Disability, Poverty and Welfare Policy: A Critical Disability Theory Analysis of Alberta’s Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped and Implications for Saskatchewan

Abstract

Throughout modern history, people with disabilities have been socially and economically excluded and subject to intrusive, segregated services. The systemic exclusion of people with disabilities from mainstream society is a product of entrenched discrimination and the devaluing of their lives. The majority of people with disabilities are left with limited options, forcing them to rely on family members, charity and/or state programs to meet their financial and daily living needs. Disability activists have challenged the hegemonic belief that disability is an individual problem, labeling this the ‘individual pathology’ model of disability. They propose an alternative framework, ‘the social model’ which views disability as entirely subjective and societal, rather than a problem within individuals. This thesis examines how the underlying belief that people with disabilities are tragic and flawed, deserving of charity but not equality, may still be a critical factor that influences the construction of social policy, despite the rising popularity of social model thinking. Utilizing choice analysis, this thesis studies the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) in Alberta. The questions are asked: which model of disability influenced how and why AISH was developed; and has the AISH program evolved with the growing recognition of the social model of disability? The analysis is then used to reflect on the emerging Saskatchewan Assured Income for Disability (SAID) program. The systemic exclusion of disabled people has been de-politicized. Alternatives to the individual pathology model, although known to policy-makers, have been ignored in mainstream policy discourse. (Oliver, 1996; Titchkosky, 2006). If positive change is to happen, the situation of people with disabilities must be re-politicized and their collective experience of exclusion acknowledged and as they define their own needs (Oliver, 1990).