Names matter

In the sector we work in, probably best described as being the social sector, it matters what name something or someone is given. Many people for example dislike the use of the term  ‘user’ to describe someone engaging with (using?) and benefiting from a support service. People inside and outside the sector often associate ‘user’ with ‘drugs’, so the dissatisfaction with this term is probably justified. Few of the people we work with who have misused drugs and alcohol want to feel like they are permanently labelled a ‘user’ when they have been through hell to stop ‘using’.

The term ‘client’ seems to have more currency and is what we as an organisation most often apply, though you’ll have noticed we’re still called Brent Homeless User Group (in our defence we were founded by a group of homeless people, so clearly the dislike of this name is not universal). The only problem we have with this usage is that our social enterprise thinks of clients in the business sense, making for internal meetings where who’s who can be unclear. To settle that particular problem we’ve decided on a customer/client distinction, but the use of ‘customer’ in the rest of the sector may not be appropriate – are people receiving support to deal with their mental health problem customers of the support provider? Actually with the introduction of personalised budgets they might be and that might be the right term to use, loaded as it is with concepts of choice and a market for goods.

Our social enterprise also uses a third term, Peer Consultant, to refer to people who we have trained and who volunteer on our projects. This moniker reflects their importance to what we do. Their lived experience is the expertise we draw upon to conduct field research and deliver training. It also reflects the change we aim for: the development from depending on a service as a client to applying skills and gaining confidence as a consultant.