As someone who has processed applications for service dogs in the past the system explained here is actually a very efficient and effective one. Now without seeing the previous policy I can't speak to whether it was better or not but from what I'm able to determine 1/ https://twitter.com/SomewhereInYEG/status/1265647783802859520

They haven't changed any eligibility criteria, just the way the applications are processed. Applications are first assessed for general eligibility and if those criteria aren't met (doesn't live in Alberta for example) the application is denied. If they are then step 2

The application is then assessed for medical eligibility. If those criteria aren't met (does not have a disability for example) the application is denied. If they are then step 3

The application is assessed for financial eligibility. Same as previous. It makes no sense to assess for financial eligibility first if they don't meet the criteria for general eligibility and it's a waste of money, time, and manpower to assess all of them at once,

Regardless of whether they do or don't meet criteria in any of the other sections. It also makes sense to have a front line of assessors look at the general eligibility of an application because that section doesn't need specialized knowledge or experience.

Anyone with a checklist can determine if general criteria are met and that saves both time and money by allowing the people with specialized knowledge to focus on the parts of the application that require that specialized knowledge to assess.

And look I'm not at all a fan of the UCP or what they've been doing with AISH but this change looks like a pretty basic policy change and the UCP wouldn't have had anything to do with it, nor could they have demanded this change since it's part of the day to day operations

The budget cuts may have led to this change being implemented (without knowing what it was changed from I can't make a more accurate prediction) but a more efficient way of processing applications (it's a system very similar to the one I used myself in fact) is a plus regardless

Honestly none of the changes noted in this thread seem like major ones, merely policy clarifications and updates (having a list of things covered means constantly needing to update that list as things change and it was never an exhaustive list to begin with)

Don't get me wrong, I'm very invested in what the UCP does with AISH and what that means for me but I'm also very concerned with the emotional toll inciting fear can cause people who are already scared and vulnerable

And on the balance that toll can cause a lot more damage than people realize. I'm just not sure a few minor policy changes (again without seeing the previous policy I can only assume) are worth inciting that fear for. De-indexing? Absolutely. Streamlining application assessment?

Probably not the right time.

But hey! I'm open to admitting if I'm wrong anywhere and I'm open to hearing other perspectives so if there's additional information I haven't seen feel free to bring it to my attention. /end