disability and voluntarism 1965 - 1995 – an effective force in policy making? gareth millward
TRANSCRIPT
Disability and Voluntarism 1965 - 1995 – an effective
force in policy making?
Gareth Millward
Aims
• Determine what “disability” meant in government
• Understand the interaction between government and voluntary organisations
• Assess how new political ideas outside the establishment were accepted or rejected – assimilated or disregarded
Simplified Timeline
DIG
1965 199519901985198019751970
RADARCCD
BCRD
DA
BCODP
Spastics Society
CS & Disabled Persons Act
Disabled Persons
(SCaR) Act
Disability Discrimination
Act
UPIAS
OPCS Survey
Disabled Persons Act
International Year of Disabled People
CORAD
Civil Rights Bills
Disabled Persons
(Employment) Act 1944
SJC
New invalidity benefits
Disability Working and Living
Allowances
Rights Now!
SCOPE
Personal Capacity
Assessments
The social model of disability
• UPIAS’s Fundamental Principles (1974)
• Disabled People’s International and BCODP (1981)
• Michael Oliver The Politics of Disablement (1990)
Medical Model
Medical Condition Impairment Handicap Disability
• Disability is a medical issue• Disabled people need to be adapted to society• Disabled people are incapable and need to be
helped
Adapted from ICIDH, WHO, 1980
Social model
• Disability is a social issue• Impairment only becomes disability because
society makes it so• A fair society would allow impaired people the
same chances to live autonomously as non-impaired people
Types of Groups
• For/of• Individual/Federal• Cause/Services• Lobbyist/Awareness• Impairment specific/pan impairment• Single cause/general rights
For/of Ind/Fed Cause / Services
Lobby / Aware
Imp / Pan-Imp
Single / General
DIG Of Ind Cause Lobby Pan-Imp Single
DA Of & For Fed Cause Lobby Pan-Imp Single
UPIAS For Ind Cause Aware Pan-Imp General
SS / Scope For Ind Services Aware Imp Single
BCODP Of Fed Cause Aware Pan-Imp General
RADAR For Fed Cause Lobby Pan-Imp General
ITA / DDA Of Ind Cause Lobby Pan-Imp Single
Insider/Outsider
• Big charities – definitely “in”, but not actively attempting to adjust conceptions of disability
• DIG, DA, RADAR – “experts”• BCODP – not in, though perhaps not trying?
The role of individuals
• A small network of agitators, highly skilled and highly motivated.
• Personal relationships important in discussions between “offices”
• However – also very similar demographics. A certain “type” of disabled person.
Some disabled individuals...Org Imp. Edu. Career
Megan du Boisson DIG MS Good
Mary Greaves DIG / REHAB / RADAR
? – wheelchair PG equiv. Civil service, economist
Peter Large DIG / RADAR / ADP Teenager – polio Uni Civil service
Bert Massie RADAR et al Baby – polio Uni Pro. Campaigner
Peter Mitchell RADAR Polio Good Campaigner
Denny Denly DDA Polio Good Forces, campaigner
Stephen Bradshaw SIA Spinal injury Good
Vic Finkelstein UPIAS Spinal injury PG equiv. Academic
Mike Oliver BCODP ? – wheelchair PG equiv. Academic
Networks
Jack AshleyVictoria Scott
Nicholas Scott
DIG
Mary Greaves
Peter Townsend
DHSS RADAR
DA
Alf Morris
APDG
Peter Mitchell
Peter Large
Effective?
• Kingdon (1984) and “policy streams”PoliticsProblemSolution
Adapted from Buse, Mays, Walt, Making Health Policy (2005)
Policy Window
Effective?
• Excellent manipulation of “problem” and “politics”
• Poor at influencing “solution”
Picture: The Times, 15th November 1971, p. 1.
The bureaumedical model?
• Voluntary organisations “discovered” disability for the government
• However, social model – rights – is not a measurable legal tool
• But “need” can be measured – if functional limitations are equated with“need”
http://www.crippencartoons.co.uk
Outcome Examples
• DDA employment sections did not apply to businesses employing fewer than 20 people
• New capacity tests looked at medically ascertainable functional limitations – not disease nomenclature
• Benefits paid more equally based on need – but still at levels far too low to alleviate poverty
Thanks!