The research aimed to analyze the theoretical and methodological approaches referring to intersectoral practices presented in federal documents that structure the basic social protection services of the National Social Assistance Policy (PNAS). To this end, documentary research was carried out using a qualitative content approach, using as an analytical corpus the main normative and guiding documents of the federal government such as Technical Guidelines for Social Assistance Reference Centers (CRAS), from 2009; Protocol for Integrated Management of Services, Benefits and Income Transfers within the scope of the Unified Social Assistance System - SUAS, from 2011 and the official CapacitaSUAS Notebooks (2008 and 2013), which were intended to provide technical guidelines for professional training induced by the federal government, as complementary and fundamental for the execution of PNAS social assistance services. In addition to federal documents, we use technical guidelines from the United Nations International Children s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), for under standing the importance of international organizations in the development of social policies at a global level and as a guiding document regarding intersectorality and CRAS. The results showed that the intersectorality category has been increasingly requested in public policies, rising in official government documents, mainly in social assistance policy, enforced in its institutional design, given the historical and political context of implementation of the Unified Assistance System Social Policy (SUAS), directing the operation of this public social policy throughout the national territory. However, intersectorality carries at its foundation the contradictions of public policies, reinforcing that it is capable – through the operation of different public sectors – of guaranteeing citizenship rights and meeting the demands of the population, as well as maintaining the unequal reproduction of the capitalist system. Intersectorality, in its conceptual aspect, is said to be polysemic, however, it presents itself in similar forms in the documents analyzed and the proposals for intersectoral work contained in federal documents come up against the absence of infrastructure, social control, social participation and network articulation, which which makes it difficult to materialize intersectoral actions. The concept of intersectorality proposed by SUAS in the normative documents does not capture the complexity of interdisciplinary and interinstitutional relationships that define intersectoral practices, as we understand that it can manifest itself in different waysin specific contexts, and we must understand that the dynamics of power, interestsand of relationships at and at work are also guiding questions to bring understanding of the term.