any thoughts on the welsh assesmblies decision to drop the term personalistaion as it has been "hijacked by condumerism" or words to that effect. Any idea what this may actually mean for service users - I may be being cynical but I suspect that personalisation isnt all its cracked up to be regards reducing costs (speak to any service provider and they will tell you their costs have gone up as a result) and so they are finding ways round it.
on the other it could be the beginnings of postcode lottery - only for countries???
romeo2001 - can you provide a link or equivalent to information about this for those of us who have missed it please?
Such confusion results when a big change is proposed - it reduces costs, it doesn't reduce costs, it makes lives better, it destroys lives, it's good, it's evil... Difficult change is difficult - always - if it wasn't it would have been done before. Is it worth a good try - of course - few people on this forum sing the praises of the existing system. Is it going to be flawed and imperfect - but of course.
Part of the confusion of course exists because 'personalisation' will be different in different places. I've been working around person-centred planning now for a very long time - and conversations about it are almost impossible until some work has taken place to establish what the person I'm speaking to means by the phrase. I had a conversation only 2 days ago with someone saying how much person-centred planning had changed and become less powerful since it was first introduced - and how she wasn't interested in it any more. The kind of person-centred planning I've been involved with hasn't changed at all - and is still very powerful - but she had assumed that nobody was doing that anymore - that everyone had converted over to something much less interesting. A sensible conversation between us only took place after we'd established what we both meant by 'person-centred planning'. The same problem exists around personalisation.
Just because one person's needs put through a RAS by one set of workers on one occasion in one place comes up creates problems - according to that one set of workers - this does not mean that 'personalisation' in principle is a bad idea - any more than the fact that one person not getting enough benefits means that benefits as a whole are a bad idea. Of course they might be - but the debate about benefits needs to look for much wider evidence.
As you can tell, some of the debates I've been hearing about personalisation have frustrated me... All I know is that we have a chance here to find a way of working - with a lot of work and imagination - which *might* result in much better lives for lots and lots of people. It'll be difficult. It'll not be all its cracked up to be. It might cost more or less. It might make jobs more or less challenging - more or less like they should be. But it's got to be worth a try!
3.16 The Commission makes it clear that there is further to go. We believe that the label “personalisation” has become too closely associated with a market-led model of consumer choice, but we are taken by the Commission’s approach to stronger citizen control. We will therefore expect our recently published guidance on commissioning to drive services built upon this approach.
3.16 The Commission makes it clear that there is further to go. We believe
that the label “personalisation” has become too closely associated with a
market-led model of consumer choice, but we are taken by the Commission’s
approach to stronger citizen control. We will therefore expect our recently
published guidance on commissioning to drive services built upon this
approach.
We will expect service providers to put in place stronger
arrangements to involve those who use services directly and we will use our regulatory powers to measure the progress made. Building on the Rights of Children and Young Persons Measure, we will also explore the feasibility of bringing forward our proposals to include a child’s right to be heard within an expanded definition of wellbeing under the Government of Wales Act 2006. http://wales.gov.uk/docs/dhss/publications/110216frameworken.pdf
our regulatory powers to measure the progress made. Building on the
Rights of Children and Young Persons Measure, we will also explore the
feasibility of bringing forward our proposals to include a child’s right to
be heard within an expanded definition of wellbeing under the
Government of Wales Act 2006.
http://wales.gov.uk/docs/dhss/publications/110216frameworken.pdf
RobertW: romeo2001 - can you provide a link or equivalent to information about this for those of us who have missed it please? Such confusion results when a big change is proposed - it reduces costs, it doesn't reduce costs, it makes lives better, it destroys lives, it's good, it's evil... Difficult change is difficult - always - if it wasn't it would have been done before. Is it worth a good try - of course - few people on this forum sing the praises of the existing system. Is it going to be flawed and imperfect - but of course. Part of the confusion of course exists because 'personalisation' will be different in different places. I've been working around person-centred planning now for a very long time - and conversations about it are almost impossible until some work has taken place to establish what the person I'm speaking to means by the phrase. I had a conversation only 2 days ago with someone saying how much person-centred planning had changed and become less powerful since it was first introduced - and how she wasn't interested in it any more. The kind of person-centred planning I've been involved with hasn't changed at all - and is still very powerful - but she had assumed that nobody was doing that anymore - that everyone had converted over to something much less interesting. A sensible conversation between us only took place after we'd established what we both meant by 'person-centred planning'. The same problem exists around personalisation. Just because one person's needs put through a RAS by one set of workers on one occasion in one place comes up creates problems - according to that one set of workers - this does not mean that 'personalisation' in principle is a bad idea - any more than the fact that one person not getting enough benefits means that benefits as a whole are a bad idea. Of course they might be - but the debate about benefits needs to look for much wider evidence. As you can tell, some of the debates I've been hearing about personalisation have frustrated me... All I know is that we have a chance here to find a way of working - with a lot of work and imagination - which *might* result in much better lives for lots and lots of people. It'll be difficult. It'll not be all its cracked up to be. It might cost more or less. It might make jobs more or less challenging - more or less like they should be. But it's got to be worth a try!
Thats what Ive found - did a placement where personalisation seemed to consist of splitting up people from one big day centre and putting them in several locations instead - what they did never really changed tho
Also think that people can caught up by trying to iron out the perfections leading to paralysis - at the end of the day people dont really care if a service is perfect they just want one thats good enough.
Of course the problem is that if you try to make a big change happen with lots of effort and energy it makes big waves and it's easy for those who are challenged by the change to blame it for everything that ever goes wrong, for everything which is difficult. On the other hand if you try to drive a big change slowly and quietly there's plenty of time for things to be twisted out of shape by those who are challenged by it...
Personalisation has lots of energy behind it - and it's made big waves - and it's now being blamed (by a few people) for causing the end of society as we know it.
Person-centred planning was introduced and talked about more slowly - and generally has been twisted out of shape, adapted, squeezed, re-adapted, filtered, and squeezed again to ensure it fits the system (by not challenging anything), and (except in the places where it's done properly) hasn't led to much change at all in the overall scheme of things.
Personalisation was never officially adopted in Wales, it is an English initiative. The curent reforms announced by WAG have been on the cards for a while. The document before this called VIsion to Action is also an interesting read.
Hopefully this link will work: http://wales.gov.uk/docs/icssw/publications/101207visionen.pdf
It could be argued that Wales and England have different perspectives on providing adult social services, one is of decentralised services the other more centralised.
Hmmmm - Interesting reading. I wish I had time to read these through properly just now. From what I've read quickly this certainly doesn't look anything like a rejection of personalisation - if anything it's an endorsement of it isn't it? It looks like things are actually at an initial stage for Wales - a statement that this is the way things should go, but without any specifics. I work all over the UK, and trying to keep track of every development in every policy area across all groups in society is impossible (added to which I try to keep an eye internationally too...) - so thanks for these links - very informative.