Personalisation is like Care in the Community - it's a great idea until the County Treasurer gets hold of it - and uses it to implement service cuts. Our Local Authority has used the Personalisation RAS (Resource Allocation Model) to impose cost cielings on care packages and taken on cost cutting consultants to target the most expensive care packages (the most needy) for cuts. They get paid a percentage of the cost savings they make - so no conflict of interest with providing a good service there then! Unfortunately the politicians seem to have bought the cosmetics of Personalisation - one in a million has used his Direct Payments to get a dog as a companion, so he doesn't get depressed. The bulk of people with disabilities need more mundane things like a decent wheelchair or enough care/nursing staff. But these tend to cost more than dog licences so they become targets for cost savings. To the client and carer, Personalisation in practice looks more like personalised targetting for service reductions.
PS The RAS is very careful to take out the cost of carer provided services - carers are only seen as valuable when they save the Treasurer money - their service isn't valued at all.