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!