The history of and developing a shared understanding of the term ‘Personalisation’ It was clear that there was a diversity of understandings of Personalisation which can cloud the issue. People saw it as both a broad and narrow concept. One participant contended that it is meaningless, a term’. They went on to argue that it has become a term used to ‘ghost bind an empowering agenda championed by disabled people about independent living and collective change embodying choice, control, entitlements and rights, into an agenda limited to choice and control only. This resulted from a need to make the agenda politically palatable against a backdrop of austerity measures. Others felt that Personalisation embodies neo-liberal consumerist assumptions pursuit of economic goals at the expense of social or – “the ethical concerns about service provision”. Despite this divergence, there is also well-documented common ground between the goals of Personalisation and independent living that seeks to achieve full and equal citizenship for all. It was suggested though, that the current top down, individual and consumerist approach to social care which focuses on personalising budgets, resource allocation and the care ‘market’ – hinders this/this achievement. embarrassed by the term, you personalise your number plate. “I’m It’s not a new thing: it was a term that built on the politics of the time, using some of the ideals of the Independent Living Movement”. Resource distribution; entitlements and the conflict between individual and collective entitlements It was agreed that ensuring the original entitlement based vision of the Disabled People’s Movement is prevalent within a managed and effective system was challenging. This challenge is exacerbated within the context of the cuts affecting disabled people and their services. Specifically, the tension around the diversity of needs among different groups of, and individual, disabled people and the issue of how to cater to all of them in austere times was a cause for concern. Two fundamental issues were considered: what level of support should be funded e.g. life and limb or independent living; and the relationship between making support available to many through equitable, yet – thinner, spreading of resource and the implication this has for current –
The history of and developing a shared understanding of the term ‘Personalisation’ It was clear that there was a diversity of understandings of Personalisation which can cloud the issue. People saw it as both a broad and narrow concept. One participant contended that it is meaningless, a ‘ghost term’. They went on to argue that it has become a term used to bind an empowering agenda championed by disabled people about independent living and collective change embodying choice, control, entitlements and rights, into an agenda limited to choice and control only. This resulted from a need to make the agenda politically palatable against a backdrop of austerity measures. Others felt that Personalisation embodies neo-liberal consumerist assumptions – “the pursuit of economic goals at the expense of social or ethical concerns about service provision”. Despite this divergence, there is also well-documented common ground between the goals of Personalisation and independent living that seeks to achieve full and equal citizenship for all. It was suggested though, that the current top down, individual and consumerist approach to social care which focuses on personalising budgets, resource allocation and the care ‘market’ – hinders this/this achievement. “I’m embarrassed by the term, you personalise your number plate. It’s not a new thing: it was a term that built on the politics of the time, using some of the ideals of the Independent Living Movement”. Resource distribution; entitlements and the conflict between individual and collective entitlements It was agreed that ensuring the original entitlement based vision of the Disabled People’s Movement is prevalent within a managed and effective system was challenging. This challenge is exacerbated within the context of the cuts affecting disabled people and their services. Specifically, the tension around the diversity of needs among different groups of, and individual, disabled people and the issue of how to cater to all of them in austere times was a cause for concern. Two fundamental issues were considered: what level of support should be funded e.g. life and limb or independent living; and the relationship between making support available to many – through equitable, yet thinner, spreading of resource – and the implication this has for current