D-LoT E-Learning Course

MODULE VI

Development of quality disability services

Contents
LEARNING OUTCOMES: .............................................................................................................. 2
VI.1 Rationale of the modernisation of the social sector .......................................................... 2
VI.1.1 Free and open market .................................................................................................. 3
VI.1.2 Neo Liberal market approach ....................................................................................... 3
VI.1.3 Expectations towards service providers ...................................................................... 4
VI.1.4 New market economy structure .................................................................................. 4
VI.1.5 Quality requirements for services ................................................................................ 4
VI.2 Traditional Quality Management Approach ....................................................................... 4
VI.2.1 Products vs Services Approach..................................................................................... 5
VI.3 The challenge of defining quality ........................................................................................ 6
VI.3.1 Difference between product and social services ......................................................... 7
VI.4 Quality Management systems in Social services ................................................................ 9
VI.4.1 The importance of service users’ views ....................................................................... 9
VI.4.2 Quality approaches and quality system ..................................................................... 12
VI.5 The European Framework for Quality in Social Services .................................................. 12
VI.5.1 Overarching quality principles for social service provision ........................................ 13
VI.5.2 Quality principles for the relationships between service providers and users ......... 14
VI.5.3 Quality principles for the relationships between service providers, public
authorities, social partners and other stakeholders ............................................................ 15
VI.5.4 Implementation strategy at service provider level .................................................... 16
BIBLIOGRAPHY/RECOMMENDED TEXTS .................................................................................. 18

1
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
AUTHOR:
Guus van Beek, Key expert at EQUASS (European Quality in Social Service)

LEARNING OUTCOMES:
A. (Knowledge) By the end of the course, participants will be able to recall:
a. The EU modernisation of disability services
b. The core characteristics of social serves and its consequences for service
quality
c. The different perspectives of defining quality in disability services

B. (Skills) By the end of the course, students will be able to:

a. Defining quality for disability services from the perspective of the service
users
b. Defining quality for disability services from the Characteristics of the service
c. Analyse disability services of a service provider based on the key principles of
the European Quality Framework for Social Services

C. (Attitudes) By the end of the course, students will:

a. Understanding the rational of the EU modernisation of disability services
b. Understanding the core characteristics of social serves and its consequences
for service quality
c. Understanding the different perspectives of defining quality in disability
services.
d. Understanding the Key elements of the European Quality Framework for
Social Services

VI.1 Rationale of the modernisation of the social sector

Social Services are subject of an intensive demand for quality and effectiveness. (European
Commission, 2006) All the European Member States have embarked upon a so-called
process of modernisation of their social services. The common challenge in this process is to

2
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
tackle the tensions between universality, quality and financial sustainability. (European
Commission, 2006)

In many member states of the European Union social services are currently undergoing
transformation as a consequence of political, economic and social redirection. As results of
the modernisation of the social sector, the social sector is developing into a more open and
competitive free market. In a market which is diverse and which has a large variety in
offered services, the service users have an increasing need to know which the best offers are
and which organisation assures quality and value for money.

VI.1.1 Free and open market

The idea of the free market in the social sector, as Adam Smith formulates it, is one of the
most revolutionary concepts in mankind history. But the validity and the application of the
concept in the social sector is limited. The free market development is based on the ideology
of the neo-liberalism1: it is a concept which emphases and encourages recognising only
those actions, which adds value.

VI.1.2 Neo Liberal market approach

The ‘science’ of neo-liberal market development is promoted and educated in business
schools and management courses at universities. The neo-liberal market approach pretends
to have a scientific fundament while it is nothing more than an ideology of fundamentalism
based on economic and financial doctrines, dogmas and mechanisms. It has led to the
introduction of the market development and privatisation in the public sector of social
services of general interest.

1
It is important to distinguish the neoliberalism from the liberalism. The terminology of neoliberalism may be
misleading. Both approaches fundamentally differ in its vision on services of public interest. In the liberal
approach the state has an interest and responsibility to carry out Public services of General Interest. The neo
liberal approach is committed to high level of privatization of public services.

3
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
 VI.1.3 Expectations towards service providers
The public financial bodies are interested in the efficiency and the effectiveness of public
expenditure in social service programmes while entrepreneurs and professionals are seeking
for indications of efficiency. The same mechanism can be identified with the private funders.
The performances of the social service provider are more and more evaluated on costs,
relevance, effectiveness and efficiency.

VI.1.4 New market economy structure

The creation of a market economy structure in and between the member states of the
European Union implies a variety of requirements and mechanisms for service providers in
the social sector. In the most of cases the mechanisms as standardisation, benchmarking and
quality management systems have been introduced and promoted at national level. In some
of the cases the mechanisms and requirements for are formulated at the European context.
At the national level service providers are mostly obliged to comply with quality standards,
performance indicators for benchmarking and quality systems that cover different aspects of
the service.

VI.1.5 Quality requirements for services

At the European level these requirements for social services are non-compulsory and will be
more considered as guidelines. The extended number and the large variety of quality
standards, quality systems and types of benchmarking make it complicated and complex for
a service provider to fulfil all these requirements.

VI.2 Traditional Quality Management Approach

In many cases social service providers will choose for traditional and established quality
management approaches: successfully implemented approaches in a manufacturing and a
business environment and based on neoliberal ideology. Since the introduction of managing
quality in industry, these approaches have developed their own language and terminology,
their own mechanism, dogmas and doctrines. They have been set up to improve the
competitive advantage of the company and added value for customers and stakeholders by

4
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
controlling the production process, standardisation of outcomes and improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of the production in a manufactory environment. These
approaches are educated in those business schools of management at the same universities,
which promote the neoliberal ideology: recognising those social services that add value to
their customers by the introduction of the market development and privatisation in the
public sector of social services of general interest.

A major pre-condition for quality of social sector is access to these services, which means
that the services are affordable, available, and accessible. (High Level Group on Disability,
2007) Therefore quality of services should be a question combining choice of the individual
user, availability and affordability of services with some basic quality guarantees.

VI.2.1 Products vs Services Approach

At European level there is no mandatory standard for Social Services but the current
developments in the social sector ask for a European approach and a common framework
for quality in the disability related sector. The European Commission set out its vision on
quality by identifying objectives and principles of organization of social services in particular,
the importance of users’ and stakeholders’ involvement in the establishment, performance
and evaluation of social services (European Commission, 2007). The European Commission
also presented an open list of characteristics reflecting the specific nature of social services
as services of general interest and identified a number of more operational principles
guiding social services (European Commission, 2007). The specific nature, aims,
characteristics and principles could be considered as quality characteristics and quality
requirements for Social Service of General Interest. In 2010 the Social Protection Committee
presented a European Quality Framework for Social Services (Social Protection Committee,
2010). This voluntary Framework aims at being a reference for defining, assuring, improving
and evaluating the quality of social services. It should help policy-makers and public
authorities organising and financing social services. It should also help to develop at the

5
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
appropriate level specific tools for the measurement and evaluation of social services'
quality.

VI.3 The challenge of defining quality

Quality analysis was primarily oriented towards tangible products. In the last decade, there
has been a considerable bibliographical contribution to the quality of services. In many
publications it is stated that the authors have an understanding about quality but they still
have difficulties how to express it. The basic problem for defining quality in the social sector
is the lack of agreement on the quality concept itself. Quality concepts in the social sector
often vary and differ. Quality is in the eye of different stakeholders an experience and it has
different meanings for different people.

Focusing on the field of organisations, public institutions or companies, quality has been
defined in several ways:

Juran considers product quality as ‘its suitability for use by those for whom it is intended’
(Juran, 1988); Crosby defines quality as ‘the accommodation to clients’ demands’ (Crosby,
1979); Deming states that quality consists in the ‘contribution to the satisfaction of clients’
needs’ (Deming, 1981); Horovitz understands quality as ‘the level of excellence that the
company has chosen to reach, in order to satisfy their key clients and, at the same time, the
degree to which such quality is achieved’ (Horovitz, 1992).

Quality in the provision social services differs from quality in production process. In
production, quality can be measured in the process of production and on the characteristics
of the product. In social services provisions the quality of the service is measurable in the
delivery process, on the characteristics of interaction between the professional and the
person served and on the outcome of the service. Therefore quality requirements in the
provision of social services always includes the perspectives of those who provide and those
who are served and should be linked to the intended and expected outcome of the service.

6
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
 VI.3.1 Difference between product and social services
What are the main differences between products and services? Even more important is the
question: why is this relevant?

The European Commission defined social services as “essential services directly delivered to
a person”. When talking about quality in social services it would be wise to have a full
understanding between the fundamental differences of a product and a social service.

There are obvious differences between products and social services. A product is a tangible
object used either once or in many occasions. You can buy cars and cell phones as a tangible
product. A social service however is intangible. The differentiator of tangibility indicates the
ability to touch, smell, taste products and see that this is not present in social services. The
ownership between products and social services is also different. In the case of products, the
ownership of the product is transferable from sellers to buyers. In services there is no such
ownership involved. One cannot own a social service. One may own the rights of providing
the social service but the service itself cannot be owned. Where the product is much more
standardized, the social service may be tailor-made. Companies differentiate in offering
products and social services, but the variations between similar products of different
producers are less prominent than the variations between social services. Product can be
counted. One can count products in the same way as one can count money. There is more
and there is less. A social service is not countable. A social service is ‘levelled’: better than
the best social service is not possible. There is also a limit in what a social service can offer to
a person. A product is the result of a manufacturing or production process while a social
service is the result of an interaction or intervention between persons: an interaction
between professionals and clients. Another key distinction is perishability of social services
and the non-perishability of goods. Goods will have a long storage life and are mostly non-
perishable. Whereas services are delivered at that moment and do not have a long life or
cannot be stored for repeat use. Social services do not have a shelf life as in the case of

7
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
goods. In services the ‘production’ and consumption take place simultaneously and this
difference has consequences for managing the process of delivery.

This brings us to the essential of these differences: the most crucial difference between a
product and a social service is that a service is based on a relationship and an interaction
between the person who delivers the service and the person who receive the service.

The analysis between products and services highlights the important role of professionals in
delivering quality social services. The contribution of the professional in the provision of
services seems to be the most decisive factor for quality of these services. Service quality is
achieved by the efforts and the quality of the professionals. Research by McKinsey confirms
this thesis. In the McKinsey report of 2007 about the quality of education, one of the major
conclusions is that the quality of the education is determined by three important factors:

1. Selection: Getting the right people

2. Development: Develop them into effective instructors
3. Ensuring a system that all students get the best possible education (a system which
facilitates the professional to optimal performance)

In the report is stated that the quality of education cannot exceed the quality of its teachers.

There are many similarities between education and social services. Education has similar
characteristics as social services. Quality in education also has its fundaments in the
relationship and an interaction between the teacher (person who delivers the service) and
the student (person who receive the service).

Quality management in social services should therefore be strongly linked with the selection,
development, management and involvement of human resources, so they can apply their
skills and competence in their relationship with service users.

8
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
VI.4 Quality Management systems in Social services
Knowing the fundamental differences of products and social services, one may ask the
question: What are the consequences of these differences for managing quality and quality
management systems in social services?

In 2005, the Court of Justice of the European Union considers social services as an
economic activity. Therefore social services must be treated in all cases as any other
economic activity: in its management approach, in its business approach and in its quality
approach. The European Court of Justice did not take into account the fundamental
differences between products and social services. The court did not take into account that
these differences may affects the way quality in social services is managed and what the
core characteristics are for quality management systems in social services. The essential
differences between products and services have consequences for managing quality and
quality management systems in the social sector.

Traditional quality management approaches, applied in production and manufacturing

environment, are emphasising clarity and transparency in roles and responsibilities of
management, process control, efficient use of resources and meeting fixed measurable
standardised outcomes based on the demands of the customer so that in the delivery the
expectations of customers and other suppliers can be met and assured. This traditional way
of managing quality could be considered as the paradigm of quality management and may
be reflected in many national and international quality standards. Therefore the core
question is do traditional quality management systems, which originally are applied in a
manufacturing environment, also contribute to the quality of the service? Or do these
systems contribute to the illusion of those who are responsible for managing quality and
managing the service and is it time for a paradigm shift?

VI.4.1 The importance of service users’ views

Services users views are a crucial way of testing and assessing for quality in social services.
Therefore beginning is with users’ and carers’ experiences of social services could give an

9
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
important contribution to the definition of quality. The knowledge and experiences of
service users are the key to what constitutes good social services. Listing to them and then
applying the lessons learned from them is the first step in the search for a valid definition.

The needs and expectation of person served towards quality in social services have been
examined in various ways and at different levels. At the macro level, the opinion of the
service users about quality in the social services has been expressed in ‘The positioning
paper on Quality in Social Services of General Interest (SGGI)’: A major pre-condition for
quality of social services is identified by access to these services’. Access to social services by
people with disabilities means that those services are: affordable, available, and accessible.
Quality of services should be a question combining the choice of the individual user and the
availability and affordability of services with some basic quality guarantees. (High Level
Group on Disability, 2007) The macro level represents the general, political and fundamental
statements concerning quality in SGGI from perspective of service users. At meso level the
general statements will be operationalized for type of services. At a micro level the
individual service user sets his/her requirements on quality of services based on his/her
individual needs and expectations. The positioning paper of the High Level Group on
Disability had been of great importance to the SSGI for people with a disability. It highlighted
a common view of National Authorities of the EU member states and the European NGO’s in
the Disability sector on quality in the disability related social services and therefore it
contributed to the development of the European Quality Framework for Social Services
(Social protection Committee. 2010) and the development of common criteria for quality
assurance.

In the report from the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions on “Quality in social public services” the role of user involvement has been
identified as a crucial topic, and the result of the study presented is that the empowerment
and participation of users in quality improvement has become an increasingly important
focus of service quality (Pillinger, 2001). A good introduction to the analysis about what

10
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
could be gained from involving users in setting the quality standards can be found in a study
from the UK about what service users and carers want from social service workers (Harding
and Beresford, 1996). Beresford points to the fact that the quality that service users want,
are substantially different from those that professionals or service providers would be likely
to select. They are not interested in efficiency or effectiveness but in what the service can do
for them, how it can assist them to achieve what they want. Service users also emphasize
that the way the service is delivered is of crucial importance (Harding and Beresford, 1996).

At the European level the service user perspective is expressed in a quality paper of
Inclusion Europe. Inclusion Europe introduced a philosophy about quality evaluation where
the users and their advocates play the central roles. (Inclusion Europe, 2003) This focus on
the users is placed in the context of a view on people with intellectual disabilities as users of
social services. In the view of Inclusion Europe, individuals with intellectual disabilities are
viewed as potentially strong consumers who actively evaluate and influence the quality of
the receive services – of which they expect that these services meet their needs and
expectations. (Inclusion Europe, 2003)

Inclusion Europe gives mainly two reasons why systems of quality management have to be
complemented by instruments based on the perspective of service users:

1) The right to participation for people with intellectual disability has not only explicitly
been enshrined in international treaties and conventions; it can also be deduced
from their role as consumers. According to this role they have the power to influence
the services which are paid to organise their personal support, the right to choose
and to complain.
2) The right to self-determination implies that the role of individuals with intellectual
disability is changing from the passive role of dependent recipients of care towards
one of active consumers who determine themselves the goals they want to pursue
and the changes they want to realise in their lives.

11
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
 VI.4.2 Quality approaches and quality system
The quality management approaches can be presented in two groups: international
concepts and local Member State initiatives. (Faurschou, 2002) Both groups are used in the
European Member States: International concepts are implemented in the social service
sector at national level and also locally quality approaches have been developed and
implemented. Most of the locally quality initiatives in the European Member State in the
social service sector have been inspired and based on the international concepts.

There are a large variety of different quality approaches that can be applied in social
services. In order to create an overview of this complex topic, a limited number of
approaches will be analysed and described. A most important criterion for selection was that
the quality approach could be applied in all types of social services at national and
International level.

VI.5 The European Framework for Quality in Social Services

The voluntary European Quality Framework aims to develop a common understanding on
the quality of social services within the EU by identifying quality principles that these
services should fulfil. Moreover, by proposing a set of methodological guidelines, the Quality
Framework will also help public authorities in charge of organising and financing social
services, to develop at the appropriate level, specific tools for the definition, measurement
and evaluation of social services' quality. Thus, it will serve as a reference for defining,
assuring, evaluating and improving the quality of these services.

This Framework is flexible enough to be applied in the national, regional and local context in
all the EU Member States and to a variety of social services. It aims to be compatible and
complementary with existing national quality approaches in the sector.

This voluntary EU Quality Framework refers in particular to essential services provided

directly to the person. Very often, these services, which are embedded in the social welfare
systems of the Member States, are considered by the public authorities in the Member

12
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
States as being of general interest and subject to specific public service requirements.
Examples of social services are social assistance services, long-term care, childcare,
employment and training services, personal assistants and social housing.

The framework presents overarching quality principles for social service provision as well as
quality principles on the following dimensions of service provision: (i) the relationships
between service providers and users (ii) the relationships between service providers, public
authorities and other stakeholders and (iii) human and physical capital. For each of the
quality principles concerning the dimensions of service provision, operational criteria which
might be of help for the monitoring and evaluation of social services' quality have been
identified.

VI.5.1 Overarching quality principles for social service provision

 Available: Access to a wide range of social services should be offered so as to provide
users with an appropriate response to their needs as well as, when possible, with
freedom of choice among services within the community, at a location which is most
beneficial to the users and, where appropriate, to their families.
 Accessible: Social services should be easy to access by all those who may require
them. Information and impartial advice about the range of available services and
providers should be accessible to all users. People with disabilities should be ensured
access to the physical environment in which the service provision takes place, to
adequate transport from and to the place of service provision, as well as to
information and communication (including information and communication
technologies).
 Affordable: Social services should be provided to all the persons who need them
(universal access) either free of charge or at a price which is affordable to the
individual.
 Person-centred: Social services should address in a timely and flexible manner the
changing needs of each individual with the aim of improving their quality of life as

13
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
 well as of ensuring equal opportunities. Social services should take into account the
physical, intellectual and social environment of the users and should be respectful of
their cultural specificities. Furthermore, they should be driven by the needs of the
users and, when appropriate, of the related beneficiaries of the service provided.
 Comprehensive: Social services should be conceived and delivered in an integrated
manner which reflects the multiple needs, capacities and preferences of the users
and, when appropriate, their families and carers, and which aims to improve their
well-being.
 Continuous: Social services should be organised so as to ensure continuity of service
delivery for the duration of the need and, particularly when responding to
developmental and long-term needs, according to a life-cycle approach that enables
the users to rely on a continuous, uninterrupted range of services, from early
interventions to support and follow up, while avoiding the negative impact of
disruption of service.
 Outcome-oriented: Social services should be focused primarily on the benefits for
the users, taking into account, when appropriate, the benefits for their families,
informal carers and the community. Service delivery should be optimised on the basis
of periodic evaluations which should inter alia channel into the organisation feedback
from users and stakeholders.

VI.5.2 Quality principles for the relationships between service

providers and users
 Respect for users' rights: Service providers should respect the fundamental rights
and freedoms as outlined in national, European2 and international human rights
instruments3, as well as the dignity of the users. Moreover, they should promote and
implement the users' rights in terms of equal opportunities, equal treatment,

2
See the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
3
See notably the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child.

14
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
 freedom of choice, self-determination, control of their own lives and respect for their
private lives. Appropriate services should be provided without discrimination based
on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.
Physical, mental and financial abuse of vulnerable users should be prevented and
adequately sanctioned.
 Participation and empowerment: Service providers should encourage the active
involvement of the users, and, when appropriate, of their families or trusted persons
and of their informal carers in the decisions regarding the planning, delivery and
evaluation of services. The service provision should empower users to define their
personal needs and should aim to strengthen or maintain their capacities while
retaining as much control as possible over their own lives.

VI.5.3 Quality principles for the relationships between service

providers, public authorities, social partners and other stakeholders
 Partnership: The development of social service provision requires the active
involvement and cooperation of all stakeholders from both the public and the private
sectors: local authorities, service users, their families and informal carers, users'
organisations, service providers and their representative organisations, social
partners and civil society organisations operating in the local community. This
partnership is essential for the creation of a continuum of social services that
respond to local needs, for the effective use of resources and expertise, as well as for
achieving social cohesion.
 Good governance: Social services should operate on the basis of openness and
transparency, respect for the European, national, regional and local legislation,
efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in relation to organisational, social and
financial performance of service delivery. Service provision should be based on the
coordination of the relevant public authorities, social partners and stakeholders in
the design, proper financing (including resources prioritisation within the available
budget) and delivery of the service.

15
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
  The Quality principles for human and physical capital are:
 Good working conditions and working environment/Investment in human capital:
Social services should be provided by skilled and competent workers under decent
and stable working conditions4 and according to a manageable workload. Workers’
rights should be respected in particular with regard to the principles of
confidentiality, deontology and professional autonomy inherent to social services
relations. Adequate skills and a supporting environment should also be ensured to
volunteers and informal carers.
 Adequate physical infrastructure: Social services should be provided within
adequate physical infrastructures respecting health and safety standards for users,
workers and volunteers, accessibility standards following "Design for All" approaches
as well as environmental requirements.

VI.5.4 Implementation strategy at service provider level

1) Self-evaluation on current performance
The self-evaluation on current performance contains two core elements:

 Self-evaluation questionnaire as an individual activity.

 An event to find consensus on difference on individual self-evaluation.

The results of this will be:

 Understanding the performance of the organisation against the quality principles and
criteria
 Recommendations for improving current practice based on the quality principles and
criteria
2) Compiling the Implementation plan
Based on the recommendations derived from the self-evaluation, an implementation plan
will be composed. This implementation plan describes: the recommendation derived from

4
See the Council Conclusions on Decent work for all, Brussels, 30 November-1 December 2006.

16
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
the self-evaluation and consensus event, the actions / activities which will be undertaken to
meet the recommendation, the person responsible and the deadline for successful
implementation

Key success factors for sustainable implementation are: Commitment of management,

involvement of staff and service users and actions should be linked to daily activities of staff

3) Internal assessment
Internal assessment of quality is carried out with the in to determine into what extend the
service provider complies with the requirements of the quality system and to identify issues
for improvements. Various methods can be applied such as observations, questionnaires and
interviews. It is strongly recommended to include service users in the process of internal
assessment of disability services.

4) External assessment
External and independent Quality Assessment is a valuable tool in the quality improvement
process. They provide objective evidence and feedback on performance of meeting quality
requirements and may serve as a unique source of information that is not obtainable in
other ways. External quality review can be carried out by qualified auditors from various
Quality Systems who may include service users in their external assessment processes. The
results of this assessment may lead to certification and/or recognition. In many EU member
states, national authorities and funders may ask for evidence of proving quality disability
services. Successful external assessment may be an instrument for this.

17
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
BIBLIOGRAPHY/RECOMMENDED TEXTS
 Beek van G. Systema EQUASS, In: Qualitidade, Managizine Associação Portuguesa
para a Qualidade 
(APQ) (2013, Lisbon 2013)
 Beek van G., Common Quality Framework for Social Service of General Interest
(SSGI), CEN workshop 51, Brussels, 2010
 Beek van G., Cross reference study on EQAVET, Leonardo Da Vince project (Transfer
of Innovation: PRIME (Project for implementation EQAVET) REA College Pluryn
(Nijmegen 2012)
 Beek van G., EQUASS certification: a tool for VET-provider to show compliance with
EQAVET, Leonardo Da Vince project (Transfer of Innovation: PRIME (Project for
implementation EQAVET) REA College Pluryn (Nijmegen 2012)
 Beek van G., Quality approaches in social services In: publication on EPR web site
(Brussels 2011)
 Beek van G., The illusion of Quality management in Social Services, In: Publication
Fundação AFID Diferença: Di≠erencia Nr. 16, (Lisbon 2012)
 Beresford P, Croft S, Evans C, Harding T. Quality in Personal Social Services. The
Developing Role of User Involvement in the UK, In: Developing Quality in Personal
Social Services Concepts, Cases and Comments, Vienna 1997 p. 63-80.
 Cremer R, Brenninkmeijer V, Blonk R. Tevreden cliënt, geslaagde reïntegratie?,
(Satisfied client, successful reintegration?) Hoofddorp 2002.
 Cremer R, Kwaliteit bij reïntegratiebedrijven. Ervaringen en opvattingen in de
praktijk, (Quality in reintegration enterprises. Experiences and opinions in the
practice) Hoofddorp, 2001.
 Cremer R, Kwaliteit van de reïntegratiedienstverlening, (Quality in reintegration
service provision) in: Maandblad reïntegratie, Den Haag, 2001
 Cremer R, Wevers CJW , Vinke H. Cliëntenparticipatie op een nieuwe re-
integratiemarkt, (Participation of clients in a new reintegration market) Hoofddorp,
2002

18
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
 Dalen van, A. “Zin en onzin van kwaliteitsindicatoren in de zorg”, The Netherlands
2012
 Dowling M, An empowering approach to measuring quality in social care services in
England: Paper presented by Dr. Monika Dowling Department of Social and Political
Science, Royal Holloway, University of London, 2002
 European Commission, Services of general interest, including social services of
general interest: a new European commitment,. Accompanying the Communication
on "A single market for 21st century Europe", Brussels, 2006
 European Committee for Standardisation, EN ISO 2001:2008 Health care service –
Quality Management systems (Brussels, 2012)
 European Quality in Social Services, Principles for Quality, Brussels, 2012
 European Quality in Social Services, Criteria for quality assurance in Social Service of
General Interest (SSGI), Brussels, 2012
 Farschou K: European Forum on Quality in Vocational Education and Training (VET)
Sub group on Quality Management approaches. Final report. CEDEFOP Technical
Commission Thessaloniki, 2002
 Frings, S. Wacker, E. Wetzeler R., Creating common ruels and maintaining diversity
and doing so, final report PROGRESS project BEST Quality by the TU Dortmund
University, (Dortmund, 2010)
 High Level Group on Disability, Positioning paper 2007
 Inclusion Europe, Achieving Quality: Consumer involvement in quality evaluation of
services, Brussels 2003
 Kaziliūnas, A. “Impacts of different factors on the implementation of quality
management systems and performance outcomes”, Vilnius, Lithuania 2010)
 Pillinger J. Quality in social public services. European foundation for the Improvement
of Living and working conditions, Luxembourg 2001

19
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
 Stichting Harmonisatie en Kwaliteitsbeoordeling in de Zorgsector, Certificatieschema
gehandicaptenzorg (Nieuwe Norm), (Harmonisation and Quality Evaluation in the
care sector. Certification scheme of the disability related services) 2007
 The Social Protection Commitee, a Voluntary Quality Framework for Social Services
(Brussels, 2010)
 Vinke H, Cremer R Komduur J, Kwaliteit gewenst! Cliënten over de kwaliteit van
reïntegratiebedrijven, (Desired Quality! Client’s opinion on quality of reintegration
Enterprises) TNO Arbeid Hoofddorp, 2002.
 Vinke H, Fermin B, Genabeek van J, Lagerveld S, Zwinkels W Klanttevredenheid over
reïntegratiebedrijven, (Client satisfaction on reintegration enterprises) TNO Arbeid
Hoofddorp, 2003
 Zuniga FV, Quality Management in Vocational Training. The use of standards and
their different applications. ILO Montevideo, 2004

END OF HANDOUT

20
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by