Academic literature on the topic 'Disability-Mainstreaming'

AMIDST THE CAST OFAnthony Trollope'sBarchester Towers(1857) is the stunningly beautiful “Signora Madeline Vesey Neroni,” who turns the heads of readers and characters alike. “It was impossible,” the narrator informs us, “that either man or woman should do other than look at her” (ch. 10). Dark and mysterious, brilliant and alluring, Madeline Neroni entices the swains of Barchester to pay her court, then toys with them mercilessly and enjoys watching them writhe. The fact that she is both beautiful and without compunction may do little to set her apart from other Victorian villainesses, Trollope's Lizzie Eustace, for instance, Wilde's Mrs. Cheveley or, more infamously, Thackeray's Becky Sharpe, but while Lizzie, Mrs. Cheveley, and Becky ultimately meet with poetic justice, their fortunes descending as their ruthless self-interest becomes increasingly apparent, Madeline keeps herself carefully protected. Pristinely beautiful from first to last, La Signora Neroni guards her virtue and maintains an even temper, bemused both by those who hate her and by those who court her, ultimately returning with her family to their home in Italy, apparently unchanged by her experience in Barchester society. Madeline has a strange kind of integrity; she is a powerful figure, a force to be reckoned with, able to stand up with equal ease and self-assurance to the daunting Mrs. Proudie, the earnest Arabin, and the slick Mr. Slope.

Purpose: The purpose of the study sought to evaluate the status of disability mainstreaming policy in education in selected public high schools and public employment institutions in Liberia. Materials and Methods: The research design incorporates both quantitative and qualitative methods. Purposive sampling was used to select 125 respondents from students with disabilities, principals, human resource directors, employees with disabilities from public employment institutions and representatives from Persons with disabilities organizations. Quantitative data was collected through electronic data collection tools (Kobo/ Survey CTO) and transferred in Excel spreadsheets for descriptive analysis and comparison. Qualitative data was collected through key informant interviews and analyzed according to themes. Results: The study established that although there are disability mainstreaming policies at public high schools and employment institutions there is limited awareness and understanding of these policies among students and employees with disabilities. Moreover, there was no defined disability mainstreaming strategies to serve as a benchmark to determine the success or failure of implementation. Findings also showed that persons with disabilities were still finding it difficult to secure employment since the 4% disability quota mandated by the government to enhance the employability of persons with disabilities is not adhered to by government institutions. Further analysis indicated that the perception of principals and human resource officers can reinforce barriers to mainstreaming disability in public high schools and employment institutions. The study also found that limited budgetary allocation for disability mainstreaming activities, limited awareness of disability mainstreaming, lack of coordination among various implementing agencies, lack of teacher training in disability mainstreaming pedagogy and unavailability of training materials for teachers and students for inclusive education were among factors contributing to gaps in disability mainstreaming in public high schools and employment institutions. Unique contribution to theory, practice and policy: The study recommends that the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection (MGCSP) which coordinates all disability mainstreaming activities along with the National Commission on Disability create more public awareness on disability in all public entities. Government should provide funding’s to public high schools and employment institutions to enable them to implement the disability mainstreaming policies. Disability focal persons should also be assigned to these institutions to coordinate and monitor implementation.

An integrated approach is required to ensure that persons with disabilities are not left alone. A combination of mainstreaming and targeted measures is necessary in all interventions. Persons with disabilities share the same primary needs as everyone else: health protection and treatment, basic services, shelter and income. The best way to address their inclusion is through mainstreaming disability in all plans and efforts. Targeted measures need to complement disability mainstreaming by addressing specific requirements that cannot be met by making general responses inclusive. Such measures do not need to add greatly to overall cost especially if the needs of the maximum number of users are considered in the initial design. As mentioned in the world bank publication 2005 that if they are considered from the design stage, ensuring accessibility can cost as little as 1% more. This paper is came to recommendation how can we consider appropriate design checklist as guide for our initial Architecture design to Facilities accessible to people with disabilities for private and public buildings in a more descent appropriate way

Disability Mainstreaming zielt (analog zu Gender Mainstreaming) darauf, Anliegen und Bedürfnisse der Personengruppe 'Menschen mit Behinderung' nicht allein in den für diese Gruppe offensichtlich wichtigen Bereichen anzusprechen, sondern sie in allen gesellschaftspolitischen Handlungsebenen mitzudenken und dementsprechende Forderungen umzusetzen. Dabei wird ‚Behinderung‘ vorrangig als soziale Konstruktion interpretiert, die mit der Erfahrung von Diskriminierung und Exklusion einhergeht.

Disability Mainstreaming zielt (analog zu Gender Mainstreaming) darauf, Anliegen und Bedürfnisse der Personengruppe "Menschen mit Behinderung" nicht allein in den für diese Gruppe offensichtlich wichtigen Bereichen anzusprechen, sondern sie in allen gesellschaftspolitischen Handlungsebenen mitzudenken und dementsprechende Forderungen umzusetzen. Dabei wird ‚Behinderung‘ vorrangig als soziale Konstruktion interpretiert, die mit der Erfahrung von Diskriminierung und Exklusion einhergeht.

In the autumn of 1997 it was announced that Radio 4's programmes were to be rescheduled and a commitment was given that disability would become a mainstream issue for the network. The new schedule and the mainstreaming initiative were implemented in April 1998. One of the immediate effects of rescheduling was the disappearance of Does He Take Sugar?, the network's weekly programme which presented in-depth treatment of general disability issues. By way of replacement, You and Yours, Radio 4's consumerist programme of longstanding, was given the remit to include regular coverage of disability issues in its content. It was intended that the outcome of these decisions would be that regular coverage of disability would emerge from a niche slot within the network and be positioned within the mainstream of the network's output. On the one hand, the implementation of the proposal to mainstream disability yielded the possibility of an increase in the coverage of disability issues on Radio 4 in an integrated way. On the other hand it could mean a loss of effective and focused treatment of disability issues and a qualitative shift in the nature of coverage. The proposal to mainstream disability issues on Radio 4 thus touched on central issues concerning the treatment of socially disadvantaged groups and the quest for equality. Its implementation took place at a time when the UK disability movement was growing in political power, and disabled people in Britain were becoming aware of the promise of potentially beneficial socio-cultural changes reflected by developments such as the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act CDDA 1995). This thesis examines three aspects of the introduction of the mainstreaming initiative and the early years of its implementation: a) it draws on interviews with key players, conversations with others involved, participant observation reports and documentary evidence to examine the rationale behind the mainstream initiative and, in the light of the decision to drop the network's programme which focussed on general disability issues (Does He Take Sugar?), it examines the decision to retain In Touch, the network's niche programme for blind or visually impaired listeners; b) it presents a quantitative and qualitative comparative analysis of the network's pre and post-mainstreaming treatment of disability issues. This includes analysis of ten editions of Does He Take Sugar? the disability issues covered in You and Yours during the months of September 1998, 1999, 2000 and analysis of the series No Triumph, No Tragedy. presented by a former member of the Does He Take Sugar? team in the summer of 2000.

According to critical disability studies scholars, disablism may be the fundamental system of unearned advantaging and disadvantaging upon which all other notions of difference-as-deviance are constructed. If so, a deeply critical and intersectional investigation of enabled privilege/disablism prepares a grounding from which seeds of novel and effective approaches to social and educational justice may be cultivated. Whether or not disablism holds this pivotal position, the costs to us all in terms of personal, ethical, professional, and financial losses are too steep, have always been too steep. In this disquisition I begin by arguing for the prioritizing and centering of a radical emancipatory discourse--across and within all education venues--regarding disability. In Chapter 2, I explore models of disability and notice where awareness of enabled privilege has been absent in my own experience as an educator and call for all educators to consider what might it mean if awareness of enabled privilege and the harms of disablism were at the center of our daily personal, social, and institutional lives. Chapter 3 investigates the perceptions of post-compulsory education professionals regarding what constitutes disability allyship and identifies three unique viewpoints. Chapter 4 blends conceptualizations of allyship developed within various social justice literatures with those identified viewpoints of disability allyship to yield a model professional development approach focused on an intersectional analysis for social justice through disability justice. The dissertation concludes in Chapter 5 with a discussion of core assertions and findings and points to future research priorities.
NDSU FORWARD Initiative (Funded by the National Science Foundation ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Award HRD-0811239)

This thesis examines the role of international organisations in disability mainstreaming policies in Turkey. Turkey is a particularly interesting case study, as it combines traditional values coupled with ambitions to be an internationally respected European state. International organisations include the European Union, the World Bank, the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Children’s Fund and Organization of Islamic Cooperation. A multidisciplinary approach was taken which involved social policy, history, disability studies, international relations, and politics. The research used a case study based on analysis of 275 policy documents, 47 semi-structured and two focus group interviews. The participants have all been directly involved in decision-making processes at international and/or local level. The thesis argues that disability mainstreaming is partial and selective as a result of the interaction between the traditional values and structures in Turkey and the aims and practices of international organisations.

The aim of this study was to establish whether there is a policy community for disability sport in England. Whilst structured competitive disability sport may traditionally have been organised and run by charitable bodies, segregated from mainstream non-disabled sport, contemporary policies stress a need for disability sport to be the responsibility of mainstream organisations. However, there is a dearth of literature that considers how disability sport policy has developed, which agencies have been powerful in the organisational network, and the significance of the values of key actors in the policy process and outcome. This study; a) establishes the key characteristics of disability sport policy in England, and b) establishes the interests, resources, power and relationships between organisations involved in disability sport and determines the ideologies of key actors involved in disability sport policy. Data is generated in three phases using an analysis of policy documents, a survey of 162 sports organisations and 21 interviews with key personnel. In Phase I semi-structured interviews with key personnel combined with documentary analysis were used to establish how disability sport emerged and developed. Informed by the data from Phase 1, in Phase 2a survey of governing bodies of sport and disability sport organisations was conducted to establish which national organisations are involved in the policy network, how disability sport policy is formed, the role organisations play and ideologies of key actors. In Phase 3, informed by the data from Phases I and 2 and using interviews and documentary analysis, two case studies were carried out to examine, 1) the formation and role of the English Federation of Disability Sport, and 2) the mainstreaming of disability sport. The analysis of data is informed by theories of disability, a history of disability policy and sports policy, and three prominent theories of policy analysis: Marsha and Rhodes' policy network model, Sabatier's advocacy coalition framework and Kingdon's policy streams approach. (Continues...).

Thesis (MPhil (Rehabilitation)--University of Stellenbosch, 2011.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Research evidence suggesting the link between disability and poverty has been increasing at an alarming rate in recent years. Despite this, there has been very little attention to ensuring representation and inclusion of people with disabilities in poverty reduction processes. However, disability movements and their partners have been increasing pressure to ensure that people with disabilities effectively participate in the development of national development plans targeting poverty reduction. The aim of this qualitative study was to analyze the extent to which the human rights-based approach can be used as an advocacy tool for mainstreaming disability in the national development processes targeting poverty reduction in Uganda. The study was conducted in Kampala and Kiboga districts, and data were gathered between August and October 2009. Key informant interviews and focus group discussions were used for data collection. Eleven participants were purposively selected to participate in key informant interviews. Using these key informants, the snowballing technique was used to identify twenty people that participated in the two focus group discussions, with each having ten participants. A thematic content analysis was used to analyze data, and this involved coding and cataloguing data into emerging themes and subthemes. The study established that despite several legal frameworks in Uganda, disability mainstreaming is still far from being achieved. Translation of policies into practice was identified as a major challenge, making it difficult for people with disabilities to be meaningfully involved in poverty reduction processes. Negative attitudes and misconception of disability by both policy makers and civil society, were also seen to be contributing to the exclusion of people with disabilities in poverty reduction processes and programmes. Lack of capacity and meaningful political representation of disabled people seem to negatively impact on effective participation, monitoring and evaluation of the poverty-reduction processes in Uganda. The study recommends the need to strengthen capacity and advocacy work among people with disabilities and their promoters to ensure their effective participation and inclusion of disability in the national development agenda. It further recommends the need to adopt the human rights-based approach in any development initiative, ensuring disability mainstreaming in policies and the national development plan, in order to effectively address poverty reduction in Uganda. The researcher also challenges disability and development researchers to engage in more wider-scale studies in order to establish more evidence on the need to adopt the human rights-based approach to national development.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Navorsingsbewyse wat dui op ‟n verband tussen gestremdheid en armoede het in die afgelope jare onrusbarend toegeneem. Ten spyte hiervan is daar baie min aandag gegee om seker te maak dat gestremde mense by die armoedeverligtingsprosesse verteenwoordig en ingesluit word. Bewegings vir gestremde mense, asook dié bewegings se vennote, het egter al hoe meer druk begin uitoefen om seker te maak gestremde mense neem doeltreffend deel aan nasionale ontwikkelingsplanne wat op armoedeverligting gemik is. Die doel van hierdie kwalitatiewe studie was om te ontleed in watter mate die menseregtebenadering gebruik kan word as ‟n instrument om voorspraak te maak vir die hoofklem wat gestremdheid moet ontvang in die nasionale ontwikkelingsprosesse wat op armoedeverligting in Uganda gemik is.

Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka vilka specialpedagogiska perspektiv som framträder när några grundskollärare, lärare i grundsärskolan och rektorer beskriver undervisning av integrerade grundsärskoleelever i grundskolan. Syftet utmynnar i frågeställningar som handlar om hur de tre yrkeskategorierna beskriver förberedelse, genomförande samt utvärdering av sådan undervisning. För att besvara dessa frågeställningar har kvalitativa, halvstrukturerade intervjuer genomförts med två rektorer, två grundskollärare och två lärare i grundsärskolan, med erfarenheter av integrerade grundsärskoleelever. Studien tar sin utgångspunkt i den didaktiska triangeln och resultaten har sedan analyserats utifrån tre specialpedagogiska perspektiv; det kompensatoriska perspektivet, det kritiska perspektivet och dilemmaperspektivet. Resultatet visar att informanternas beskrivningar av undervisningens planering, genomförande och utvärdering har inslag av samtliga tre specialpedagogiska perspektiv, men att det kompensatoriska perspektivet dominerar. Lärarna uppger att de i mycket liten utsträckning samarbetar med lärare i den andra skolformen kring planering och genomförande av den integrerade undervisningen. I den utvärderande fasen sker ingen samverkan alls. Grundskoleelevernas roll vid integreringen nämns inte av någon av studiens informanter. En slutsats utifrån resultatet är att rektor kan, genom en större tydlighet, bidra till en bättre samverkan kring undervisning av grundsärskoleelever i grundskolan. En annan slutsats är att specialpedagogisk personal bör se alla elever i klassen som viktiga aktörer i inkluderingsarbetet och därför rikta socialt stöd till både grundskoleelever och grundsärskoleelever.Studien synliggör hur följder av kompensatoriska arbetsformer kan påverka den integrerade undervisningens olika faser, samt vikten av rektors roll för samverkan.
The aim of this study is to examine which special educational perspectives appear, when teachers in compulsory regular school, teachers in compulsory school for pupils with intellectual disability and principals, describe mainstreaming in regular school. This aim leads to questions about how representatives of the three professions describe planning, implementation and evaluation of such teaching. In order to answer these questions qualitative, semi structured interviews have been carried through with two teachers in compulsory regular school, two teachers in compulsory school for pupils with intellectual disability and two principals, with experience of mainstreaming of pupils with intellectual disability in compulsory regular school. The theoretical framework of this study is linked to the didactic triangle and the result was analyzed on the basis of three special educational perspectives; the compensatory perspective, the critical perspective and the dilemma perspective. The result indicates that the participants’ descriptions of the instructional phases, planning, implementation and evaluation, shows elements of all three perspectives, though with a predominance of the compensatory perspective. The teachers state that they cooperate on planning and implementing instruction, to a very small extent, with teachers from the other type of school. When it comes to the evaluation phase, there is no cooperation at all. The role of the pupils in the compulsory regular school when mainstreaming is not mentioned by any of the studies participants. One conclusion from the result is that principles can, with a greater clarity, contribute to a better instructional cooperation in mainstreaming education. Another conclusion is that special education staff should regard all pupils of/in the class as important actors in inclusive education and therefore offer social support to pupils with and without intellectual disabilities.This study makes visible how consequences of compensatory practices can affect the instructional phases of mainstreaming education, and the importance of principals’ role for cooperative work.

Zusammenfassung Dieses Kapitel bezieht sich auf die Teilhabe und Gesundheit von Menschen mit Beeinträchtigungen, wobei das Augenmerk auch auf den besonderen und akuten Belastungen durch die Risiken von Einsamkeit und durch Teilhabeeinschränkung en in Zeiten der COVID-19-Pandemie liegt. Es wird deutlich, dass Menschen mit Beeinträchtigungen ein erhöhtes Einsamkeitsrisiko haben, was sich negativ auf ihre Gesundheit auswirkt. Als Gegenpole können soziale Beziehungen und Netzwerke wirken, doch auch diese sind weniger tragfähig als in der Mehrheitsgesellschaft. Dadurch fehlen wichtige Ressourcen, die Resilienz für den Fall schwieriger Lebenssituationen fördern könnten. Deshalb sollte der Prävention von Einsamkeit mehr Aufmerksamkeit gewidmet werden. Als besonderes Exklusions- und damit Einsamkeitsrisiko für Menschen mit Beeinträchtigungen erwiesen sich die Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung der COVID-19-Pandemie. Dieser Problematik wird differenziert und auf breiter Datenbasis den exkludierenden und isolierenden Wirkungen vieler Maßnahmen für Menschen mit Beeinträchtigungen nachgegangen. Ein Exkurs zur Verfassungsbeschwerde zur Schutzpflicht des Staates gegenüber Menschen mit Beeinträchtigungen im Hinblick auf Triage -Entscheidungen zeigt, welche lebensbedrohlichen Wirkungen der Verzicht auf Disability Mainstreaming bei Maßnahmen im Gesundheitswesen haben kann. Daraus folgt, dass Pandemiebekämpfung ohne gesundheitsbedrohliche Ausgrenzungen für Menschen mit Beeinträchtigungen entwickelt und durchgeführt werden muss. Welche Rolle ihre Selbstvertretung dabei spielen kann und muss, wird abschließend diskutiert. Entsprechendes gilt für die Digitalisierung im Gesundheitswesen. Sie hat im Kontext der COVID-19-Pandemie erheblich an Bedeutung gewonnen, dennoch sind dabei sehr viele Menschen mit Beeinträchtigungen nach wie vor ausgeschlossen.

AbstractGender equality is an increasingly topical issue, but it has deep historical roots. The principle of gender equality found its legitimacy, even if limited to salary, in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, establishing the European Economic Community (EEC). This treaty, in Article 119, sanctioned the principle of equal pay between male and female workers. The EEC continued to protect women’s rights in the 1970s through equal opportunity policies. These policies referred, first, to the principle of equal treatment between men and women regarding education, access to work, professional promotion, and working conditions (Directive 75/117/EEC); second, to the principle of equal pay for male and female workers (Directive 76/207/EEC); and finally, enshrined the principle of equal treatment between men and women in matters of social security (Directive 79/7/EEC). Since the 1980s, several positive action programmes have been developed to support the role of women in European society. Between 1982 and 2000, four multiyear action programmes were implemented for equal opportunities. The first action programme (1982–1985) called on the Member States, through recommendations and resolutions by the Commission, to disseminate greater knowledge of the types of careers available to women, encourage the presence of women in decision-making areas, and take measures to reconcile family and working life. The second action programme (1986–1990) proposed interventions related to the employment of women in activities related to new technologies and interventions in favour of the equal distribution of professional, family, and social responsibilities (Sarcina, 2010). The third action programme (1991–1995) provided an improvement in the condition of women in society by raising public awareness of gender equality, the image of women in mass media, and the participation of women in the decision-making process at all levels in all areas of society. The fourth action programme (1996–2000) strengthened the existing regulatory framework and focused on the principle of gender mainstreaming, a strategy that involves bringing the gender dimension into all community policies, which requires all actors in the political process to adopt a gender perspective. The strategy of gender mainstreaming has several benefits: it places women and men at the heart of policies, involves both sexes in the policymaking process, leads to better governance, makes gender equality issues visible in mainstream society, and, finally, considers the diversity among women and men. Among the relevant interventions of the 1990s, it is necessary to recall the Treaty of Maastricht (1992) which guaranteed the protection of women in the Agreement on Social Policy signed by all Member States (except for Great Britain), and the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997), which formally recognised gender mainstreaming. The Treaty of Amsterdam includes gender equality among the objectives of the European Union (Article 2) and equal opportunity policies among the activities of the European Commission (Article 3). Article 13 introduces the principle of non-discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or handicaps. Finally, Article 141 amends Article 119 of the EEC on equal treatment between men and women in the workplace. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Nice Union of 2000 reaffirms the prohibition of ‘any discrimination based on any ground such as sex’ (Art. 21.1). The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also recognises, in Article 23, the principle of equality between women and men in all areas, including employment, work, and pay. Another important intervention of the 2000s is the Lisbon strategy, also known as the Lisbon Agenda or Lisbon Process. It is a reform programme approved in Lisbon by the heads of state and governments of the member countries of the EU. The goal of the Lisbon strategy was to make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy by 2010. To achieve this goal, the strategy defines fields in which action is needed, including equal opportunities for female work. Another treaty that must be mentioned is that of Lisbon in 2009, thanks to which previous treaties, specifically the Treaty of Maastricht and the Treaty of Rome, were amended and brought together in a single document: the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights has assumed a legally binding character (Article 6, paragraph 1 of the TEU) both for European institutions and for Member States when implementing EU law. The Treaty of Lisbon affirms the principle of equality between men and women several times in the text and places it among the values and objectives of the union (Articles 2 and 3 of the TEU). Furthermore, the Treaty, in Art. 8 of the TFEU, states that the Union’s actions are aimed at eliminating inequalities, as well as promoting equality between men and women, while Article 10 of the TFEU provides that the Union aims to ‘combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation’. Concerning the principle of gender equality in the workplace, the Treaty, in Article 153 of the TFEU, asserts that the Union pursues the objective of equality between men and women regarding labour market opportunities and treatment at work. On the other hand, Article 157 of the TFEU confirms the principle of equal pay for male and female workers ‘for equal work or work of equal value’. On these issues, through ordinary procedures, the European Parliament and the Council may adopt appropriate measures aimed at defending the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment for men and women. The Lisbon Treaty also includes provisions relating to the fight against trafficking in human beings, particularly women and children (Article 79 of the TFEU), the problem of domestic violence against women (Article 8 of the TFEU), and the right to paid maternity leave (Article 33). Among the important documents concerning gender equality is the Roadmap (2006–2010). In 2006, the European Commission proposed the Roadmap for equality between women and men, in addition to the priorities on the agenda, the objectives, and tools necessary to achieve full gender equality. The Roadmap defines six priority areas, each of which is associated with a set of objectives and actions that makes it easier to achieve them. The priorities include equal economic independence for women and men, reconciliation of private and professional life, equal representation in the decision-making process, eradication of all forms of gender-based violence, elimination of stereotypes related to gender, and promotion of gender equality in external and development policies. The Commission took charge of the commitments included in the Roadmap, which were indirectly implemented by the Member States through the principle of subsidiarity and the competencies provided for in the Treaties (Gottardi, 2013). The 2006–2010 strategy of the European Commission is based on a dual approach: on the one hand, the integration of the gender dimension in all community policies and actions (gender mainstreaming), and on the other, the implementation of specific measures in favour of women aimed at eliminating inequalities. In 2006, the European Council approved the European Pact for Gender Equality which originated from the Roadmap. The European Pact for Gender Equality identified three macro areas of intervention: measures to close gender gaps and combat gender stereotypes in the labour market, measures to promote a better work–life balance for both women and men, and measures to strengthen governance through the integration of the gender perspective into all policies. In 2006, Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and Council regulated equal opportunities and equal treatment between male and female workers. Specifically, the Directive aims to implement the principle of equal treatment related to access to employment, professional training, and promotion; working conditions, including pay; and occupational social security approaches. On 21 September 2010, the European Commission adopted a new strategy to ensure equality between women and men (2010–2015). This new strategy is based on the experience of Roadmap (2006–2010) and resumes the priority areas identified by the Women’s Charter: equal economic independence, equal pay, equality in decision-making, the eradication of all forms of violence against women, and the promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment beyond the union. The 2010–2015 Strategic Plan aims to improve the position of women in the labour market, but also in society, both within the EU and beyond its borders. The new strategy affirms the principle that gender equality is essential to supporting the economic growth and sustainable development of each country. In 2010, the validity of the Lisbon Strategy ended, the objectives of which were only partially achieved due to the economic crisis. To overcome this crisis, the Commission proposed a new strategy called Europe 2020, in March 2010. The main aim of this strategy is to ensure that the EU’s economic recovery is accompanied by a series of reforms that will increase growth and job creation by 2020. Specifically, Europe’s 2020 strategy must support smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth. To this end, the EU has established five goals to be achieved by 2020 and has articulated the different types of growth (smart, sustainable, and inclusive) in seven flagship initiatives. Among the latter, the initiative ‘an agenda for new skills and jobs’, in the context of inclusive growth, is the one most closely linked to gender policies and equal opportunities; in fact, it substantially aims to increase employment rates for women, young, and elderly people. The strategic plan for 2010–2015 was followed by a strategic commitment in favour of gender equality 2016–2019, which again emphasises the five priority areas defined by the previous plan. Strategic commitment, which contributes to the European Pact for Gender Equality (2011–2020), identifies the key actions necessary to achieve objectives for each priority area. In March 2020, the Commission presented a new strategic plan for equality between women and men for 2020–2025. This strategy defines a series of political objectives and key actions aimed at achieving a ‘union of equality’ by 2025. The main objectives are to put an end to gender-based violence and combat sexist stereotypes, ensure equal opportunities in the labour market and equal participation in all sectors of the economy and political life, solve the problem of the pay and pension gap, and achieve gender equality in decision-making and politics. From the summary of the regulatory framework presented, for the European Economic Community first, then for the European Community, and finally for the European Union, gender equality has always been a fundamental value. Interest in the issues of the condition of women and equal opportunities has grown over time and during the process of European integration, moving from a perspective aimed at improving the working conditions of women to a new dimension to improve the life of the woman as a person, trying to protect her not only professionally but also socially, and in general in all those areas in which gender inequality may occur. The approach is extensive and based on legislation, the integration of the gender dimension into all policies, and specific measures in favour of women. From the non-exhaustive list of the various legislative interventions, it is possible to note a continuous repetition of the same thematic priorities which highlights, on the one hand, the poor results achieved by the implementation of the policies, but, on the other hand, the Commission’s willingness to pursue the path initially taken. Among the achievements in the field of gender equality obtained by the EU, there is certainly an increase in the number of women in the labour market and the acquisition of better education and training. Despite progress, gender inequalities have persisted. Even though women surpass men in terms of educational attainment, gender gaps still exist in employment, entrepreneurship, and public life (OECD, 2017). For example, in the labour market, women continue to be overrepresented in the lowest-paid sectors and underrepresented in top positions (according to the data released in the main companies of the European Union, women represent only 8% of CEOs).

This chapter examines whether, and if so, how and why, governance mainstreaming forms a suitable policy response to situations of superdiversity. The concept of governance refers to problem-solving strategies that are developed and implemented in complex networks of actors, including but certainly not limited to government institutions and government policies. The concept of governance mainstreaming has been developed more broadly in other areas such as gender, disability, and environmental governance. Building from this literature, the chapter defines mainstreaming of migration-related diversity as the effort to embed diversity in a generic approach across policy areas as well as policy levels, to establish a whole-society approach to diversity rather than an approach to specific migrant groups, in complex actor networks. The chapter then analyses patterns in the policy approaches to immigrant integration in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and France from the conceptual lens of governance mainstreaming, and considers how and why mainstreaming was developed as a governance strategy, and what role superdiversity played in the rationale for and the choice of strategy towards mainstreaming.

Safely managed water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) are fundamental for human health and wellbeing and are thought to contribute to a range of positive outcomes related to education, livelihoods, dignity, safety, and gender equality. However, gender and other social categories (e.g. age, ethnicity, caste, disability, marital status) can mediate who benefits from WASH services and in which ways. As progress in gaining access to safe WASH services has not occurred equally, there has been a focus on mainstreaming gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) in interventions. Despite awareness in the sector of the importance of promoting gender and socially inclusive WASH services, evaluations of interventions focus largely on technical or health outcomes, while social outcomes are not included. This systematic evidence synthesis aimed to collate evidence on the impact of WASH interventions on GESI outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). It also aimed to synthesise evidence on violence-related outcomes, and to advance understanding of barriers to, and facilitators of, change in violence-related outcomes in the context of WASH interventions.