En kvalitativ studie om bedömningar av akuta matpengar
Sammanfattning: It is a known fact that divergences in regards to assessments of social assistance in Swedishsocial welfare offices occur. For divergences in assessments we refer to whether applicationsare granted or not, as well as the amount of subsidies. The overarching aim of this study wasto examine ideas of what social workers consider to be of significant importance in theirassessments, in relation to social assistance regarding financial aid/food aid in emergencysituations when the applicant does not have food for the day. A qualitative research methodwas employed and six case workers from different municipalities within the city ofGothenburg were interviewed. The results were analyzed in relation to the legal concept “ruleof law”. The empirical findings were analyzed through Lipsky´s (2010) theory on Street-levelbureaucracies as well as a theory on human processing organizations developed for theSwedish context. The legal concept “rule of law” as well as concepts of “clientification” and“worthy” and “unworthy” poor were also employed to analyze the empirical findings. The results identified that the applicant´s actual need in the current situation, specially from newapplicants, and applicants with children are generally prioritized in the process, whileapplications from users who repeatedly need emergency aid are normally rejected althoughthe applicants are in an emergency situation which leaves them nowhere else to go to gethelp. Some different standpoints according what is to define as an emergency situation andthe fact that different assessments may be made for the same situation, as well as differenttreatments of the applicants throughout the process, raised questions both concerning the concept “rule of law” as well as concerning equal treatment of all people before the law.
HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)