Eligibility as a negotiable matter: towards a better understanding of social workers’ role in means testing social assistance

Abstract

Decision making on eligibility for means-tested social assistance (SA) is often perceived as a predominantly administrative field of social work practice. The present study challenges the notion of SA eligibility as a matter that can simply be ‘uncovered’. Using data from a vignette survey, the aim was to analyse patterns of uncertainty in assessments of eligibility for the SA benefit in Sweden. Approximately 1,000 social workers were tasked with assessing eligibility based on case descriptions, indicating whether they believed multiple decisions were feasible. Indications of uncertainty were examined using descriptive statistics and cross-tabulation. Directed content analysis was employed to examine free-text responses. In nearly half of the 7,821 assessments analysed, participants indicated that both an approval and a denial decision were possible. The results illustrate that even when the ‘raw material’ processed in the means test is identical, assessment discrepancies can arise on reasonable grounds. However, while professionals actively shape the practical implications of SA policy through discretionary interpretations, the decision-making process can be portrayed as being guided by a straightforward logic. An important insight brought forward is that the significant role of human judgement risks being obscured if the interpretative and relational dimensions of the work are not acknowledged.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.