1 / 8

Norwegian Social Assistance A User-informed Analysis

Norwegian Social Assistance A User-informed Analysis. Ivar Lødemel & Erika Gubrium Social Sciences, Oslo & Akershus University College. Social assistance. “Deserving” and “undeserving” in earlier social assistance law 1964 Social Care Act ( Lov om sosial omsorg )

jock
Download Presentation

Norwegian Social Assistance A User-informed Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Norwegian Social AssistanceA User-informed Analysis IvarLødemel & Erika Gubrium Social Sciences, Oslo & Akershus University College

  2. Social assistance • “Deserving” and “undeserving” in earlier social assistance law • 1964 Social Care Act (Lovomsosialomsorg) • Temporary, “help to self help” through work approach, rights and duty ideology • Status by early 2000s • Strong rational choice ideology (on paper) • Limited programming, primarily workfare

  3. Qualification Program (2007) Welfare system (NAV) reformed in 2006. Premise: creating a more “user friendly” and “efficient” system NAV reform enabled broadened programming for eligible SA users QP: Promise of more for eligible users Customized programmes/Individual Plan (IP) Higher, stable benefit (QB)

  4. “Normal Work” Continuationoftheearlierwelfarehierarchy Qualification Programme Respondents place themselves – and feel placed – a within a system hierarchy • While the NAV Reform promised to unify the work and benefits system, the framework for rights and appeals continued to be regulated by two laws, effectively resulting in a two-tiered system (SA vs. SI). Marginalized NAV HIERARCHY Several respondents spoke of seemingly arbitrary decisions by caseworkers that they were powerless to address. These findings fit with reports of powerless and insecurity experienced by SA users. No change for regular SA system users

  5. Social assistance hierarchy User application/request Work ability/function evaluation Conditional intake benefit Individual Plan Temporary benefit Work and participation Long-term benefit Qualification Programme Adapted from NAV Directorate (2007), “Strategy for follow-up of NAV users”

  6. NAV follow-up protocol (SA users) User mapping Eligibility Work ability/function evaluation “Long-term dependence on SA” “Significantly lower labour- and income ability” Programme can “strengthen the ability of those concerned to participate in work life” Individual Plan Work and participation Adapted from NAV Directorate (2007), “Strategy for follow-up of NAV users”

  7. “Normal Work” More, for some Qualification Programme SA: “You have no rhythm and so you don’t move forward…The killer is to not have anything to go to during the day…as a SA client …You don’t get offers or anything…you have to get things on your own” (Thomas) Marginalized NAV HIERARCHY QP: “It’s the first time I’ve heard or noticed that they have any interest in helping you find the right direction.” (Thomas)

  8. “Normal Work” Heightenedshame? Qualification Programme • Structural SA hierarchy, focused on employability I want a job, a normal job…I’m not in the QP because…I’m not qualified. So, I’m starting with environmental patrol (Omar). Marginalized It’s definitely shame I feel. Year after year after year after year. It’s shame…one has to experience it to say it…I don’t need to think it over…that I’m a burden for other people, I can just go to the social assistance office, and get the evil eye there (Kari Anne). NAV HIERARCHY

More Related