Filer
Sammendrag
I 2022 ble det gjort endringer i regelverket for arbeidsavklaringspenger (AAP), som gir flere muligheter for å forlenge stønadsløpet. Før kunne brukere få et unntak fra treårsregelen, dersom helse var til hinder for å avklare arbeidsevnen i løpet av stønadsperioden. Nå kan brukere som har gode utsikter for å komme i arbeid i løpet av det neste året få et unntak, noe som gjør vurderingene mer framoverskuende. Endringene innebærer et skifte fra fortidsskjønn til fremtidsskjønn – fra å dokumentere hendelser som har skjedd til å vurdere brukerens fremtidsutsikter. I tillegg ble karensåret avviklet, noe som innebærer at brukere kan søke om AAP igjen umiddelbart etter endt stønadsperiode.
I artikkelen undersøker jeg hvordan veiledere erfarer og praktiserer regelverksendringene fra 2022, herunder unntak fra treårsregelen og hvorvidt intensjonen bak regelverket blir ivaretatt. Intensjonen er at stønadsløpet skal tilpasses individuelle behov, uten å bli en passiv form for inntektssikring. Endringene skal også hindre uhensiktsmessige brudd i oppfølgingen. Dataene består av intervjuer med ansatte fra Nav-kontor og Nav arbeid og ytelser (NAY).
Det er tre hovedfunn. Det første er at dagens regelverk gir større fleksibilitet, men kan også forlenge stønadsløpene. Fleksibiliteten gir, i tråd med intensjonen, større rom for å tilpasse varigheten til brukerens unike situasjon. Dette kan hindre uhensiktsmessige brudd i oppfølgingen. Likevel kan mer tid også ta noe av hastverket ut av avklaringsprosessen. Det kan derfor være vanskelig å realisere lange og aktive stønadsløp på samme tid, noe som innebærer en risiko for at AAP blir en mer passiv form for inntektssikring.
Det andre funnet er at veilederne tenderer mot å bruke nåtidsskjønn fremfor fremtidsskjønn i unntaksvurderingen. De fokuserer altså i større grad på aktiviteten brukeren deltar i på vurderingstidspunktet enn brukerens utsikter for å komme tilbake i arbeid.
Det siste funnet er at forholdet mellom lokalkontorene og NAY virker mer harmonisk enn før. Tidligere oppstod det konflikt fordi NAY overprøvde skjønnsutøvelsen lokalt. Nå legger ikke NAY seg opp i innholdet i skjønnsutøvelsen i unntaksvurderingene, men kontrollerer om innstillingen er begrunnet.
In 2022, changes were made to the law regulating work assessment allowance (WAA) and its duration, making it easier to extend the benefit period. Before, clients could be granted an exception from the standard duration, if health issues had prevented the assessment of their abilities to work. Now, clients with good prospects of returning to work can be granted an exception, making the assessment more forward-looking. Thus, these changes involve a shift from retrospective discretion to prospective discretion – from documenting past events to predicting clients’ opportunities for work in the future. In addition, the waiting period was lifted, meaning that clients can apply for WAA again right after the initial period has ended. The aim of this article is to explore how frontline workers experience and practice these regulatory changes, including their exceptions from the standard WAA duration and whether this practice upholds the intention of the law. The intention is to adapt the benefit period to individual needs, without it becoming a passive form of income. Furthermore, these changes should prevent unproductive pauses in the work assessment process. The data consists of interviews with frontline workers at Nav offices and Nav’s benefit unit (NAY). There are three main findings. First, the current legislation makes WAA more flexible in terms of duration but can also prolong the benefit period. This makes it easier to adapt the duration to the individual client and can prevent unproductive pauses in the assessment process, as intended. Yet, more time can also take the rush out of the process. Hence, it seems difficult to realize long and active benefit periods at the same time, potentially turning WAA into a more passive form of income. Next, workers tend to place more emphasis on the activities that clients participate in at the time of assessment than their prospects of returning to work in the near future. Thus, workers use present discretion rather than prospective discretion when assessing clients’ need for an exemption. Finally, the relationship between local Nav offices and NAY seems more harmonious than it was before. The conflicts stemmed from NAY opposing local discretion. Now, however, NAY focuses less on the content of local discretion and instead controls that the recommendation is documented.
In 2022, changes were made to the law regulating work assessment allowance (WAA) and its duration, making it easier to extend the benefit period. Before, clients could be granted an exception from the standard duration, if health issues had prevented the assessment of their abilities to work. Now, clients with good prospects of returning to work can be granted an exception, making the assessment more forward-looking. Thus, these changes involve a shift from retrospective discretion to prospective discretion – from documenting past events to predicting clients’ opportunities for work in the future. In addition, the waiting period was lifted, meaning that clients can apply for WAA again right after the initial period has ended. The aim of this article is to explore how frontline workers experience and practice these regulatory changes, including their exceptions from the standard WAA duration and whether this practice upholds the intention of the law. The intention is to adapt the benefit period to individual needs, without it becoming a passive form of income. Furthermore, these changes should prevent unproductive pauses in the work assessment process. The data consists of interviews with frontline workers at Nav offices and Nav’s benefit unit (NAY). There are three main findings. First, the current legislation makes WAA more flexible in terms of duration but can also prolong the benefit period. This makes it easier to adapt the duration to the individual client and can prevent unproductive pauses in the assessment process, as intended. Yet, more time can also take the rush out of the process. Hence, it seems difficult to realize long and active benefit periods at the same time, potentially turning WAA into a more passive form of income. Next, workers tend to place more emphasis on the activities that clients participate in at the time of assessment than their prospects of returning to work in the near future. Thus, workers use present discretion rather than prospective discretion when assessing clients’ need for an exemption. Finally, the relationship between local Nav offices and NAY seems more harmonious than it was before. The conflicts stemmed from NAY opposing local discretion. Now, however, NAY focuses less on the content of local discretion and instead controls that the recommendation is documented.