1. Brukarrevision The Gothenburg model Henrik Ehrlington, Christina Norman, Anna Strand

2. WHY DID WE DO A USER FOCUSED EVALUATION IN GOTHENBURG? To find out methods To find out new ways of quality assessment To empower the users To get an inside picture of the organisations

3. SPECIFIC AIM OF THE “GOTHENBURG MODEL” To find a model that reaches opinions of users To find a time limited model for evaluations To find a method for people who cannot read or write To evaluate organisations, not persons Compare different service centres Start interaction and dialogue

4. IN WHAT WAY DID IT START? These organisations jointly sought funding from the Gothenburg municipal executive committee: HSO FUB GDF SRF DHR

5. THE PROJECT DECIDED: To review six community run units which address people with learning difficulties and mental ill health To find out the perceptions of the users That the users in the team should make the interviews The evaluation to be done by a team To try out “The Aquarium model”

6. THE GOTHENBURG MODEL Teams are formed Education Interviews about influence, participation and relationships Team reports to staff, directors and users ?

7. THE PROCESS OF THE TEAMS Report “The Aquarium model ” 1/2 day 3 1/2 days 1 day1/2 day Disc- ussion and dialogue in the team Inter- views of users and staff Plann- ing phase Edu- cational part

8. REPORT GIVEN – THE AQUARIUM MODEL In the outer ring sits staff, directors and users.

9. THE REPORT IS GIVEN AS COLOURS

10. THE USER LEAD EVALUATION TEAM MADE A DIFFERENCE FOR The users in the team The users in the organisation The staff in the organisation The organisation itself? The social work in general in Gothenburg municipality?

11. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT – facilitating factors Right type of resources (education, pedagogically skilled group leader, salaries) Supportive organisational culture Good information strategy Autonomous user groups Engaged staff and project members present Training of users Payment to and/ or employment of users Discussing and recognizing power differences

12. QUESTIONS TO BE SOLVED Should the teams be mixed or not? Can the statements in the reports be compared over time? Can organisations be compared to each other? Should the written report be made public or not? How can the model function side by side with other quality assessment methods? Who is the “owner” of the results? Who is interested in the results and why? A strategy to handle different interest groups

13. WHAT DOES INFLUENCE MEAN… influence over what? WHAT DOES PARTICIPATION MEAN…to participate in what way? HOW DO WE INFLUENCE EACH OTHER? HOW CAN WE INITIATE CHANGE? CAN WE LISTEN TO THE SILENCE THAT IS IN BETWEEN THE TALKING? WHAT IS A DIALOGUE? WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO THINK TOGETHER?