本稿は、山口県内の生活保護ケースワーカーの週間業務日誌を分析し、生活保護法及び社会福祉法に規定された業務と比較検討を行うことで、その実態を明らかにするものである。生活保護ケースワーカーは、細分化すると21項目にも及ぶ内容の業務を遂行している。この業務内容を社会福祉法に規定されている生活保護ケースワーカー（現業員）の事務4項目に分類したところ、それぞれ「面接」44.6％、「調査」24.5%、「判断」47.9%、「指導」1％（重複計上あり）を占めていた。このことから、生活保護ケースワーカーは、生活保護の適正実施の根拠となる「調査」を目的として、被保護者及びその関係者と「面接」し、生活保護の可否を「判断」し、状況に応じて「指導」を行っていることが明らかとなった。また、それぞれの占める割合から、不正受給等に対する「指導」的業務はわずかであり、生活保護ケースワーカーは、被保護者との「面接」を基本としつつ、「調査」から得られた情報を根拠に国民の生存権の具現化である生活保護実施の可否を決定するという高度な「判断」を要する責任の重い業務を担っているといえる。 　さらに、生活保護ケースワーカーの業務遂行にあたっての裁量は、最低生活の保障に関しては、法定受託事務であり「法適用の裁量」の余地はないものの、自立の助長に関しては、福祉事務所の実態に合わせた自立支援プログラムを実施していることなどから裁量を有していることを明らかにした。また、「エネルギー振り分けの裁量」に関しては、開始及び変更の申請があった場合には、決定までの時間的制約があることから裁量の余地はないものの、継続世帯への訪問については、年間及び月間予定を立てたうえで計画的に実施していることから生活保護ケースワーカーに裁量が与えられていることを明らかにした。

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.