The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE: LESSONS IN MAINSTREAMING EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES

SECTION 8 CONCLUSIONS

Mainstreaming in the UK is at an early stage, although much expertise and knowledge already exists at local authority level. Constitutional change and the government's modernisation agenda are seen as important enabling contexts within which equalities work can develop both collaboratively and distinctively at different levels. Concrete examples are crucial for governments and other public bodies seeking to 'learn' mainstreaming.

In this section we draw upon the experience of different levels of government in Europe and elsewhere to discuss what can be learnt about the opportunities and pitfalls of mainstreaming equalities in practice. The study reviewed mainstreaming developments in a number of countries: Australia (including New South Wales), Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Canada (including British Columbia), Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United States (San Francisco). The study also drew upon a small number of examples of mainstreaming in UK local government.

Benefits of Mainstreaming

Mainstreaming promises much: it is a social justice-led approach to policy making in which equal opportunities principles, strategies and practices are integrated into the every day work of government and other public bodies; it aims to transform the organisational cultures of governments and public bodies and to improve the quality of public policy and of governance itself. It builds upon and complements the work of specialist equality units. Explicit links are made between 'mainstreaming' and wider issues of participation and consultation. Gender balance in political, social and economic decision making is seen as both a central plank for the promotion of mainstreaming, and also an important goal. Mainstreaming also requires the close involvement of ordinary women and men, and communities of interest in the policy making process.

Mainstreaming in practice is at a relatively early stage of development and, in most of the countries reviewed, work on mainstreaming is at a preliminary stage involving awareness-raising, establishing the need for mainstreaming, building support and alliances, and sharing ideas and good practice. There has also been the need to establish baseline data, such as gender disaggregated statistics; or carry out auditing of services, policies and departments. In some instances, positive action has been used in creating enabling conditions for successful mainstreaming.

Experiments in mainstreaming have produced tangible benefits including new and innovative ways of thinking and working, new or reinforced collaborative arrangements and cross-cutting working, and the development of new tools. Mainstreaming has provided the impetus for partnership working, amongst different levels of government and amongst public, private and voluntary sectors. There has been an emphasis upon lesson learning and lesson sharing.

For policy leaders, government experience of mainstreaming has been seen to increase problem-solving capacity and to enhance sound evidence-based policy-making. The Canadians sum up this new approach to policy-making as 'asking new questions and hearing unexpected answers.' In some instances, policy proposals with unintended and discriminatory implications have been exposed and modified before implementation. For example, analysis of transport policy in Sweden revealed that while women were the main users of public transport, provision followed male patterns of travel, therefore, 'public transport answered to the needs of those who do not use it'. ¹⁹⁶ For citizens, including women, it has resulted in more transparent government, enhanced voice and greater participation in the policy-making process.

According to Canadian mainstreaming experts:

Implementing gender-inclusive analysis is an ongoing process. It has raised awareness of the differences in women's and men's lives, particularly those that lead to social and economic inequality for women, and of the need to examine our own values, biases and experiences that influence our work. It has increased the sensitivity to the differential impact of policies on women and men and demonstrated how a consideration of these differential impacts can lead to more informed decision-making, increased efficiency and effectiveness, and the removal of barriers to women's full participation in society, to the benefit of all.

Challenges

The research found that while there has been much innovation in developing mainstreaming strategies, progress has been uneven. A number of common difficulties have been experienced in most or all of the examples reviewed. They include: lack or loss of political will and bureaucratic support; resistance from public officials; lack of gender balance in decision-making; poor understanding; inadequate resources including information, budgets, personnel, tools and expertise; ineffective structures; a lack of systematic and strategic planning and implementation; and vulnerability to change. Embedding mainstreaming in organisational practices has proved problematic due to a lack of ownership by middle managers and staff. A 'blame culture' existed in some cases, where staff felt they were more likely to be penalised if they attempted equalities work and got it wrong, than if they did nothing at all. These weaknesses make it difficult, in some cases, to move beyond mainstreaming as a mere 'tick and dash' paper exercise.

Mainstreaming is a strategy that can, without care, degenerate into tokenism where public commitment is given in principle but where in practice little is achieved. There is consensus in the literature, reinforced in this current review, that explicit, high profile and sustained political support is perhaps the single most important variable in the success or failure of mainstreaming. Equality policies both mainstream and specific depend upon clear political commitment and the recognition that the state can act as a site of social justice. We see this demonstrated most clearly in the Nordic countries and in Canada, where it has contributed to an integrated approach to mainstreaming. Slovenia provides an instructive case of a country with no track record in equalities work and lacking most of the commonly accepted prerequisites to mainstreaming which, with high level political will, a committed 'driver' as co-ordinator and the proactive support of the UN has already effected some change. Conversely, the case of New Zealand underscores the fact that well devised strategies will not get off the starting block without political and organisational will. The case of New South Wales demonstrates that a change of political leadership can lead to the stalling of equalities work.

Mainstreaming has been viewed by some as a political 'quick fix' and potentially a cheaper alternative to existing equalities structures and machinery. In some places, policies have been constructed as highly visible 'political monuments' rather than as concrete measures.

Mainstreaming and specialist units

In a number of cases mainstreaming has resulted in the dismantling of equality units and the loss of specialist projects. Whilst a mainstream approach is essential if equality issues are to be embedded within policy making structures, it operates most effectively when coupled with a powerful specialist co-ordinating body and ongoing specialist equality work. Without co-ordinating structures and lines of accountability, mainstreaming can become 'everyone's responsibility and no-one's job'; in other words, mainstreaming becomes an excuse to do nothing.

The following roles have been identified for equality policy machinery in complementing and supporting mainstreaming:

• Tackling specific issues of inequality with specialist policies and initiatives;
• Acting as a think tank for developing analyses of inequality;
• Development of techniques and tools for 'mainstreaming';
• Providing expertise and specialist knowledge;
• Disseminating knowledge;
• Publicising government commitment to equality and its achievements;
• Training and awareness raising;
• Acting as an internal lobby;
• Acting as co-ordinator for 'mainstreaming' initiatives and point of contact;
• Monitoring overall government performance in achieving equality goals and targets.

Public sector change

A number of case studies also illustrated the opportunities and dangers presented by rapid change in the public sector. Governments and public bodies in Europe, North America and Australia/New Zealand have undergone massive restructuring in search of leaner, more efficient and, in some cases, 'entrepreneurial' government in the 1980s and 1990s. On the one hand, mainstreaming can be seen as an integral part of the drive for modern 'joined up' and responsive government; on the other hand in circumstances of internal upheaval, policy continuity is hard to maintain and cross-agency working disrupted. The emphasis on smaller government often leads to a focus on 'core work' which makes it difficult to achieve and maintain gender inclusiveness and a focus on wider equalities on political agendas. There are also issues of accountability, influence and control for central policy making in devolved or privatised agencies.

There are explicit resource implications for mainstreaming and experience from a number of our case studies suggests explicit budget lines may facilitate its successful operation. These must be contrasted with the hidden costs of not 'mainstreaming'.

Mainstreaming in principle and practice

The commonly recognised prerequisites or enabling conditions for successful mainstreaming include: specific equality legislation, structures and policy; statistics disaggregated by gender, race, disability and the like; comprehensive knowledge of gender relations and patterns of social division; knowledge of government organisations and administration; necessary funds and human resources; and the equal participation of women and men (and the fair participation of equality groups) in political and public life and in decision-making processes. The review however shows that not all these conditions need to be in place before mainstreaming initiatives are launched. Some commentators also note that resistance to mainstreaming can take the form of stating that mainstreaming cannot start until various enabling conditions are in place, such as attitudinal change.

Policy leaders such as the Nordic countries and Canada are the clearest examples of holistic or integrated approaches to mainstreaming. Both adopt a multi-level partnership approach which involves high profile and long term political support, effective structures and networks, and the use of a co-ordinated range of analytical, educational, organisational, and consultative strategies. There is a commitment to mainstreaming at national, regional and local level and action research has been funded to develop and systemise gender equality analysis. Mainstreaming takes place against an established record in specific equalities work, and is supported and co-ordinated by specialist structures.

Practice is evolving elsewhere, and sometimes consists of piecemeal developments and one-off or pilot projects. The development of training and tools has sometimes taken place in the absence of more systematic structures and therefore should be seen as preliminary initiatives rather than as evidence of mainstreaming in action. In some examples, mainstreaming developments are underway in countries with little or no background in equalities work; in other examples, countries with long-established records have been slower to adopt formal or explicit mainstreaming strategies, although much of their work 'retrofits.' In some cases there is reluctance to label integrated gender-based analysis as 'mainstreaming' because of experiences of mainstreaming being used as an excuse to disband specialist structures.

Mainstreaming is a term which is increasingly used, but is less well understood. There is misunderstanding and confusion over the meaning of 'mainstreaming' and related concepts. Mainstreaming is sometimes referred to as a tool, sometimes a process or method, and sometimes as a strategy. The conceptual confusion about mainstreaming - is it a strategy? is it a method? is it just a buzz word we use to relabel what we are already doing? - was evident in some of the country examples. The cases reviewed also reinforce other findings which suggest that, whilst, advances have been made in developing tools, there has been less progress in developing overall systems and strategies, and in deepening understanding of the conceptual issues underpinning mainstreaming.

Principles, systems and tools

It is useful to think of mainstreaming in terms of principles, systems, framework tools and discrete tools and techniques. Mainstreaming is supported by principles which set out commitment to, and conceptions of, equality, and systems consisting of strategies, policies, structures, mechanisms and tools through which these principles can be put into practice.

The Gender Management System (GMS) is a good example of a mainstreaming system. GMS has three main components; structures, mechanisms and processes, which need to be developed within an enabling environment. Structures to drive, co-ordinate and scrutinise include: a lead agency, usually the national women's policy machinery; a gender management team; gender focal points comprising designated senior staff members in each ministry or department; an inter-ministerial steering committee; a parliamentary gender caucus; and a gender equality commission or council made up of representatives of civil society. Within these systematic structures various tools or mechanisms are employed to implement mainstreaming. Examples of strong co-ordinating structures, inter departmental working and collaboration at different levels of government, include the Nordic Council, Sweden, Norway, Canada and the Canadian Province of British Columbia.

Tools are diverse (see below) and can be used separately or as part of a framework or package. For example, 'The 3Rs' method involves both quantitative and qualitative methods which may include gender statistics, customer surveys, site visits, observation and interviews. Mainstreaming is an active process combining different elements. The Dutch EER creator, Mieke Verloo, makes this point when she insists that mainstreaming cannot be reduced to the use of a technical instrument, such as Gender Impact Assessment or equality proofing; although such instruments play an important role they do so within wider strategies and systems.

There are three broad categories of tools: analytical, educational and consultative and participatory. Analytical tools are designed to 'expose' the problem. Tools include: disaggregated statistics; surveys and forecasts; research; check lists; guidelines and terms of reference; gender impact assessment and differential impact analysis models; indicators; and monitoring tools. Educational tools are designed to raise awareness, to transfer knowledge, and to support training. Tools include: awareness-raising and training courses; follow-up action; mobile or flying experts; manuals and handbooks; booklets and leaflets; educational material for use in schools. Consultative and participatory tools are designed to improve the quality of policy-making and deepen democracy. For example, working or steering groups and think tanks; directories; databases and organisational charts; participation of both sexes - and all social groups - in decision-making; conferences and seminars; hearings and consultative fora (see Section 2).

Understandings of equality

Some of the conceptual confusion surrounding mainstreaming relates to differing ideas and approaches to equality (see Section 1).

• Equal treatment approaches work on the assumption that treating men and women as if they were the same guarantees equal opportunities. There is increasing recognition that 'gender-neutral' approaches may not necessarily produce equitable results because women and men have different life experiences which must be considered.
• Positive action or the women's perspective takes into account the differences between women and men. Women are viewed as a disadvantaged social group and the approach aims to redress some of the historical and structural inequalities which result from the differences between men and women.
• The Gender perspective focuses on both women and men, and recognises differences amongst groups of women and groups of men. It seeks to reorganise government and policy making to more fairly distribute resources and human responsibilities; this involves changes to men's roles as well as those of women.

All three strands should be seen as complementary and are crucial to successful mainstreaming. Mainstreaming is seen as a 'three-legged stool' with each approach representing a support.

Mainstreaming issues, problems and correctives

The following table summarises some of the main issues raised by mainstreaming as a strategy, together with potential correctives. Potential issues can be divided into four main categories: issues relating to understanding; procedural and structural issues; resources; and political and organisational commitment. The summary is based upon issues highlighted in previous research, the findings from the current review and also, given the limited experience of mainstreaming in operation, it draws upon Council of Europe Group of Experts' reflection or prediction of the likely difficulties in mainstreaming effectively.

Figure 8.1 Summary of mainstreaming issues, problems and correctives

Abridged and adapted from Council of Europe, 1998, USGS, 1998 with additional materials from country reviews.

The needs of successful mainstreaming

Shortfalls in knowledge, awareness and techniques are common to the experience of mainstreaming in most countries. In many of the examples, much of the innovative practice is dependent on the commitment and experience of a surprisingly small number of politicians and specialist officers, who understand equality issues very well. Despite increasing public statements of commitment to mainstreaming equalities principles by governments, public bodies and councils, there is as yet little evidence that the majority of politicians or public officials really understand how this might be applied to specific issues. In a number of cases, resistance has been linked to lack of understanding and, conversely, support for mainstreaming has grown as awareness has risen. In those places where mainstreaming has had a longer history there are other issues related to maintaining momentum and meeting the challenge of political and organisational change. This suggests that mainstreaming is a long term strategy requiring substantial investment in training and specialist support, the production of gender - and equalities - disaggregated statistics and other 'mapping' data, the employment of multiple strategies and tools, and the involvement of a wide range of internal and external actors including specialist practitioners, statutory equality agencies, academics, social partners and 'ordinary' women and men. The need for awareness raising and equalities policy appraisal training cannot be over emphasised and must be seen as an on going process rather than a 'one-off.'

To summarise, this review of developments in mainstreaming underlines the following needs for successful implementation:

• The need for political will and leadership which is unambiguous, consistent and regularly restated in public.
• • public commitment to the principles and goals of mainstreaming
• The need for managerial drive and commitment at top level.

• The need for political and bureaucratic accountability including the duty to demonstrate by, for example:

• • Action Plans and progress reports
  • equality impact statements
  • performance appraisal systems
• The need for integrated systems for the co-ordination, monitoring and championing of mainstreaming, for instance:
• • ministerial, organisational and parliamentary champions
  • a mainstreaming director or co-ordinator to progress and maintain momentum
  • mainstreaming management team
  • specialist equality units
  • equality focal points in ministries and departments
  • inter departmental and intergovernmental working groups
  • communication and dissemination strategies
  • management information systems
• The need to embed equalities in a permanent and sustainable way, for example, through:
• • ongoing training and awareness raising
  • building understanding of gender and equalities issues
  • developing sector specific policy case studies and analyses
  • robust systems of monitoring and evaluation
  • communication
  • fostering a sense of ownership - by policy makers, service providers, equality groups and citizens.
  • a move away from a blame culture
  • effective incentives (and sanctions)
• The need for a statistics and research strategy to support sound evidence-based policy making, including:
• • gender disaggregated statistics - cross tabulated by race, age and disability
  • annual compendium of equality statistics
  • timely research which is gender and diversity sensitive
  • equality indicators
• The need for the adaptation and development of appropriate methodologies, tools and mechanisms for policy appraisal.

• The need for equalities expertise (and the recognition of equalities expertise), for example:

• • recognition of 'gender know how' and skill
  • role of specialist units in co -ordinating and supporting mainstreaming
  • specialist staff and 'flying experts'
  • input from statutory equality agencies and academics
• The need for gender balance in decision making and the fair representation of members of equality groups; and for a socially representative workforce.

• the need for ordinary voices to be heard through:
• • consultative fora
  • development of innovative tools to involve women and men in general, and members of equality groups in policy development
• The need for secure and realistic resources for change.

• The need for collaborative learning and exchange of good practice.

FUTURE RESEARCH

This study has addressed the issue of how mainstreaming equal opportunities can be instigated and sustained in the work of government and public bodies by drawing upon lessons from elsewhere. It has considered, analysed and reported upon developments in mainstreaming practice and research in the 1990s and has drawn upon concrete case examples of innovative practice of mainstreaming at various government levels in Europe and beyond. This review develops understanding of mainstreaming, identifies gaps in knowledge and highlights the strategies, structures and tools needed for successful mainstreaming. Practice is evolving, therefore the Scottish parliament has the opportunity to develop its own model of best practice. Future systematic research is needed to draw lessons from the experiences of policy leaders in the Nordic countries and Canada and from UK local government. Research is also needed in the area of parliaments and mainstreaming to allow parliaments and parliamentary committees to learn from each other.

Developing a Generic Equalities Approach

Gender equality has been the primary focus of mainstreaming in theory and practice, although more advanced models tend to incorporate a diversity perspective; in other words they take into account the realities of women's and men's lives in respect of race, disability and other dimensions of discrimination and disadvantage, including class, sexuality and religion. Some commentators have argued that mainstreaming - developed around gender equality - may not be able to be 'stretched' to fit other sorts of equalities. We would agree with others, such as Teresa Rees, that mainstreaming as a principle is applicable across-the-board although how mainstreaming operates in practice, by what tools, and with what outcomes may differ.

The logic of mainstreaming equality within the UK - and, increasingly the EU - context implies that a generic approach should be developed. Examples of mainstreaming from other equalities perspectives remain rare but, when they do occur, they tend to be less sensitive to gender. Extensive work is needed to find practical lessons in mainstreaming other sorts of equalities for example race, disability, age and sexual orientation and to chart the connections amongst them. Such work needs to be gender-sensitive. UK local government and various levels of government in Canada are two useful starting points.

Easy assumptions cannot be made that concepts, systems and tools developed for gender mainstreaming can be automatically utilised for other equality groups, although it is undoubtedly the case that some are amenable for wider use. Work is therefore needed to develop understanding of the requirements of a generic equalities approach which works with commonalties but also recognises that different dimensions of inequality may require different sorts of analyses and specific solutions. Mainstreaming must also be underpinned by an understanding of the complex interaction amongst different dimensions of difference and discrimination which tend to be undertheorised in equal opportunities programmes and initiatives. Dilution and blandness are the very real potential dangers of a generic approach. A generic mainstreaming equalities approach would need, as a starting point, to combine the following approaches:

• Equal treatment approaches and anti discrimination policies and legislation (there must also be recognition that some equalities groups do not have legal protection and full civil rights).
• Positive action - or group perspective - approaches which recognise the historic and current impact of discriminating structures and practices on different social groups, including women as a social group.
• Gender/ diversity approaches which recognise the impact of gender, the differences amongst women and amongst men, and the existence of multiple discrimination.

Defining mainstreaming as a strategy which draws upon legislative, social group and diversity analyses has various benefits. It enables the development of policy tools and decisions which are sensitive to the different legislative contexts within the UK; which take into account the significance of gender as it affects all women and all men; acknowledges the impact of social group disadvantage (based on for example race/ethnicity, age, disability and sexual orientation); and exposes the existence of multiple discrimination and the realities for those often made invisible by an approach which does not recognise the existence of gender as a division within equality groups (for example black women). Mainstreaming may result in positive action for certain groups of women and certain groups of men.

There is a need to draw upon, and apply, existing theoretical work which has charted and explored the different mechanisms and rationales which underpin and perpetuate different structural inequalities. Further theoretical work is also needed to move beyond simplistic understandings of 'double jeopardy' and to draw, for example, upon the insights of black feminists and disability theorists, to construct more sophisticated understanding of the impact of 'simultaneous' experience of different dimensions of difference and disadvantage.

« Previous | Contents | Next »