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) – 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

Qualification Program (2007) Welfare system (NAV) reformed in 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)

“Normal Work” “Normal Work” Marginalized Respondents place themselves – and feel placed – a within a system hierarchy Qualification Programme NAV 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). Continuation of the earlier welfare 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

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

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

“Normal Work” “Normal Work” Marginalized More, for some Qualification Programme NAV HIERARCHY 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) QP: “It’s the first time I’ve heard or noticed that they have any interest in helping you find the right direction.” (Thomas)

“Normal Work” “Normal Work” Marginalized Qualification Programme NAV HIERARCHY 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). Heightened shame? Structural SA hierarchy, focused on employability 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).