Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T14:23:12.649Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mainstreaming the Disability Equality Duty and the Impact on Public Authorities' Working Practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2011

Charlotte Pearson ,
Nick Watson ,
Kirsten Stalker ,
Jo Ferrie ,
Jennifer Lepiniere  and
Kevin Paterson
Charlotte Pearson
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, UK
Nick Watson
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, UK
Kirsten Stalker
Affiliation:
Department of Educational and Professional Studies, University of Strathclyde, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Jo Ferrie
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, UK
Jennifer Lepiniere
Affiliation:
Department of Educational and Professional Studies, University of Strathclyde, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Kevin Paterson
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Implemented as part of the 2005 amendments to the Disability Equality Act, the Disability Equality Duty (DED) placed new and important demands on public sector bodies. All such organisations are required to develop policies and working practices which actively promote the equality of disabled people as employees, consumers or visitors. The promotion of equality has to be proactive as opposed to reactive and must be mainstreamed into the normal day-to-day activities of organisational working practices. Whilst the DED follows on from the framework of previous anti-discrimination legislation set in place over the last 15 years, it represents a significant change in equality legislation and demands that public sector bodies instigate fundamental changes in their approach towards disability. This article reports on the initial stages of the implementation process of the DED across a range of public sector organisations in England, focussing in particular on how this policy has impacted on mainstreaming. Discussion shows that although organisations show awareness of mainstreaming and its implications for disability equality, there is limited evidence to suggest that the public sector has fully embraced this agenda.

Type
Themed Section on Equality and Human Rights in Britain
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 239 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, C. (1991), Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination: A Case for Anti-Discrimination Legislation, London: Hurst & Co.Google Scholar
Berthoud, R. and Bleukesaune, M. (2007), Persistent Employment Disadvantage, DWP Research Report No. 416, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.Google Scholar
Beveridge, F., Nott, S. and Stephen, K. (2000), ‘Mainstreaming and the engendering of policy-making: a means to an end?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 21, 4, 361–80.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office (1998), Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment Guidelines, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Disability Rights Commission (DRC) (2005), Doing the Duty: An overview of the Disability Equality Duty, Statutory Code of Practice for England Wales, http://www.dotheduty.org/files/Code_of_practice_england_and_wales.doc) [accessed 05.05.2010].Google Scholar
Equalities Review (2007), Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities Review, London: The Stationery Office, http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/fairnessfreedom.Google Scholar
Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) (2008), What is the Disability Equality Duty?, http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/public-sector-duties/what-are-the-public-sector-duties/disability-equality-duty/ [accessed 13.05.2010].Google Scholar
Ferrie, J., Lerpiniere, J., Paterson, K., Pearson, C., Stalker, K. and Watson, N. (2008), An In-Depth Examination of the Disability Equality Duty in England: Report for the Office for Disability Issues, London: ODI.Google Scholar
Foster, D. (2007), ‘Legal obligation or personal lottery? Employee experiences of disability and the negotiation of adjustments in the public sector workplace’, Work, Employment and Society, 21, 1, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooding, C. (2000), ‘Disability Discrimination Act: from statute to practice’, Critical Social Policy, 20, 4, 533–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, C. and Watson, N. (2007), ‘Tackling disability discrimination in the UK’, Washington Journal of Law and Policy, 23, 95–121.Google Scholar
Pearson, C., Watson, N., Stalker, K., Lerpiniere, J., Paterson, K. and Ferrie, J. (2011), ‘Don't get involved: an examination of how public sector organisations in England are involving disabled people in the Disability Equality Duty’, Disability and Society, 26, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, T. (1998), Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union: Education, Training and Labour Market Policies, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rees, T. (2002), ‘The politics of “mainstreaming” gender equality’, in Breitenbach, E., Brown, A., Mackay, F. and Webb, J. (eds.), The changing politics of gender equality in Britain, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 45–69.Google Scholar
Riddell, S. (2006), Special Educational Needs, Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stalker, K. and Lerpiniere, J. (2009), ‘It's against our law, never mind anyone else's: the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and adults with learning disabilities’, Disability and Society, 24, 7, 829–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squires, J. and Wickham-Jones, M. (2002), ‘Mainstreaming in Westminster and Whitehall: from Labour's Ministry for Women to the WEU’, Parliamentary Affairs, 55, 1, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squires, J. and Wickham-Jones, M. (2004), ‘New Labour, gender mainstreaming and the Women and Equality Unit’, British Journal of Politics and International Affairs, 6, 1, 81–98.Google Scholar
Squires, J. (2005), ‘Is mainstreaming transformative?: theorizing mainstreaming in the context of diversity and deliberation’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 12, 3, 366–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witcher, S. (2005), ‘Mainstreaming equality: the implications of disabled people’, Social Policy and Society, 4, 1, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeandle, S., Booth, C. and Bennett, C. (1998), ‘Criteria for success of mainstreaming approach to gender equality’, Sheffield: CRESR Report.Google Scholar
Young, I. M. (1990), Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar