Do cognitive disabilities no longer qualify? I was approved 2x under new guidelines, but denied DAS today

[jennab]

I mean, the post here is enough for people to do that. the rumors will make their way around, nothing will change that.

But posting the information on Disneys website would make it way easier for people to figure out…. Why make it easier for people to cheat the system?

 

[Angel Ariel]

But posting the information on Disneys website would make it way easier for people to figure out…. Why make it easier for people to cheat the system?

the flip question of that is why make it even harder for people with developmental and cognitive disabilities to qualify?

I helped a friend of mine who has a daughter very similar to mine go to Disney world for the first time earlier this year. She had so much anxiety about this DAS process that she almost didn't even try. Because we're used to being denied access to things that our kids should be able to access. when Disney constantly makes it harder and harder for people to qualify, the more barriers there are in the process, the more people that *actually need the accommodation* will self-select out (and either not go on the trip, or have a significantly impacted visit) because they just don't have the bandwidth to navigate the barriers.

 

[jennab]

the flip question of that is why make it even harder for people with developmental and cognitive disabilities to qualify?

I helped a friend of mine who has a daughter very similar to mine go to Disney world for the first time earlier this year. She had so much anxiety about this DAS process that she almost didn't even try. Because we're used to being denied access to things that our kids should be able to access. when Disney constantly makes it harder and harder for people to qualify, the more barriers there are in the process, the more people that *actually need the accommodation* will self-select out (and either not go on the trip, or have a significantly impacted visit) because they just don't have the bandwidth to navigate the barriers.

But it’s not up to us if we should receive DAS, right? So why should Disney post all their criteria for approval? It’s not as simple as a diagnosis or one thing, it’s likely a combination of factors that lead someone to an approval or a denial. Should they post every possible scenario in which people can get approved?

And yes, some people will have to make a choice if denied if it’s still worth going and trying other accommodations. I often wonder, what would people do if DAS didn’t exist and only the other accommodations were offered?

 

[lanejudy]

I mean, the post here is enough for people to do that. the rumors will make their way around, nothing will change that.

It’s a rumor — whether true or not, believable or not — it’s still just “a CM told me…”

 

[OurBigTrip]

the flip question of that is why make it even harder for people with developmental and cognitive disabilities to qualify?

I helped a friend of mine who has a daughter very similar to mine go to Disney world for the first time earlier this year. She had so much anxiety about this DAS process that she almost didn't even try. Because we're used to being denied access to things that our kids should be able to access. when Disney constantly makes it harder and harder for people to qualify, the more barriers there are in the process, the more people that *actually need the accommodation* will self-select out (and either not go on the trip, or have a significantly impacted visit) because they just don't have the bandwidth to navigate the barriers.

Because not everyone with cognitive or developmental disabilities need DAS.

 

[Angel Ariel]

It’s a rumor — whether true or not, believable or not — it’s still just “a CM told me…”

I get that - and based on the past, that's enough to get people to alter their behavior, esp if they're truly trying to cheat the system. That's all I was saying with that

 

[Angel Ariel]

Because not everyone with cognitive or developmental disabilities need DAS.

I never said they did. My comment wasn't saying there should be no restrictions. None of my comments here over the last year have been that.

 

[lanejudy]

I get that - and based on the past, that's enough to get people to alter their behavior, esp if they're truly trying to cheat the system. That's all I was saying with that

And yet those who focus on such rumors and change their behavior may not be helping themselves any if the rumor isn’t true.

I still believe it comes down to how one describes their needs and regular daily accommodations.

 

[Angel Ariel]

But it’s not up to us if we should receive DAS, right? So why should Disney post all their criteria for approval? It’s not as simple as a diagnosis or one thing, it’s likely a combination of factors that lead someone to an approval or a denial. Should they post every possible scenario in which people can get approved?

And yes, some people will have to make a choice if denied if it’s still worth going and trying other accommodations. I often wonder, what would people do if DAS didn’t exist and only the other accommodations were offered?

I didn't say anything about posting all of their criteria. I was responding to a specific piece. And since we've been engaged in this conversation for a year now, i didn't really think I had to specify that I wasn't remotely implying they should post every single possible scenario.

As for the bottom - I don't mnow how that relates to my post? My friend wasn't denied. She did follow through on applying, after I helped her work through her anxiety about it. My comments about her weren't in anyway related to whether or not she got denied - she was going regardless. I wasn't talking about people self selecting out because they were denied - I was referring to people self-selecting out if the process to apply itself has too many barriers. That rumors - or practices, if this is or becomes a practice - such as this are enough to make families such as hers not even try for a DAS, despite the fact that her child is precisely who the accommodation is intended for.

 

[Angel Ariel]

And yet those who focus on such rumors and change their behavior may not be helping themselves any if the rumor isn’t true.

I still believe it comes down to how one describes their needs and regular daily accommodations.

I agree with you on both counts. Wasn't defending such actions

 

[jennab]

I didn't say anything about posting all of their criteria. I was responding to a specific piece. And since we've been engaged in this conversation for a year now, i didn't really think I had to specify that I wasn't remotely implying they should post every single possible scenario.

As for the bottom - I don't mnow how that relates to my post? My friend wasn't denied. She did follow through on applying, after I helped her work through her anxiety about it. My comments about her weren't in anyway related to whether or not she got denied - she was going regardless. I wasn't talking about people self selecting out because they were denied - I was referring to people self-selecting out if the process to apply itself has too many barriers. That rumors - or practices, if this is or becomes a practice - such as this are enough to make families such as hers not even try for a DAS, despite the fact that her child is precisely who the accommodation is intended for.

This is what I was referring to. My understanding of your statement is you thought if this was a new rule, it should be updated in their “guidelines ”, which I took to mean how to apply section

Doesn't impact us, as I do have to navigate the process for DD, but if this is the case then they should be updating their published guidelines

I’m just having a conversation about the topic, but to me, you always seem to be defensive in your replies.

 

[Angel Ariel]

This is what I was referring to. My understanding of your statement is you thought if this was a new rule, it should be updated in their “guidelines ”, which I took to mean how to apply section



I’m just having a conversation about the topic, but to me, you always seem to be defensive in your replies.

I'm just trying to have a conversation also, but I do get frustrated continually being responded to with hyperbolic statements like these:

But it’s not up to us if we should receive DAS, right? So why should Disney post all their criteria for approval? It’s not as simple as a diagnosis or one thing, it’s likely a combination of factors that lead someone to an approval or a denial. Should they post every possible scenario in which people can get approved?

And yes, some people will have to make a choice if denied if it’s still worth going and trying other accommodations. I often wonder, what would people do if DAS didn’t exist and only the other accommodations were offered?

Of course it's not up to us if we should receive DAS. Which I've agreed with and said many times here, and shouldn't have to any more at this point.

suggesting that *if* their approvals are now centering on a person's level of independence on a zoom call - vs how the queue environment impacts them - that such guidance should be updated to reflect that change, is nowhere near a request to post "every possible scenario".

What you're hearing in my tone isn't defensiveness - it's exasperation. I just want to have a conversation also, but these jumps to the extreme scenario (share absolutely every scenario, in this instance) aren't conducive to conversation IMO.

 

[jennab]

I'm just trying to have a conversation also, but I do get frustrated continually being responded to with hyperbolic statements like these:


Of course it's not up to us if we should receive DAS. Which I've agreed with and said many times here, and shouldn't have to any more at this point.

suggesting that *if* their approvals are now centering on a person's level of independence on a zoom call - vs how the queue environment impacts them - that such guidance should be updated to reflect that change, is nowhere near a request to post "every possible scenario".

What you're hearing in my tone isn't defensiveness - it's exasperation. I just want to have a conversation also, but these jumps to the extreme scenario (share absolutely every scenario, in this instance) aren't conducive to conversation IMO.

To be honest, I can’t remember who has said what in the last year since all these changes. So, no, I’m not going to remember if you’ve agreed or said something multiple times

But what I’m pointing out is, why would it be beneficial for Disney to publish one part of their criteria (pretend that the statement about the DAS applicant needing help applying for DAS is true), when there are many other pieces to approval? That would just cause more problems as a person would then automatically assume they will be eligible because they need assistance applying. Much like people already assume just because they have autism they should automatically be eligible.

 

[Angel Ariel]

To be honest, I can’t remember who has said what in the last year since all these changes. So, no, I’m not going to remember if you’ve agreed or said something multiple times

I do get that, and appreciate that. and I shouldn't expect that, on a personal level, you're right. I think what I find exasperating is not you specifically, but that those kinds of hyperbolic jumps are made often when anyone says they disagree with some aspect of Disney's actions. It's possible to have thoughts or disagreements without being one of those people who are just being unreasonable about all of this. It feels like often in these threads, though, any disagreement is responded to as though the person is one of those people just railing against everything Disney is doing with DAS. There is a middle ground to be had. Extremes don't get us there though.

But what I’m pointing out is, why would it be beneficial for Disney to publish one part of their criteria (pretend that the statement about the DAS applicant needing help applying for DAS is true), when there are many other pieces to approval? That would just cause more problems as a person would then automatically assume they will be eligible because they need assistance applying. Much like people already assume just because they have autism they should automatically be eligible.

I see what you're saying - but it doesn't really address what I'm talking about. I'm not saying they should update the guidelines to say anything specific about support needs. But right now all that it states is:

"intended to accommodate those Guests who, due to a developmental disability like autism or similar are unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period of time."

A conventional queue is a much different environment, and requires a much different skill set, than the at-home virtual queue for DAS (or the rest of the DAS process). If they're going to use criteria unrelated to the conventional queue to determine if someone is eligible i have little doubt they can find ways to allude to that without being super detailed/prescriptive about it. They are masters at the legalese. My hope and main point is just that I think people should be given an opportunity to speak to all the criteria being used to determine whether they are eligible.

 

[jennab]

I do get that, and appreciate that. and I shouldn't expect that, on a personal level, you're right. I think what I find exasperating is not you specifically, but that those kinds of hyperbolic jumps are made often when anyone says they disagree with some aspect of Disney's actions. It's possible to have thoughts or disagreements without being one of those people who are just being unreasonable about all of this. It feels like often in these threads, though, any disagreement is responded to as though the person is one of those people just railing against everything Disney is doing with DAS. There is a middle ground to be had. Extremes don't get us there though.



I see what you're saying - but it doesn't really address what I'm talking about. I'm not saying they should update the guidelines to say anything specific about support needs. But right now all that it states is:

"intended to accommodate those Guests who, due to a developmental disability like autism or similar are unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period of time."

A conventional queue is a much different environment, and requires a much different skill set, than the at-home virtual queue for DAS (or the rest of the DAS process). If they're going to use criteria unrelated to the conventional queue to determine if someone is eligible i have little doubt they can find ways to allude to that without being super detailed/prescriptive about it. They are masters at the legalese. My hope and main point is just that I think people should be given an opportunity to speak to all the criteria being used to determine whether they are eligible.

Oh I agree, people should be given the opportunity to explain their issues/concerns with a line queue and the DAS call is not the same. I personally think they are being more strict about adults who have the ability to plan, travel, and apply for DAS on their own.