NDIS Terminology: Participant, Client or Customer?

In diving into the intricacies of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and its vast expanse, a seemingly subtle debate emerges: should we refer to those accessing services as a ‘participant’, ‘client’, or ‘customer’? It was a topic I initially dismissed as peripheral. Yet, after trawling through a spirited discussion on a Facebook group, it dawned on me – the words we use matter immensely, not only for semantics but for perceptions and empowerment.

The Case for ‘Participant’

‘Participant’ is a term widely employed by the NDIS. At its core, it communicates active involvement and hints at an individual's proactive role in directing their services. In the framework of NDIS, participants aren’t passive recipients; they engage actively in shaping their journey. However, detractors argue that the term segregates individuals into an NDIS-exclusive bracket, inadvertently compromising privacy.

The Argument for ‘Client’

From a traditional business perspective, a ‘client’ is someone who pays for services rendered. Therefore, as those accessing NDIS services are funding them, they can be considered clients. Yet, an interesting counter-argument posits that, in the true essence of the NDIS, service providers and coordinators are essentially the ‘clients’ because they are ‘employed’ by the participant. Moreover, referring to individuals as ‘clients’ has garnered praise for its universality, not tying the individual exclusively to the disability sector.

The ‘Customer’ Perspective

A relatively new contender in the mix is the term ‘customer’. It’s business-neutral and positions the individual as central to the transaction. Software provider, GoodHuman, for instance, champions this terminology. By viewing individuals as customers, the dynamic tilts towards service excellence, as businesses traditionally prioritize customer satisfaction.

Balancing Personal Preference with Broader Perspectives

The choice of terminology extends beyond semantics, intersecting with notions of respect, empowerment, and autonomy. While service providers have their own inclinations, feedback from those at the heart of the NDIS points to a diversity of preferences. Some appreciate the neutrality of ‘client’, others resonate with the activity implied by ‘participant’, and a few lean towards the commercial clarity of ‘customer’.

Furthermore, many emphasise the importance of individuality. As one commenter astutely observed, the individuals accessing services are not 'owned' by the providers. Several providers have evolved in their approach, opting to use first names wherever appropriate, accentuating the human aspect over labels.

Concluding Thoughts

The NDIS, in its essence, is a platform of empowerment and choice. The terminological debate, while seemingly trifling, holds weight in how individuals perceive and experience their journey. Until a consensus emerges (if ever), it’s pivotal for service providers to remain adaptable, respect individual preferences, and ensure that regardless of the label, the essence of respect and service remains undiminished.

Engaging in this discussion underscores the importance of constantly refining and re-evaluating our approach, ensuring that the NDIS ecosystem remains as participant-centric as possible.