table
– Funding and granting organizations are often pleased to see strategic
partnerships and collaborative relationships, so there may actually be an advantage to presenting a “united front” across several organizations when applying for such funds
– There are different organizations but there aren’t so many that we
cannot work together, and each organization has a very different focus so that there is little overlap.
– The specialization of certain organizations on can be a valuable
resource that others can utilize and build upon where needed for advocacy initiatives (e.g. Guide Dog Users of Canada, Braille Literacy Canada)
– For unity to work, each of us must be respectful and non-judgmental
about the differing needs of others. Society has imputed an implied belief that in order to be ‘independent’ or ‘successful’ you must do X, Y, or Z perfectly, but as a community we must recognize that we don’t need to be a “perfect blind person” to be deserving of respect and inclusion in the community
o “We must see every person for who they are, and where they are. We
cannot judge people by what they can do; we have to judge them instead by what they do every day. Being blind every day can be hard, but it is also something we can be immensely proud of, and we must come to a point where every person who is blind is equally respected and valued where they are, not where some of us think they need to be.”
o Example: not everyone has the same ability (or interest or motivation
to develop the ability) to travel wholly independently, or to use a computer for advanced work, and we need to be willing to work with these different skill sets.
o Example: not everyone needs or wants to receive the same type of
service in a restaurant setting.
– Education needed about the difference between a consumer organization
and a service provider.
o This education has to happen in the blind community, but also needs to
involve decision-makers at all levels, so that they understand the very different messages that come from the blind and those who speak on our behalf
o Whenever the issue of the service provider (CNIB) is raised, it is
difficult to address because community members seem to be afraid of conflict, punishment. As a community we do not feel empowered.
o Need to be careful about this “consumer organization” vs “service
provider” distinction: consumer organizations could very well become service providers
– A service provider has no place doing advocacy and would have no place
being a part of any kind of coalition or network of consumer groups.
o On the other hand, the support services that a service provider can
offer to a coalition can be very helpful: preparing research documents, secretarial/admin support, funding support
o Ideally we should be sufficiently resourced to not require their
– Any single national organization will need to recognize our linguistic
duality which may be difficult. Many years ago, the federal government funded more translation projects that helped national organizations become more bilingual but this has not been a governmental priority for some time.
– Recognize that a national organization cannot meaningfully address
local issues. National bodies should focus on national issues (telecom, interprovincial transportation, etc.). However, national organizations should facilitate networking between local cross-organizational groups to advocate on specific local issues (e.g. LRT in Ottawa). At the same time, local experiences should be documented and communicated nationally because issues arising in one city are bound to arise elsewhere, too.
– Public and organizational awareness about the fact that there are
multiple consumer organizations within the blind community, and that no single person can speak for all (multiple opinions matter) is required.
Organizations which require input from the blind community need to be educated about the array of organizations with which they could consult and the need to consider input from more than one source.
– Grassroots: Any national organization must be respectful of the
grassroots and people’s local needs, which might be delivered through chapters and personal advocacy, in collaboration with whomever the local service providers might be
– Education of and to the public sector is an important starting point
toward larger changes
Question 3: National, provincial, and local organizations have tried working in coalitions. Are you aware of any activities that these coalitions have done? Would you support a more formal working relationship between the existing national organizations of the blind?
– There are rooms for coalitions at all levels of advocacy (local,
provincial, and federal – e.g. government contacts).
– Experience in the US has shown that bringing everyone into the room,
including any proverbial elephants, works best in the long run. But for this to work effectively, the service provider must be a true member of the coalition and be committed to standing united with the coalition viewpoint.
This is particularly true where a service provider has a powerful voice to decision-makers and a powerful voice to the public.
– A formal working relationship and agreement to participate in a
coalition on a specific issue works best to ensuring continued success even as representatives and personalities change
– Active participation and support of cross-disability initiatives and
undertakings can help to foster supportive networks that we can then call upon when advocating for the blind community
– Common issues that we can likely all agree need to be addressed:
o Employment, whether that is being trained, skilled, employed,
self-employed, entrepreneurship – there are great opportunities to forge collaboration. Universities do not necessarily prepare the blind for employment. In the US there are dozens of organizations with the overlapping goal of facilitating employment and entrepreneurship for the blind. Why not here?
o Rehabilitation service delivery models. DASM (Developing Alternative
Service Models) was a report done by BOOST many years ago. If we want to change how rehabilitation services are provided in Canada, we need to present viable alternatives and working together to consider what those models may look like would be a first step forward and may dovetail with defining the future role of the consumer movement.
– Benefits of coalitions (uni-disability and cross-disability):
o Enabling organizations to come together over clearly defined issues
o Develop goals and objectives in the advocacy sphere
o In a cross-disability context, this also helps different communities
learn about the needs of others (so that advocacy initiatives intended to help one community do not inadvertently undermine accessibility for another)
o Differences between organizations and viewpoints can be worked out
behind closed doors, away from the public eye
o Organizations can then speak as one unified voice
– Cross-disability coalitions can be powerful provided that (1) the blind
community is prepared to effectively present our positions and needs, and
(2) the blind representatives are willing to fight and stand up to have our needs given the same priority as others. If we are to be expected to support other groups, they must support us.
– Networking (meeting to discuss and propose solutions to specific
issues) solves problems when we are working with other entities and are not at cross purposes, without losing any individual autonomy in the process.
Example: When the Ontario government cut funding for the O&M training program at Mohawk College, BOOST initiated a meeting with all the different organizations and proceeded to network (which was the word used with the media and the service provider). The result was a continuation and extension of the funding.
– Question: Should a blindness-specific coalition be restricted to member
organizations that have at least 80% of their governing body be blind or partially sighted individuals?
o Regardless of the number chosen, in a coalition of consumer groups, by
definition most consumer organizations will meet such a requirement.
However, there can also be a need for expertise, resources, and information from outside of our own sphere of what we have and can provide to such an initiative. Cutting out organizations by bright line rules risks losing out on expertise and feedback.
o This would be nice to have, but it isn’t necessarily a requirement
particularly on an issue-specific coalition. There are a lot of cross-disability networks and coalitions which have been very successful (e.g. AODA Alliance and Barrier Free Canada, each of which have a mixture of consumer organizations, service groups, etc.). Service organizations do have a level of expertise they can bring to that, as well as administrative resources that the consumer groups may not have.
o Bringing on board other professionals and entities in the blindness or
disability field, even though they do not meet the criteria as indicated, may be important on specific issues.
o Being a ‘member’ and ‘involved’ in a coalition does not necessarily
make one a ‘voting’ member: service providers could participate and support without setting coalition direction
Question 4: Why do you think the blindness community is so fragmented in its approach to advocacy and community activities?
– “Fragmentation” is likely not real when it is applied to specific
issues. If we coalesce around making change and building coalition as core values, the fragmentation that exists across organizations will become irrelevant.
– As discussed above, accessibility needs across the “blind” population
vary considerably (to say nothing of those who may have additional needs beyond blindness). In a group of ten blind restaurant patrons, one might well need a sighted reader as well as large print, high contrast, braille, audio, and e-Text menus to accommodate everyone’s abilities or information access preferences.
– We lack the singular community identity of “blind”: we use many
different euphemisms to describe “blindness” (blind, visually impaired, partially sighted, etc.). Should we refer to it as the ‘blindness spectrum’
– “When two blind folks get angry with each other, a new organization is
born.” We lose focus and get tied up in ego and mistrust and we see disagreements on issues as an ending place. We need to view our disagreements as a starting place to find common ground, build trust and respect, and check our egos at the door.
– Funders want people who present a united front, who will be working
together with other organizations to achieve more.
– Is there really fragmentation? To be sure, we are diverse and have
diverse needs, but perhaps the community is not truly fragmented.
– New communication mechanisms offer new opportunities to overcome
geographic fragmentation, if we are willing to work with it and make an effort to make it work for us
o Online streams (e.g. ACB Radio) and podcasts represent a new frontier
that we could use to build consensus in Canada if organizations can work collaboratively together to create programming
o E-mail has sometimes not served us well as a community, as it is too
easy to put a literal understanding on the written words and adopt contrary positions (or the mistaken belief that there are contrary positions), rather than working through to find commonality
– We need to build more “blind pride” into the very core of our being,
and more use of the word “blind” (to include the various levels of visual
impairment) so that we do try to unify ourselves.
– This may be a difficult sell to older individuals who are losing their
vision. Education is needed on the range and the spectrum, but whether describing everyone as ‘blind’ will succeed at uniting us.
– In 1975, the Cuban government said to the disability community, “this
is your revolution so get organized”. As a result, the president of each national disability group has a seat in the national assembly, and blind people are integrated in every level of society as a result. The Canadian disability act consultations represent the closest chance we’ve ever had to a revolution of our own in Canada.
– Some years ago, there was the formation of the Consumer Access Group
(CAG), which was hoped to bring, particularly, consumer organizations closer together. What CAG doesn’t appear to have found is the one burning issue that will motivate all these organizations to move in a single direction
– We need to get away from the “shackles” that prevent forward progress:
the one agency (CNIB) that is perceived as being “in charge” of all the names and addresses of blind people all over Canada.
o Federal government dollars flowing to CNIB for its Ottawa office, which
has no business “advocating” for the blind, really ought to have gone to consumers to make resources happen to the consumer movement
o In order to get funds from the federal government, it should put in
place programs that demonstrate its attempts to reach out and include the consumer organizations and consumers.
o The perception that the ‘service provider’ is a risk or fragmenting
force varies by province. In Quebec, where rehabilitation services are provided by the government, there is less of a divisive stance
– Fragmentation, if it exists at all, can be overcome by inclusive
advocacy that is done for all, with the whole community in mind, including those with other disabilities
– Important to recognize that we are not all, individually, experts on
everything – network is important to have individuals we can refer to for specific situations and needs (overcomes fragmentation)
– Egoism, lack of respect and unprofessional behaviour between advocates
limits our ability to move forward, and it is time for the community as a whole to step in and implement zero-tolerance policies toward that behaviour.
– Inclusion and universal design must be accomplished within our
organizations. People have different styles of approaching advocacy and different skill sets, and we have not (as a community) necessarily been very accepting of different approaches.
– Must recognize that people who are newly blinded often feel a great
deal of shame about their vision loss, thanks to the prejudice that courses through our society about blindness. If we can help to make it “ok” to be visually impaired, “ok” to be blind, in the eyes of the greater community, and begin to collect those people into our group rather than having them hide in the closest by themselves (unaware of resources and possibilities), this could help to unify and grow our advocacy community.
– Peer support activities, such as GTT-style groups, bring together a
diverse group of individuals with varying skill sets and backgrounds over a common uniting theme (technology) to allow information sharing and learning, which should help to narrow technological gaps in the community
– A coalition can be a coalition of three people. We need to build the
organizations just the way they are for now, and once we have a critical mass of people in the organizations, then the organizations can get together and work.
– Some fragmentation exists in that there is a gap in service and
attention to those between perhaps 25 and 60 who fall above the reach of “children and youth” programs and below the reach of “seniors” programs, but who nonetheless have a wealth of information, experience, and skills to contribute