This paper examines an anonymous danish welfare institution inhabited by convicted people with mental and/or physical disabilities. We investigate the employees’ possibility of carrying out meaningful care work that can facilitate emotional wealth among the residents at the institution. With a moderate social constructivist perspective and a philosophical hermeneutic approach, we will
interview residents, employees and management at the institution with the ambition to gain an understanding of the employees' working conditions, function and importance for residents. We show that the residents of the institution are particularly vulnerable and have a critical need for care, relations and recognition which is the content of the employees’ core task. The employees stress the importance of a situated, authentic and bodily approach to the residents which will ensure individual well-being and self-determination. Employees´ care rational and egalitarian ambitions anchored in a spontaneous and emotional practice are limited by requirements for rehabilitation,
standardized service packages, development of competence and documentation.
We map two significant management paradigms at the institution: a neoliberal management paradigm and a care rational management paradigm of which the neoliberal paradigm is dominant. We conclude that both management paradigms contribute positively to social work, but neither are sufficient in their pure form. As a result, evidence-based methods and market logic are prioritized over
a care rational approach to the residents at the institution. The presence of the two management paradigms is not spoken of by neither employees nor management. As a result, neoliberal practices silently enter the institution creating double-binding work tasks. As a solution, the regional authorities
introduces an improvement model aimed at streamlining workflows and eliminating waste time. Since the improvement model is based on neoliberal logics, the model cannot improve emotional wealth among the residents.
We suggest that the two management paradigms must coexist in a reflected combination, which can be practiced with a communicative management paradigm prepared in a domination-free dialogue. However, this is complicated by structural circumstances and therefore we point out that welfare work must be prioritized both economically and culturally with the purpose to create
favorable opportunities for the development of emotional well-being among society's vulnerable citizens.