Vilja, kunna, förstå : om implementering av systematisk dokumentation för verksamhetsutveckling i socialtjänsten

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyse conditions that either promote or hamper the implementation of methods for systematic documentation, follow-up and evaluation in social-work services with individuals and families. The theoretical framework consists of organization theories. Human Service Organizations (HSO) theory is complemented with concepts from the new institutionalism, domain theory, implementation theory, and theory about interventions. A concrete case, a project has been studied. The purpose of project was to implement methods for systematic documentation in public social services. With the notation “integrated” is meant that the methods should be built in and adjusted to the social-work practice. The methods were ASI (Addiction Severity Index) and IUS (a locally based model for integrated evaluation by inspiration from Göran Sandell). Data has been captured in a pretest/ posttest design (Marlow 2000). This means that “state of things” has been described before the intervention and after. The methods used were surveys and interviews (individual and group). The process has been documented through research notes proceeding records, protocols and some diaries written by social workers. Four municipalities from the middle of Sweden took part with five working groups. Two groups contained social workers acting with children and families and three groups were working with drug abusers. The population consisted of the social workers, the managers responsible for the individual and family entities, the politicians and the clients who were affected during the time of the project. The implementation of ASI and IUS has not occurred in the extent that was stated in the intervention theory. This means that ASI and IUS were not used in all new cases that occurred during the time of the project. The interviews supposed to be done in the beginning of the clients contact with the agency tended to be done more often than the follow-up interviews. After the project ended, three of five working groups decided to continue to use ASI (one group) and IUS (two groups). The overall impression is that the respondents comprehend, they have the willingness but they do not have the capability of using ASI and IUS. The organization does not seem to have the capacity of imposing requirements and giving resources. The outcomes do not seem to be the most important issue for the social services. These conditions are discussed in the study by means of the theoretical concepts. In the end, there is an effort to adjust the implementation theory to human service organizations