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 ID: 408106
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Disability and Voluntarism 1965 - 1995 ..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Disability and Voluntarism 1965 - 1995 – an effective force in policy making?
Gareth
MillwardSlide2
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 disregardedSlide3
Simplified Timeline
DIG
1965
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
RADAR
CCD
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 AssessmentsSlide4
The social model of disability
UPIAS’s
Fundamental Principles
(1974)
Disabled People’s International and BCODP (1981)
Michael Oliver The Politics of Disablement (1990)Slide5
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, 1980Slide6
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 peopleSlide7
Types of Groups
For/of
Individual/Federal
Cause/Services
Lobbyist/Awareness
Impairment specific/pan impairmentSingle cause/general rightsSlide8
For/of
Ind
/Fed
Cause / Services
Lobby / Aware
Imp / Pan-Imp
Single / General
DIGOfInd
CauseLobbyPan-Imp
SingleDAOf & For
FedCause
LobbyPan-ImpSingle
UPIASFor
IndCause
AwarePan-Imp
GeneralSS / Scope
ForInd
ServicesAware
ImpSingle
BCODPOf
Fed
CauseAware
Pan-ImpGeneral
RADARFor
FedCause
Lobby
Pan-ImpGeneral
ITA / DDAOf
Ind
CauseLobby
Pan-ImpSingleSlide9
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?Slide10
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.Slide11
Some disabled individuals...
Org
Imp.
Edu
.
Career
Megan du BoissonDIGMS
GoodMary GreavesDIG / REHAB / RADAR
? – wheelchairPG equiv.Civil service, economist
Peter LargeDIG / RADAR / ADPTeenager – polioUni
Civil serviceBert MassieRADAR et alBaby – polio
UniPro. CampaignerPeter MitchellRADAR
PolioGoodCampaigner
Denny DenlyDDA
PolioGoodForces, campaigner
Stephen BradshawSIASpinal injury
GoodVic Finkelstein
UPIASSpinal injuryPG equiv.
AcademicMike OliverBCODP
? – wheelchairPG equiv.AcademicSlide12
Networks
Jack Ashley
Victoria Scott
Nicholas Scott
DIG
Mary Greaves
Peter Townsend
DHSS
RADAR
DA
Alf Morris
APDG
Peter Mitchell
Peter LargeSlide13
Effective?
Kingdon
(1984) and “policy streams”
Politics
Problem
Solution
Adapted from
Buse
, Mays, Walt,
Making Health Policy
(2005)
Policy WindowSlide14
Effective?
Excellent manipulation of “problem” and “politics”
Poor at influencing “solution”
Picture:
The Times
, 15
th November 1971, p. 1.Slide15
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.ukSlide16
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 povertySlide17
Thanks!