CGSB Draft Service Dog Teams Standard, a GDUC Perspective
We offer the following as a means for you to make up your own minds about the standard. We’ve done everything in our power to provide a balanced perspective, aimed at giving you the information you’ll need to arrive at a decision, either for or against.
With the CGSB Draft Service Dog Teams Standard in the public review phase, this document attempts to explain what is likely to happen to new guide dog teams as the standard moves forward. It also serves as a frame of reference for our detailed feedback on the standard which will be provided to GDUC members shortly.
GDUC acknowledges the efforts and expertise of retired standards professional Michel Bourassa, whose special knowledge and expertise enabled us to take on this task. The document borrows liberally from Mr. Bourassa’s writings which he has graciously allowed us to use. Joanne Moss, of the Canadian Foundation for Animal assisted support Services also provided significant assistance, guidance, and moral support.
The majority of North American guide dog schools are members of the International Guide Dog Federation , IGDF. Schools which train other types of service dogs have a similar relationship with Assistance Dogs International , ADI. Most Canadian schools also belong to the Canadian Association of Guide and Assistance Dog Schools, CAGADS.
Acceptance of schools as IGDF members is largely based on standards which describe in detail the processes associated with training, or producing, guide dogs, as well as the schools’ dealings with clients. They were developed by the IGDF, for use by the IGDF, and as such are termed private or closed standards. The standards outline such things as qualifications for guide dog mobility instructors, aspects of the initial home visit, ETC. In essence the standards ensure that IGDF schools are operating in such a way as to produce the best possible guide dog teams. In effect, the IGDF member schools have a niche market in the production of guide dogs.
While GDUC is quite satisfied with the way guide dog teams are currently being trained, we recognize the benefits offered by other types of service dogs. We further acknowledge that the increased prevalence of other types of service dogs is problematic, in that there is currently no concrete way for those responsible for public spaces to determine which teams are, or are not, legitimate. We therefore believe that the resulting confusion in terms of access rights needs to be addressed if we are to move forward as a community of service dog handlers, or indeed as an inclusive society.
CGSB Draft Service Dog Teams Standard
Enter the Canadian General Standards Board, CGSB, Draft Service Dog Team Standard which differs from the IGDF standards in several important ways:
What VS How
The intent of the CGSB standard is to set out requirements using performance measures which establish that:
- The service dog team is legitimate in that the handler has a legally recognized disability, and the service dog assists the handler in their life through mitigation of some aspects of the disability
- The service dog team is safe in, and safe to, the public
- The service dog is well cared for
The CGSB standard carefully avoids training requirements for the various tasks that service dogs perform, and leaves them to those doing the training. Annex A of the standard contains information on training methods, while Annex C summarizes tasks associated with different types of service dogs, e.g., mobility, hearing, and autism. This approach does not bind service dog trainers and organizations to existing training methods, but instead encourages the development of new and innovative humane training practices.
In other words, the CGSB standard focuses on the end result, or what, whereas the IGDF standards focus on the processes, or how. In that way, they actually complement one another.
The requirements of the draft CGSB standard cover the knowledge and capabilities of current guide dog school trained teams, and form the basis for other service dog teams on an “as good as” basis.
Successful implementation of the CGSB standard requires other elements, such as regulation, conformance verification, training providers, supporting persons, and organizations.
Testing and Certification
The requirements in the CGSB standard will form the basis for testing new service dog teams. Although the certification (conformance verification) process has not yet been agreed upon, and cannot be until the standard itself is accepted, we feel relatively comfortable speculating that it will likely work as follows for guide dog teams:
The expectation is that CGSB will implement a certification scheme that will include a central registry of certified teams, along with a CGSB certification mark appearing on equipment and ID cards in a manner visible to the public. This will give instant recognition that teams are legitimate thereby helping to clarify rights of access to public spaces.
We expect that there will be more than one stream leading to individual team certification, depending on the approach taken to prepare the team: recognized training school (E.G., IGDF member), independent trainer, or training by the partner handler.
If the team results from a recognized training school, it is the school that will decide that the certification mark is appropriate. Use of the certification mark by the school may only be done through a legal contract between the school and CGSB, known as a certification agreement.
Prior to granting the contract, CGSB will satisfy itself that the school is competent to produce teams that fulfill the requirements of the standard. After awarding the contract, CGSB will perform continuous surveillance to assure itself that all future teams are in compliance. For schools CGSB has no reason to doubt the surveillance will be very light.
For schools where CGSB receives complaints that their teams pose problems, perhaps from persons that manage public spaces, perhaps from the general public, perhaps from regulators, or perhaps from the school’s competitors, CGSB will intensify its surveillance of the school as needed to ensure complying teams. As a last resort, CGSB will cancel the contract. When a contract is cancelled, existing certifications are normally not affected, but the school may no longer use the CGSB certification mark.
The standard was drafted with the certification scenario of a contract with a school in mind, and as written should permit a school to continue its current way of operating while simply indicating to CGSB how it puts the requirements of the standard into practice. One example would be to demonstrate how its intake evaluation uses a knowledgeable person to perform the assessment. A second example would be how the school evaluates the service dog obedience skills as they are acquired during training prior to matching with a handler. In that way the IGDF schools are being accorded complete respect, acknowledged as pioneers, and credited with the expertise and experience gained over the course of many decades.
After talking to some of the guide dog schools, we determined that many of them, particularly those in the U.S., are likely to reject the above certification scenario based on the anticipated surveillance provisions. Rightly or wrongly, they see them as interference by government. The Seeing Eye, for instance, likened the situation to that occurring in California with Guide Dogs for the Blind and the board of oversight. While the proposed certification scenario does involve surveillance, the surveillance will be strictly in accordance with the requirements in the standard, and as such will not represent interference in the schools’ day-to-day operations. Another rejection factor involves the practice in the U.S. of being entitled to accommodations, with no questions asked, based on a person self-identifying as having a disability.
Simply stated, we, as guide dog handlers will not likely notice much difference, and will not have to undergo additional third-party testing, provided we choose to attend an existing guide dog school. As the standard does allow for alternate training streams, it is up to us to make informed personal choices concerning the type of training we receive according to our needs and life styles.
The second major difference between the IGDF and CGSB standards relates to the manner in which they were developed. The CGSB standard is being put together on a voluntary/consensus basis by a standards-development committee comprised of a wide variety of stakeholders, including:
- Regulators – staff from departments of the federal and some provincial government departments
- Producers – representatives from many of the Canadian guide and assistance dog schools along with some private trainers of service dogs
- Users – organizations speaking for guide dog handlers like GDUC, CCD, and VIRN
- General interest
Voluntary consensus standards are founded on balanced representation and knowledge. Standards-development committees are made up of people who not only have specific knowledge about an issue, in this case service dog teams, but also have a special interest in the outcome. These factors help ensure that standards under development are both technically and financially feasible, and acceptable to all parties.
Standards Help Us
Standards are not legislation, and do not constitute governmental oversight. Although the Canadian General Standards Board is in fact part of the Federal government, its role in the development of the service dog team standard is that of an enabler or facilitator.
The CGSB will likely be more actively involved when it comes to the certification process. It is important to understand that the development of the certification process is contingent upon acceptance of the standard itself. Should that occur, please be assured that GDUC will advocate for the development of a certification scheme which recognizes the excellent work being done by IGDF member schools, yet at the same time is fair to all parties.
In general terms, standards ensure that the numerous products and services we use on a daily basis are safe, and function as intended. Until now, the training of service dogs has been left to schools which make their own rules, but perhaps the time has come to bring it into line with mainstream consumer products and services through the adoption of appropriate and relevant standards. Surely this can be achieved without those schools believing that the CGSB standard represents criticism, or threatens their current way of operating, which is definitely not the intent.
Voluntary standards can be used as a tool by regulators, and can serve as supports for public policy. Legislation can reference the CGSB standard as a means of clarifying service dog team access provisions. In this case, access can be granted to public spaces based on the presence of the CGSB certification mark on the team’s id card.
The Standard will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis allowing it to keep pace with changes in the service dog landscape.
One example of how the CGSB standard could be referenced in legislation is the Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act, AODA. This legislation is perceived as weak by many as the standards on which it depends were not developed before the legislation was implemented.
Guide Dog Users of Canada ultimately believes implementing the CGSB Service Dog Teams Standard will:
- Tackle the problem of fake service dogs through inclusion of the CGSB certification mark on handlers’ id cards
- Leave the traditional guide dog school training model pretty much as it is today
- Offer more choices when it comes to obtaining guide dogs
- Make Canada an international champion in terms of service dog teams. Once the standard becomes established in this country, it could well be brought forward to the International Organization for Standardization, ISO, which could well lead to the creation of a World-wide standard.
At this point we encourage you to think carefully, and make your decision to accept or reject the CGSB standard on its own merits. We recognize that the standard under consideration is not perfect, but the public review process is specifically designed to make it better through the provision of detailed feedback. That is precisely why we have gone to considerable lengths to comment on the standard, reach out to other stakeholders (training schools and other blindness focused organizations), and generally heighten our awareness of the issues present in the service dog community.
We fully expect that many of you will have questions which we’ll do our utmost to answer, perhaps during a conference call tentatively planned for early July. Ultimately, our organization will have to decide whether it is for or against the standard. It is our hope that this document served to shed at least some light on what the standard means, and does not mean, for us as handlers of guide dogs, and that it assists you to make an informed decision.