Building Rapport

If you are homeless in Vancouver and you want to live in public housing, there is a paper wall to keep you out:

• The basic application form is 13 pages long.
• The additional form required of those who have been homeless is 9 pages long.
• And then you must complete a form for each individual housing project that you might live in.
• Supplemental forms like an application for a copy of a birth certificate.

Picture a destitute family about to lose their housing. Someone in the family must be calm and collected and literate enough to fill out 2 of the forms above. The 2nd form must be completed for each of the housing projects they might qualify for.

Picture a destitute person who has been sleeping under a bridge for month or years. She must complete all three sets of forms–while she is anxious, hungry, and weary.

You see the wall there?

Have you heard of situational limited literacy? That’s when the context or the circumstances are so stressful or overwhelming that whatever literacy skills you have had in the past, they are not available to you in the present moment.

Since so few people get over that wall, a local group has formed for the purpose of documenting the homeless in their neighborhood and completing the application forms.

I have not seen these forms so I can’t tell you whether they are in plain language but I would say the odds are against it.

This is a question to be voted on in late 2011, subject to any big change in our provincial government.

Will you offer a rewite?

“Are you in favour of extinguishing the HST (Harmonized Sales Tax) and reinstating the PST (Provincial Sales Tax) in conjunction with the GST (Goods and Services Tax)?” Yes/No

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2010AG0027-001402.htm

Too often, we are expected to go faster and faster for political reasons. Too many people think plain language change is quick and easy.

Plain Language in Organizations

To help people cope, Kate Harrison and I wrote Plain Language in Organizations: An Action Plan (ebook) but this plan addresses the plain language change in a single organization. The newest developments apply to an entire industry, a U.S. state, or a national government apparatus.

Delay: Country by country

Recently in South Africa, the plain language trainers, writers aountrynd editors had been rushing to satisfy clients who needed to comply with the approaching deadline set by their new Consumer Protection Act. And businesses spent millions over the 18-month advance period. The original date for effect has now been delayed from October this year to March 2011. Even after 18 months for preparation the government has not filled all the commission posts nor released regulations to guide compliance efforts.

Elizabeth Warren has been given the task of setting up the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by July 2011. Because hers is a temporary appointment, the Bureau won’t be able to publish regulations until a permanent director is approved by the U.S. Congress. Not a bad idea to take some time.

One U.S. government employee is quoted elsewhere saying:

Making plain language a requirement, rather than just a best practice, means agency web managers will be able to make a stronger case for allocating dollars towards content producers and writers… It isn’t easy to simplify some government content, so you need that expertise to be truly successful. Plain language would mean better service for citizens, which is what every federal web manager is striving to provide.

Changing the whole government’s style

Soon the U.S. President will sign the Plain Writing Act 2010 (almost certain since Obama was a sponsor of the previous bill). Another change process will begin as all government agencies scramble to comply. This legislation may run into problems with its deadlines also.

My friend and a plain language advocate, William Dubay , has commented elsewhere on this new Act:

Government interest in plain language began in the 1970s in response to consumer complaints. Most states at that time enacted laws that required plain language in agency regulations and insurance policies. Some of these laws have been very effective. Insurance commissioners regularly enforce the insurance requirements but most of the agency requirements are lacking enforcement and standards.

The message may be loud and clear on jargon, but weak and vague on standards, funding, and enforcement. Managers will be loathe to implement new demands for which no resources have been provided. Americans may be losing money because of poor writing practices, but good writing practices take training, method, and practice, which all cost money.

Clear definitions still to come

For all of these programs, one challenge is to decide what sort of efforts or results will satisfy the expectation of plain language. An agreeable definition is hard to come by. The international, non-government Plain Language Working Group of experts is still working on this too. Even agreement amongst plain language advocates is hard to reach.

Managing change

Dominique Joseph, a language analyst in Ottawa, has provided some links for support on managing change:

• Kotter’s 8-step change model: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_82.htm
• Website based on Kotter’s “Heart of Change” book: http://www.theheartofchange.com/
• Chip and Dan Heath (in their book “Switch”), also talk about the importance of using both “feeling” and “thinking” to create the motivation for change.
• A favorite story — Gloves on the boardoom table: http://www.theheartofchange.com/ It’s wonderful

Still, for a mere $15 Plain Language in Organizations is a good guide for use within a department or division of a larger entity.

picture credit: Cover image of a foundational text of the plain language movement, the 1966 Gobbledygook Has Gotta Go by Bureau of Land Management employee John O’Hara; via the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

That prescription-drug info from the pharmacy can fall short

The LA Times has reported that the legally required type of medical information given out by pharmacies is not doing the job of communciating risk.

Researchers at the University of Florida found shortcomings in the written information for on “directions for use” and “comprehensibility/legibility”.

They wrote: “Many leaflets failed to meet the minimum requirements, such as provision of a complete list of absolute contraindications, and more than half lacked specific directions that would allow patients to manage problems. Because CMI [consumer medical information] was the sole written information dispensed, some patients had no information about the risk of lactic acidosis associated with metformin or related warning signs or action steps. The high reading level required to comprehend the presented information and the inadequate formatting suggest additional shortcomings.”

Drugstores are for ‘One-Document Solution’ for patient information

The National Association of Chain Drug Stores says pharmacy and consumer groups should collaborate with the government to develop a “one-document solution” for information provided to patients regarding prescription drugs.

NACDS submitted its letter in response to an August 9, 2010, article in the newspaper that was critical of such information. NACDS President and Chief Executive Officer Steven C. Anderson says:

“Pharmacy is working with the government to help provide enhanced user-friendly information to patients about their prescription drugs. The National Association of Chain Drug Stores submitted a Citizen Petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2008. Seven additional organizations, including other pharmacy and consumer groups, joined in the petition.

“The petition requests FDA guidance describing the parameters for a voluntary, FDA-approved, concise, plain-language document for patients. Such a format could consolidate and replace the multiple written communications pharmacies must now distribute to patients.

“This ‘one-document solution’ could harmonize multiple documents that arise from different FDA-imposed legal requirements or information interpretations, and from different offices and constituencies within FDA.

The Los Angeles Times article is available by clicking here http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-prescription-information-20100809,0,3840303,print.story

Today we have a guest post from Dominique Joseph.

Is it possible or even useful to legislate ‘plain language’?

This question has been asked, at least, since “The Decline and fall of gobbledygook: Report on plain language document”, produced by the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Bankers’ Association joint committee in 1990.

There is more complete and recent info, but it still raises good points. I will start with the committee’s point of view, and then provide the definitions for the subjective and objective approaches (since those two terms appear in the point of view).

THE JOINT COMMITTEE’S POINT OF VIEW:

“The Joint Committee does not believe that plain language documentation is a suitable matter to be dealt with in legislation. The problem with plain language legislation is that it ignores the fact that plain language drafting is a process rather than the application of a fixed set of rules.

Thus, in the case of the “objective approach, one could apply the rules set out in the Connecticut statute and still have a document that is unintelligible. In the case of the “subjective” approach, a problem arises because there is no commonly accepted standard of what is readable. A person compelled to draft a “readable” document by statute is unlikely to strive for the highest standard of readability.

Legislation can be effective when its object is to prohibit persons from engaging in specified types of undesirable conduct. Legislation is not effective when it tries to require individuals to undertake some positive action that requires time, skill, effort, and commitment.”

SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE APPROACHES:

“The legislative approaches to date have taken two forms. The first approach, adopted by New York and the Alberta legislation, has been called the “subjective” approach because of the general requirement that agreements and contracts be written in a “clear manner using words with common everyday meanings.” Beyond this general guideline, the subjective approach does not define plain language nor does this approach establish specific criteria for a plain language document.

[...] The second approach to plain language legislation, adopted by Connecticut, has been called the “objective” approach because of specific requirements defining what constitutes a plain language document. Typically, this approach stipulates the average length of sentences, the size, and style of typeface used, the length of lines and the size of margins. In addition, this approach may require the document to score in a particular range on a readability test, such as the Flesch test.”

A very interesting puzzle, indeed!

General Rules and Regulations
promulgated under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Rule 13a-19 — Plain English Presentation of Specified Information

---

1. Any information included or incorporated by reference in a report filed under section 13(a) of the Act that is required to be disclosed pursuant to Item 402, 403, 404 or 407 of Regulation S-B or Item 402, 403, 404 or 407 of Regulation S-K must be presented in a clear, concise and understandable manner. You must prepare the disclosure using the following standards:
   1. Present information in clear, concise sections, paragraphs and sentences;

   2. Use short sentences;
   3. Use definite, concrete, everyday words;
   4. Use the active voice;
   5. Avoid multiple negatives;
   6. Use descriptive headings and subheadings;
   7. Use a tabular presentation or bullet lists for complex material, wherever possible;
   8. Avoid legal jargon and highly technical business and other terminology;
   9. Avoid frequent reliance on glossaries or defined terms as the primary means of explaining information. Define terms in a glossary or other section of the document only if the meaning is unclear from the context. Use a glossary only if it facilitates understanding of the disclosure; and
   10. In designing the presentation of the information you may include pictures, logos, charts, graphs and other design elements so long as the design is not misleading and the required information is clear. You are encouraged to use tables, schedules, charts and graphic illustrations that present relevant data in an understandable manner, so long as such presentations are consistent with applicable disclosure requirements and consistent with other information in the document. You must draw graphs and charts to scale. Any information you provide must not be misleading.

In drafting the disclosure to comply with this section, you should avoid the following:

1. Legalistic or overly complex presentations that make the substance of the disclosure difficult to understand;

2. Vague “boilerplate” explanations that are imprecise and readily subject to different interpretations;
3. Complex information copied directly from legal documents without any clear and concise explanation of the provision(s); and
4. Disclosure repeated in different sections of the document that increases the size of the document but does not enhance the quality of the information.

71 FR 53158, 53261, Sept. 8, 2006.

Dubuque’s congressman, Rep. Bruce Braley, introduced a bill last week that would require the federal government to communicate in easy-to-understand language.

“Anyone who’s done their own taxes knows the headache of trying to understand pages and pages of confusing forms and instructions,” Braley said. “There is no reason why the federal government can’t write these forms and other public documents in a way we can all understand.”

The Plain Language in Government Communications Act, HR 3584, sets guidelines for documents like tax returns, college aid applications and forms from the Department of Veteran Affairs. The bill’s guidelines instruct document authors to use short, simple words; use “you” and other pronouns when speaking to the reader; use short sentences and paragraphs; and avoid legal, foreign and technical jargon.

The bill, which has two Democratic and two Republican cosponsors, was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, one of the committees Braley serves on.

According to a report appearing on www.plainlanguage.gov, “Plain talk” can result in higher revenue for the government instituting it.

An official in Washington state says their Department of Revenue estimates it has collected about $5 million in additional revenue since rewriting one explanatory tax collection letter in 2003.