En kvalitativ studie om bedömningar av akuta matpengar

Sammanfattning: It is a known fact that divergences in regards to assessments of social assistance in Swedish social welfare offices occur. For divergences in assessments we refer to whether applications are granted or not, as well as the amount of subsidies. The overarching aim of this study was to examine ideas of what social workers consider to be of significant importance in their assessments, in relation to social assistance regarding financial aid/food aid in emergency situations when the applicant does not have food for the day. A qualitative research method was employed and six case workers from different municipalities within the city of Gothenburg were interviewed. The results were analyzed in relation to the legal concept “rule of law”. The empirical findings were analyzed through Lipsky´s (2010) theory on Street-level bureaucracies as well as a theory on human processing organizations developed for the Swedish 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 new applicants, and applicants with children are generally prioritized in the process, while applications from users who repeatedly need emergency aid are normally rejected although the applicants are in an emergency situation which leaves them nowhere else to go to get help. Some different standpoints according what is to define as an emergency situation and the fact that different assessments may be made for the same situation, as well as different treatments 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.