Targeting Social Policy and Its Implications in Disabled People - Term Paper Example

 Targeting Social Policy & Its Implications in Disabled People The SRB was introduced in 1994, with the aim of providing a more coherent and integrated approach to urban regeneration (Oatley, 1998; Tilson et al., 1997). Past initiatives had been heavily criticised for their emphasis on physical and economic regeneration and failure to address the concerns of the local communities they were intended to benefit (Colenutt and Cutten, 1994; Nevin and Shiner, 1995). An amalgamation of 20 individual programmes, the SRB seeks a collaborative approach to tackling urban and rural deprivation by bringing together the public, private, community and voluntary sectors to form local partnerships which bid for resources from the fund (Tilson et al., 1997). Its objectives range from tackling disadvantage and enhancing employment and education for local people, to improving physical infrastructure and housing and increasing economic competitiveness (DOE, 1997; DETR, 1998b). Whilst partnerships have a board with key partners responsible for overall decision-making, money is divided between a number of different projects usually led by one or two of the partners. Partnerships are monitored by the Regional Development Agencies, (formerly the Government Offices for the Regions)--who report to the Regeneration Directorate at the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR)--through a system of outputs, key indicators and delivery plans. To date, there has been much criticism of the outputs, particularly by community groups who have suggested that they place more emphasis on economic, rather than social indicators (Gray, 1997). Interestingly, the move by `new' Labour to inject the SRB with the rhetoric of social inclusion and participation has not been matched by a significant change in the type of outputs against which the SRB measures `success'. The government views the SRB as a framework of objectives and outputs within which local partnerships have the flexibility to define local need and identify those groups and priorities most in need of resources. However, there is a danger that its strategic objectives may serve to exclude different groups (Brownill and Darke, 1998). Disabled people, for example, have never received a specific mention in urban regeneration policy. The only reference to disabled people in the SRB bidding guidance (which sets out the objectives of the scheme) is as an output "number from disadvantaged groups being targeted who obtain a job e.g. disabled people" (DoE, 1997, p. 28). Whilst ethnic minorities, faith groups and volunteers are mentioned as part of the community who should participate in the regeneration process, a whole host of other marginalised groups, including disabled people, receive little attention. It is not surprising, then, that DETR holds no information on the involvement of disabled people, as they are not a monitoring priority. Like Brownill and Darke's (1998,p. vi) experience of investigating race and gender in regeneration, researching disability also involves "reviewing a silence". The difficulties for community groups wanting to participate in the SRB are well-documented, however. As Colenutt and Cutten (1994,p. 239) note, community organisations "often lack the power, resources, and technical knowledge to operate on an equal footing with other partners". Community groups have to have a clear vision and be able to prove to the Government Offices that they can handle public money efficiently. For many groups, including disabled people, this is highly problematic. Despite the formation of the `disability movement', for example, disabled people have struggled to articulate a coherent voice, not least because people experience disability in numerous different ways (Scotch, 1988; Shakespeare, 1993). Thus, the experience and concerns of someone with a learning difficulty may be quite different from those of somebody with a mobility impairment. Many disability groups, too, may be based on informal networks and may receive no core funding. Like other community groups, the barriers facing disability groups in accessing the SRB are many, therefore. Whilst there is a debate about whom the SRB deems to be `socially excluded', how inclusion is to be achieved also raises some problematic issues for disabled people. Ginsburg (1999) suggests that despite the government's moves to emphasise the `social' aspects of regeneration, a lot of SRB funding over the past two years has gone to employment training for young people and to economic objectives. The SRB outputs are weighted towards job creation, and this is perhaps reflective of the more general belief emanating from `new' Labour that integrating people into society is predominantly about integration into the labour market. The various New Deal initiatives aimed at the young unemployed, lone parents and disabled people are an attempt to integrate those deemed dependent into society, through paid work (Levitas, 1996). Those who fail to comply face "benefit disqualifications, tighter conditions and enforcement" (Stepney et al., 1999, p. 112). Equating paid work to inclusion, however, is problematic. It fails to "address the question of unpaid work in society (done principally by women)" (Levitas, 1996, p. 7) and regards those unable to work as outside `mainstream' society. For many disabled people, finding and sustaining paid employment can be an uphill struggle. Discrimination by employers, as well as the limitations which bodily impairments place on individuals, mitigate against an easy transition into the labour market (London Disability News, 1999). In order to investigate the extent to which disabled people have been involved and consulted in SRB partnerships, a postal survey was sent to 200 partnerships across the UK. Representing a 30 per cent sample size, questionnaires were sent to a proportional sample of partnerships in each of the 8 Government Office regions, and across each of the 4 rounds of bidding which have taken place to date. Lists of partnerships were obtained from the Government Offices for the Regions which monitor the SRB and questionnaires were sent to a named individual within each partnership, usually the project manager or co-ordinator. Given the large and often disparate nature of partnerships, deciding to whom to direct such a survey can prove problematic; even the partnership manager may not have in-depth knowledge of all the projects existing under the label of one partnership. However, given the complete lack of information about disabled people within the SRB, the survey was intended to provide a broad idea about the issue, through both closed and open-ended questions. After sending out two rounds of questionnaires, a response rate of 127 (64 per cent) partnerships was achieved. The survey yielded both numerical data and more qualitative information based on respondents' thoughts and opinions about involving disabled people within the SRB. In this paper, the information from the survey is divided into four sections. First, we consider some of the basic characteristics of the partnerships, including their aims and those groups they intend to target. We consider those partnerships that have specifically targeted disabled people and discuss the form which involvement has taken and how it came about. Secondly, we focus on the constitution of the partnerships themselves and the representation of disabled people within them. In the third section, we discuss how, if at all, consultation has taken place with disabled people in SRB initiatives and the difficulties this raises. Finally, the paper discusses some of the opportunities and barriers identified by respondents about prioritising the needs of disabled people within the SRB and considers some of the potential changes which would further facilitate their involvement. Still less attention was paid to disabled people as a target group, with 54 (42 per cent) partnerships stating that they were specifically targeting disabled people. The 54 respondents were asked to provide more details about the projects which involve disabled people, how they came about and which disabilities they concern. Sixteen respondents did not provide details of specific schemes, however, which suggests either a lack of time or a belief that, as some respondents suggested, they are catering for the needs of disabled people in all their schemes. In terms of the types of regeneration activity through which disabled people were being targeted, 48 of the 54 respondents (89 per cent) stated that their schemes revolved around jobs and training; 23 (43 per cent) stated that disabled people were being involved in capacity-building exercises; 21 (39 per cent) in schemes to improve services; while only 13 (24 per cent) suggested that disabled people were involved in projects about improving physical infrastructure. The dominance of creating jobs and training for disabled people not only reflects the government's preoccupation with moving disabled people into the labour market, but also the more general intention of Care in the Community to enable disabled people to live with as `normal' a life as possible in their own homes (Nocon and Qureshi, 1996). Some of the SRB schemes, focusing on skills and employment, involved the creation of an intermediate labour market, particularly for people with learning difficulties. One project in the south of England involved the establishment of a candle-making social firm for people with any kind of disability. Led by a local charitable company which seeks to "enhance the employability of people with a disability", it aims to assist "unemployed people who have disabilities to move toward secure and permanent employment" and to "access an alternative opportunity for day care that will be both progressive and quality of life enhancing". Another partnership in the north-west has developed two initiatives around tackling the barriers facing disabled people in seeking employment. For disabled people, then, involvement in the SRB is highly circumscribed. Projects aimed at disabled people were predominantly about jobs and training, for example. While valuable, they fail to recognise the other ways in which disabled people can contribute to society, be it through voluntary work, through participation in local community groups or in giving their opinion about how their local area might be improved. Few partnerships actually had a disability organisation as one of their partners and, amongst those who said they did, disabled people were often being represented by social services or health care professionals. Consultation with disabled people was also limited, and was often conducted with those organisations already known to partnerships. What this suggests is that there remain many barriers which exclude disabled people from the agenda of inclusive regeneration. Local ways of working, and `historical allegiances' serve to exclude those groups outside established networks (Grant, 1989). Moreover, the mechanisms of the SRB as a policy serve to reinforce the exclusion of the community and marginalised groups by preventing them from playing a lead role in partnerships (Colenutt and Cutten, 1994). Disabled people have never been part of the regeneration agenda. Rather, they have been an issue for social security and social services. In many ways, the challenge of comprehensive regeneration is for different agencies and departments (within both central and local government) to work across boundaries which, in the case of disabled people, have served to isolate and stereotype them. Disabled people's involvement in the SRB does not have to be about jobs and employment, although the current SRB outputs make this difficult to avoid. For all its current popularity, social exclusion can be an empty term if it fails to recognise the exclusionary impact of policies themselves and the ways in which they interact with local social, political and economic barriers to prevent marginalised groups from participating in the processes of regeneration. References Abercrombie, N. et al , Contemporary British society: a new introduction to sociology Adams, R Dominelli, L & Payne, M (eds) , Social Work Themes, Issues and Critical Debates Alcock C Payne S and Sullivan M , Introducing Social Policy Alcock, P , Understanding Poverty Baldock J, Manning, NB Miller, s & Vickerstaff, s , Social Policy Barry M & Hallett C , Social Exclusion and Social Work: Issues of Theory, Policy and Practice Beresford, P & Turner, M , It’s our Welfare: Report of the Citizens’ Commission on the Future of the Welfare State Bilton,T. et al , Introductory sociology COLENUTT, B. and CUTTEN, A. (1994) Community empowerment in vogue or vain?, Local Economy, 9, pp. 236-250. COUSINS, C. (1998) Social exclusion in Europe: paradigms of social disadvantage in Germany, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, Policy and Politics, 26, pp. 127-146. CROOK, J. (1997) A strategy for ensuring black communities are involved in regeneration, in: PAN-LoNDON COMMUNITY REGENERATION CONSORTIUM (Ed.) Urban Regeneration: Partnerships for Success, pp. 35-36. London: PLCRC/Docklands Forum. DALLEY, G. (Ed.) (1991) Disability and Social Policy. London: Policy Studies Institute. Davies H, McNulty S & Smith P (Eds) , ‘What Works? Evidence Based Policy and Practice in Public Services’ Drakeford, N & Vanstone M , Beyond Offending Behaviour Faulks K , Citizenship Giddens, A , The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy Giddens,A, Sociology IMRIE, R. (1996b) Equity, social justice and planning for access and disabled people: an international perspective, International Planning Studies, 1, pp. 17-34. IMRIE, R. and THOMAS, H. (1995) Changes in local governance and their implications for urban policy evaluation, in: R. HAMBLETON and H. THOMAS (Eds) Urban Policy Evaluation: Challenges and Change, pp. 123-137. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. JEWSON, N. and MACGREGOR, S. (Eds) (1997) Transforming Cities: Contested Governance and New Spatial Divisions. London: Routledge. Jones K , The Making of Social Policy in Britain Jordan, B , Social Work and the Third Way: Tough Love as Social Policy LEVITAS, R. (1996) The concept of social exclusion and the new Durkheimian hegemony, Critical Social Policy, 16, pp. 5-20. SHAKESPEARE, T. (1993) Disabled people's self-organisation: a new social movement?, Disability, Handicap and Society, 8, pp. 249-264. SHAKESPEARE, T. (1994) Cultural representations of disabled people: dustbins for disavowal?, Disability and Society, 9, pp. 283-299. STALKER, K., BARON, S., RIDDELL, S. and WILKINSON, H. (1999) Models of disability: the relationship between theory and practice in non-statutory organisations, Critical Social Policy, 19, pp. 5-29. Read More