Upload
eolande-orcoran
View
35
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Disability and Voluntarism 1965 - 1995 – an effective force in policy making?. Gareth Millward Centre for History in Public Health London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Simplified Timeline. 1965. 1970. 1975. 1980. 1985. 1990. 1995. DIG. Rights Now!. DA. CCD. RADAR. BCRD. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Disability and Voluntarism 1965 - 1995 – an effective
force in policy making?Gareth Millward
Centre for History in Public HealthLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
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 HandicapDisability
Adapted from ICIDH, WHO, 1980
• Impairment – a functional limitation• Disability – a social function that cannot be
performed due to impairment• Handicap – a social disadvantage suffered due
to disability
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 General
BCODP Of Fed Cause Aware Pan-Imp General
RADAR For Fed Cause/Serv. 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 / CCD / 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 Army, 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
Unity?
• Late 60s – Early 70s – Incomes• Later 80s – Early 90s – Civil Rights• The rest?
Publications from DA and RADAR
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”
The Times, 15th November 1971, p. 1.
• 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
Conclusions...
• Style, type, aims and background of both individuals and organisations
• The networks – how, why and when interactions take place
• Times of unity, broadly times of change• Extent, scope and efficiency of said change
more problematic