Themed section: the person-centred turn in welfare policies: bad wine in new bottles or a true social innovation?

Abstract

This themed section is aimed at evaluating different personalised policies and at drawing a clear map of opportunities and challenges for future implementations. All the essays are based on evaluative researches and on original case studies. They concern different policies: the Australian National Disability Scheme (NDIS) a first serious venture into personalised funding; personalisation in the management of offenders in probation services within the English criminal justice system; social care services for young disabled people attempting to personalise their transition from childhood into adulthood (in Redbridge, UK); health personal plans for disabled people (in Sardinia, Italy). These case studies address the question of how transferable the concept of personalisation is from the social care sector to other and outline different methodologies for developing and evaluating personcentred policies. Last but not least they reflect on a bundle of issues which seem to emerge autonomously from such different case studies. We can sum up their results affirming that personalisation is not an individual consumer-client technology, simply confronted with a single market context and new professionals. It has to be steered within an appropriate context, including new type of professionals, users' led associations and a new governance's architecture. If the public role has to shape freedom and control, helping people to exercise choice in a collectively responsible way and, consequently, to participate in creating public goods, then the person-centred turn will have to confront, at least, some emergent issues, which in turn need specific forms of governance.

Social Investment in theory and praxis: a ‘quiet revolution’ in innovative local services?

“…Overall, the interventions covered in this book were person-centred in ways that reflect an active welfare paradigm and the principle of 'preparing' rather than 'repairing'. This is consistent with the demands of user-led organisations, academics, policymakers and advocacy groups for a way of thinking about social interventions that rejects standardised services (Jenson, 2012;Künzel, 2012;Prandini, 2018). At its simplest, personalisation means that public services respond to the needs of individuals rather than offering standardised solutions said to be typical of welfare bureaucracies (Needham, 2011).…”

“…The turn to personalisation in welfare has been criticised for a lack of focus upon relationships, community life and responsibilities (Fox, 2012;Prandini, 2018). Co-creation has much in common with deep personalisation in emphasising the capacities and knowledge of people who receive services.…”

Co-creating rehabilitation: Findings from a pilot and implications for wider public service reform

“…These can make huge differences in people's lives. This implies that services should be personalised and contextualised by community, asking questions such as ‘what matters to people?’ and not ‘what is the matter with them?’ (Prandini, 2018).…”

The Personalisation of Social Care: How Can a Healthcare System Be Adapted to the Specific Characteristics of People with Multiple Impairments? The case of the care of people with “rare disabilities” in France

“…Since the 1980s, “personalisation” is at the centre of the evolution of disability policies (Mladenov et al, 2015; Power et al, 2021) and more generally of the Welfare state (Needham, 2011; Tournadre-Plancq, 2010). It refers to the question of self-determination, enabled by personal budgets (Scourfield, 2005), as well as to the adaptation of care to the specificities of a given person, through the development of “person-centred” care (Daly and Westwood, 2018; Prandini, 2018). For disability policies, this personalisation of public interventions took place as well in the context of an important reshaping of the political models of disability, from a medical model towards a social model of disability (Barnes, 2012; Oliver, 1990).…”