The market doesn't own 'choice' | Alisdair Cameron
Hard times like these spawn fine-sounding buzz phrases: "personalisation", "individual budgets", "third-sector involvement", "cross-institutional collaboration", empowerment, recovery-focus, innovation. But false friends are worse than bitter enemies: many users anticipate cuts in provision being implemented under their guise, which aren't about to somehow make everything great, and cheaper to boot. None are of themselves bad notions, but their proper implementation is not guaranteed in this economic climate.
Tired free-market "solutions" unasked for by users are, as ever, being touted, appropriating this language of change and choice for an atomised consumerism that undermines social inclusion and the communality that accrues from the shared use of services. Users know social care monies are to meet needs, not wants, yet market-based solutions often try to create demand, promising the earth.
Involving users in service design and delivery gives better, cheaper systems, because users know what's needed. Responsive and personalised services, yes, but not necessarily if the cost is the loss of much-loved day centres, drop-ins and small providers disproportionately disadvantaged by the crude application of marketisation. True diversity of providers, and hence real choice, may disappear, with only the big corporates or quasi-corporate "super" charities left. Instead, invest in users not marketisers.
Alisdair Cameron, team leader, mental health service users involvement group Launchpad, Newcastle-upon-Tyne