Evaluation of the Monitoring of the Quality of Work Life Program for the FCEE/SC

Objective: The objective of this study is to build and evaluate the QWL model that considers the normative, theoretical, and practical aspects of public management, based on Normative Instruction SGP/SEDGG/ME No. 89/2022. Theoretical Framework: This topic presents the concepts of Quality of Work Life (QWL) in the Public Sector, considering Amâncio; Mendes; Martins, (2021); Barbosa, (2024); Camargo et al. (2021); Santana et al. (2022), and Nogueira et al. (2022). Regarding the Quality of Life at Work (QWL) Assessment Models, the following authors were identified: Amâncio, Mendes and Martins (2021; Santana et al. (2022); Lopes-Pereira et al. (2023); De Paula Guirado et al. (2021); Camargo et al. (2021); Nogueira et al. (2022). As subsections, the Indicators and Criteria for Assessing Quality of Life at Work (QWL) were researched, based on: Amâncio, Mendes and Martins (2021); Santana et al. (2022); Camargo et al. (2021) and Nogueira et al. (2022) and De Paula Guirado et al. (2021). And a subsection on Quantitative and Qualitative Integration in the Assessment of Quality of Life at Work (QWL) based on Nogueira et al. (2022) Method: The methodology adopted for this research comprises a quantitative, qualitative, and participatory approach, based on the MCDA. The main result was the structuring of a framework composed of five strategic axes—Occupational Health and Safety; Participatory Management and Communication; Professional Development and Learning; Recognition and Appreciation; and Work-Life Balance, each with its own objectives and actions. Results and Discussion: The survey included 57 respondents from the Santa Catarina Foundation for Special Education (FCEE). By applying a compensation rate to the criteria evaluated and using descriptive statistics (mean, median, mode, minimum, and maximum values), a representative overview of employees' perceptions of Quality of Work Life (QWL) was obtained. The results indicated homogeneity in the responses, with high consistency between the mean, median, and mode, reinforcing the reliability of the average profile obtained. Criteria such as interpersonal relationships and professional recognition were the most evaluated assets, suggesting strengths in the organizational climate and employee appreciation. On the other hand, aspects such as physical environment, workload, and time management presented lower values, pointing to weaknesses related to infrastructure and organization of work routines, which require priority management attention. Research Implications: The application of the value function allowed each criterion to be scored objectively, enabling simulations and the definition of priorities for intervention. This data-driven approach reduces subjectivity and guides the strategic allocation of resources. The use of the analytical model (Figure 3) helped transform individual perceptions into practical support for the formulation of targeted action plans, promoting more effective management aligned with the real needs of FCEE employees. Originality/Value: This study contributes to the literature regarding the assessment of factors that affect quality of life at work that were not previously found in previous studies. The relevance and value of this research are evidenced by the implementation of this study at FCEE/SC.