Uchida Mitsunori

This paper clarifies the work undertaken by public assistance caseworkers in Yamaguchi Prefecture by analyzing their weekly work diaries and comparing them with the work stipulated in the Public Assistance Act and the Social Welfare Act. The work of public assistance caseworkers was subdivided into 21 items. When the contents of the work were classified into the four categories of work stipulated in the Social Welfare Act, 44.6% of the work was made up of interviews; 24.5% was investigation; 47.9% was decision-making, and 1% was providing guidance. These findings indicate that public assistance caseworkers conduct interviews with those receiving assistance and with others connected with them, make decisions regarding whether to provide public assistance, and provide guidance according to the situation for the purpose of investigations that form the basis for the proper administration of public assistance. In addition, the ratio of the different aspects of their work indicates that there are only a few guidance tasks related to handling cases of fraud. Public assistance caseworkers have the heavy responsibility of having a high level of decision-making ability in deciding whether to provide public assistance as a physical manifestation of citizens’ right to life, based on the information obtained from investigations related to interviews with those receiving assistance. 　Furthermore, with regard to the discretionary power of public assistance caseworkers in carrying out their work, it was found that although there is no room for discretion in the application of the law in guaranteeing a minimum standard of living, as this is a legally mandated task, they do have discretion in promoting self-reliance because they implement self-reliance support programs that are tailored to the situation on the ground in individual welfare offices. In addition, although there is no room for discretion regarding how to allocate energy when dealing with applications for starting or changing assistance due to the time constraints in the process leading up to making a decision, it was found that discretion was given to caseworkers in cases where they were making visits to households receiving continuing assistance, as these were planned on a yearly and monthly basis and implemented systematically.