Table 1
The reported most significant tasks of the coordination bodies—average points (on a scale from 0 to 3, where 0 means a very low degree of importance, 1 means a fairly low degree of importance, 2 means a fairly high degree of importance, and 3 means a very high degree of importance); (n = 530).
| Discuss national quality reports | 2.66 |
| Discuss local/regional evaluations | 2.82 |
| Discuss remarks of oversight authorities | 1.77 |
| Other | 1.6 |
Table 2
The staffing of the coordination bodies (percentage of the coordination bodies with members from each category); (n = 513).
| Politicians of counties | 49 |
| Top politicians of municipalities | 28 |
| Politicians of municipal social councils | 47 |
| Managers of social services | 87 |
| Social service professionals | 80 |
| Managers of counties | 75 |
| Managers of hospitals | 77 |
| Managers of PHC | 80 |
| Managers of private service providers | 43 |
| Representatives of CSOs | 2 |
| Other | 27 |
Table 3
Perceived influence – How do you perceive your own and other actor groups’ influence within the coordination body? What actor group has the most influence on the operations and on poor quality in operational services? Average points (on a scale from 0 to 3, where 0 means a very low influence, 1 means a fairly low degree of influence, 2 means a fairly high degree of influence, and 3 means a very high degree of influence).
| Influence within coord. body | Influence on operations | Influence on poor quality | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 533) | (n = 500) | (n = 531) | |
| Top politicians of municipalities | 1.74 | 1.21 | 1.46 |
| Politicians of municipal social councils | 1.95 | 1.67 | 1.74 |
| Management of social services | 2.2 | 2.24 | 2.06 |
| Politicians of counties | 1.93 | 1.64 | 1.85 |
| Top managers of counties | 2.01 | 2.06 | 1.76 |
| Managers of hospitals | 1.93 | 2.06 | 1.85 |
| Managers of PHC | 1.96 | 1.99 | 1.81 |
| Private providers of social services | 1.06 | 1.26 | N.A. |
| Private providers of PHC | 1.38 | 1.26 | N.A. |
| Operating staff for elderly services | N.A. | N.A. | 1.38 |
| Operating staff for hospital care | N.A. | N.A. | 1.33 |
| Operating staff for PHC | N.A. | N.A. | 1.37 |
| Civil society organizations | 1 | 0.57 | N.A. |
| Other groups | 1.5 | 1.25 | 0.43 |
| My own influence within coord. body (n = 542) | 1.71 | N.A. | N.A. |
Table 4
Reported major modes of providing accounts from coordination bodies to their home organizations—average points (on a scale from 0 to 3, where 0 means not at all, 1 means a fairly low degree of importance, 2 means a fairly high degree of importance, and 3 means a very high degree of importance); (n = 529).
| Oral reports | 1.55 |
| Written reports | 0.98 |
| Joint oral reports | 1.42 |
| Joint written reports | 2.13 |
Table 5
The reviewers – To what degree do you perceive the following actors as reviewers of the coordination body? — average points (on a scale from 0 to 3, where 0 means very limited, 1 means a fairly low degree, 2 means a fairly high degree, and 3 means a very high degree); (n = 529).
| Top politicians of municipalities | 1.07 |
| Politicians of municipal social councils | 1.48 |
| Managers of social services | 2.07 |
| County politicians | 1.52 |
| County top management | 1.68 |
| Managers of hospitals | 1.69 |
| Managers of PHC | 1.66 |
| CSO representatives | 0.66 |
| Media | 0.62 |
| Audit agencies | 0.93 |
| Healthcare/social inspectorates | 0.83 |
| Relatives | 0.48 |
Table 6
Members’ perceptions of their mandates — average points (on a scale from 0 to 3, where 0 means a very weak mandate, 1 means a fairly weak mandate, 2 means a fairly strong mandate, and 3 means a very strong mandate); (n = 531).
| Municipal representative | 2.47 |
| County representative | 2.34 |
| Municipal and county | 2.5 |
| Private providers | 2.0 |
| Politicians | 2.3 |
| Managers | 2.45 |
| Professionals | 2.32 |