In this study, we explore how Finnish social workers in the capital region argue for temporary housing for their clients. The research material comprised 32 service needs assessments, in which the social workers recommended temporary housing for the clients. The theoretical framework was based on theories of deservingness (Meuleman et al., 2020; van Oorschot, 2000; Larsen, 2006; Jilke & Tummers, 2018). An abductive form of content analysis was employed to analyse the research material. Our analysis has revealed that social workers used four types of arguments when advocating for temporary housing for their clients: “Focus on Outcome”, “Difficult Circumstances as an Indicator of Need”, “Service Failures and Compensating for Other Services”, and a residual category we called “Vague argumentation”. The variation of used rationales and justifications in the arguments has suggested that different deservingness cues were being used. However, social workers also used arguments that were not based on the traditional deservingness cues, but emphasised service failures and a belief in clients’ capacity for (positive) change. Our study illustrates a complex interplay between individual narratives, personal and societal values as well as institutional constraints in the process of writing service needs assessments. The article ends with a short discussion and conclusion section, where we have suggested a more nuanced and context-sensitive approach to both deservingness theory and practical social work with homeless (young) people in Finland.
Rapo et al. (Mon,) studied this question.