Panel data provided by Madison's Canadian Lumber Reporter.

Shea’s Story – Part 4 – Challenging the Bureaucracy

By Peter Ewart

- By Peter Ewart

In the previous three installments of this series, we have discussed the difficulties Shea Anker, as a blind single mother, faces trying to raise two young children and navigate her way through the seemingly mindless bureaucracy of the provincial government. With her homecare funding cut, Shea is bounced from government official to official, department to department, as she attempts to get a $300 a month stipend reinstated. But it is not to be. The bureaucracy has stonewalled her and no one, not MLA, Minister or caseworker appears to be able to do anything about it.

Our society has created this huge government bureaucracy and there it sits squatting on top of us all with, what some might say, is no other purpose than perpetuating, propagating and expanding its existence. And it certainly appears that there is some truth in this view that it has become a structure that works in its own interest. But this view is only partially true in that it omits the political side of the nature of bureaucracy; that is, in the midst of all its suffocating policies and illogical and chaotic actions, this bureaucracy also has a methodology and purpose behind it.

There are many examples which show that bureaucracy can be used as an effective tool against sections of people. Certain unscrupulous insurance companies have a little secret when dealing with claimants. If you try to collect on an insurance claim that is due to you, or if you are submitting a medical receipt to a health insurance carrier, such companies will often throw bureaucratic obstacles in your way to thwart your claim. These include requiring that claimants fill out cumbersome and difficult forms, provide further and unnecessary medical documentation, or complete other complicated paperwork. Another method is to simply turn down all newly submitted claims, forcing you to mount a time consuming appeal that you will win eventually, but only if you persist. The end result is that a certain percentage of people will not bother pursuing their legitimate claims. If an insurance company can have 50 or 100 claimants out every 1000 give up because of the bureaucratic obstacles, it makes financial sense for it to do so. And not a few fail to complete the process, simply because it is so complex, confusing and stressful.

It seems that the same principle may have been adopted by government decision makers when dealing with groups of citizens such as people with disabilities. Make the process as difficult, frustrating and complicated as possible, and, sure enough, a certain number of claimants from this group, who are already suffering from serious physical and mental problems, will give up their claim, fail to complete applications within deadlines or simply move to another province. How else to explain the fact that the provincial government, in 2002, put forth a requirement that all disabled people in the province had to reapply for assistance by filling out a 23-page long, complicated application form that required entire sections to be completed by doctors, nurses and social workers as well as by the applicant? Many of these individuals with disabilities had significant physical or mental difficulties to the point that there was no hope that they could ever carry out this process without support. Yet, if they didn’t, the message was clear – they would be cut off disability payments – a threat that aggravated many of their pre-existing conditions and triggered additional problems. The government offered no assistance to those who could not fill out the forms because they were mentally or physically challenged. It was only through the efforts of thousands of volunteers across the province that people with disabilities got help to complete the forms on time and that the government finally gave in to the pressure and provided a small amount of dollars to help with this volunteer-led initiative. In the meantime, a large amount of stress and anxiety was created for those being “reviewed” as well as for the volunteers who were working full tilt to try and meet arbitrary government deadlines.

On a smaller scale, Shea Anker is a victim of the same process. Do not assign her a caseworker to navigate her way through the bureaucracy. Instead, force her to speak to someone new every time she calls up for clarification or assistance, and force her to retell her story endlessly to representatives who have no knowledge whatsoever of her case. Knowing full well that she is blind, require her to make her way downtown to fill out the most minor paperwork. Require her every six months or so to prove that she is, indeed, blind, despite the fact that everyone knows she has never been nor ever will be able to see. Whipsaw her between two government bureaucracies, the Ministry of Children and Families, and the Ministry of Human Resources, so that she is constantly receiving contradictory information. In other words, take away her dignity as a human being and wear her down until she gives up. And Shea is but one example.

What about the people working in these ministries? Are they the real problem? Why can’t they do something to assist people in Shea’s position? The fact is that most try to bend the rules, to find a way to help, but it’s not always possible. In fact, the very top-down bureaucratic structure that harms those in need also disempowers social service workers by imposing rule-bound decision-making that more and more takes away the possibility to look at each individual case and use discretionary power to meet individual need. Rather than being a tool that aids the process, bureaucracy actually blocks workers from sorting out problems and providing assistance. In a sense, you could say that many workers are unwittingly forced into a situation where they act contrary to the interests of the very people they are supposed to serve.

Bureaucratic obstacles play a role and have a purpose in the business world as well. Many small and medium businesses complain that they are choked by government red tape, and that they have no staff to deal with it. Competitively, they are put at a disadvantage compared to the large monopolies and multinationals that have fleets of lawyers and whole departments to handle the tangles of government red tape. As a result, government bureaucracy has sunk not a few small and medium businesses. And who sweeps in to pick up the pieces? Monopolies and multinationals who gain more and more control over our economy and lives.

Another example is with non-profit agencies. It is common knowledge in the disability sector that the application and proposal writing process for government funding has been made so complicated that a particular lower mainland-based monopoly has been able to out bid small profit and not-for-profit operators across the province, even though the smaller community-based organizations have years of practical experience in all aspects of service provision to disabled clients, while the lower mainland-based monopoly has little or none. But this large enterprise has at its disposal staff that do nothing other than write proposals, and the government has informed the small and medium operators in the disability field that the sole criteria for awarding contracts is the “quality” of the proposals. Experience, history in the community, and local connections matter nothing. Thus, across the province, a number of non-profits with strong local roots and invaluable expertise have been wiped out and the bureaucratic process was the weapon used to accomplish this.

It’s difficult not to draw the conclusion that current government bureaucracy is established, not to serve the people, but rather to thwart them and spend as little as possible on their health and wellbeing. What other conclusion can one draw? Bureaucracy crushes people. Extinguishes hopes and dreams. And it seems that the only thing that has a chance of working is challenging the system. But not everyone has the wherewithal to challenge it, and, as a result, many citizens are being denied assistance to which they should be entitled.

Despite all the obstacles in her path, Shea has not given up, even though another hurdle was just recently thrown in front of her. In order to take some of the pressure off of her, Shea is looking into putting her kids in childcare. But she has just been informed by a Ministry representative that she must either provide documentation that she has been actively seeking work in order to be eligible or get the same representative who has already turned her down to designate her as needing childcare. How someone who is blind and looking after two young kids on her own with virtually no home support is supposed to be out “actively seeking work” was not explained. Nonetheless, Shea plans to continue pursuing her case to receive a homecare stipend, including re-contacting her local MLA. 

We will keep readers up to date on her case. 


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home