Distinctive character and added value of civil society organizations - a collaborative project within the Swedish integration system

ABSTRACT

Expectations on collaboration between public authorities and civil society organizations (CSOs) have increased in Sweden the past decades, partly due to changes in the organization of welfare services. This article investigates a collaborative project within the migrant integration policy area. It is a collaboration between the employment offices in a region of Sweden and local CSOs with the common goal of easing the integration of migrants. Theories about civil society as service providers emphasize a possible added value of these non-statutory services related to CSOs distinct character. This link has seldom been empirically investigated. This article explores the distinctive character and added value of CSOs as they unfold in a collaborative project. Two previous studies were conducted by the researchers and this study is an extrapolation of the results. The analysis shows that discrepancies between CSOs and public authorities related to both ideology and organizational logics can be linked to an added value for the participants of the project. Paradoxically, the tensions and discrepancies enabled activities revolving around a more personal and informal understanding of integration that departed from the government agencies’ agenda whilst at the same time being enabled through the collaboration with them.

KEYWORDS:

• Added value
• distinctive character
• civil service organizations
• employment offices
• civil society
• migration
• integration

Introduction

This article addresses the distinctive character of civil society organizations (CSOs) and what type of added value CSOs may produce when entering into collaborations with public organizations. The article draws on a Swedish case of collaboration between local associations (civil society organizations) and the offices of the Swedish Public Employment Service (Arbetsförmedlingen, hereafter ‘EO’ for employment office) in the region of Skåne in Southern Sweden. The name of the collaboration is NAD, a Swedish acronym for ‘network’, ‘activity’ and ‘participation’ (Jönsson & Scaramuzzino 2016, 2018). The project aims at facilitating integration of newly arrived immigrants’ into Swedish society by introducing associational activities in individual ‘integration plans’ that the EOs set up for each immigrant enrolled in the integration programme. The ‘integration plan’ is set up as soon as the immigrant receives their residence permit and includes several activities depending on the immigrants’ previous work experience and skills. Attending these activities is a pre-requisite for receiving a financial support subsidy available to newly arrived immigrants. The collaborative relation that is established between the associations and the EOs is based on the associations arranging activities for newly arrived immigrants and receiving a small grant for covering the cost of the activity (Jönsson & Scaramuzzino 2018).

Collaborative arrangements between public authorities and CSOs are quite common in Sweden and relate to two separate processes or trends in Swedish social policy. On the one hand we have the wave of privatization of public services that has permeated Swedish welfare in recent years in the form of contracting out of public services to non-statutory actors, both private for-profit and non-profit (Hartman 2011). On the other hand, we have the outspoken political ambition of the previous liberal-conservative government that civil society should be allowed to a greater extent to contribute to welfare and integration (Scaramuzzino 2012). Privatization by contacting out services mostly based on public procurement have however mostly favoured the development of for-profit organizations as service providers (Hartman 2011). New forms of ‘partnership’ and ‘agreement’ have nevertheless arisen that aim to enable a non-market-based collaborative relationship (Forum 2016), to allow CSOs to produce services with public funding without resorting to marked-based competition mechanisms. NAD can be seen as an expression of this effort of finding new collaborative relationships between CSOs and public authorities within the Swedish welfare system. NAD started out as a pilot project in Skåne and since its start in 2012, has led to several similar projects in other parts of Sweden.

We call NAD a collaboration as it is framed as such by the parties, but we will address in the analysis and the conclusions to what extent the relationship can be understood as a collaboration in a more theoretical sense. Collaboration in this sense can be defined as a relationship between actors based on a common understanding of purposes and means but where there is also an affirmation of differences and pluralism, for instance when it comes to areas of responsibility (see Eliasson 2010 for collaboration between public authorities; Najam 2000 for collaboration between public and non-profit actors). Collaboration does not mean that the parties are equal but that there is enough consensus that none of the parties would want to control or regulate the other (Najam 2000). In other words, collaboration must take place in respect of different organizational logic. Collaboration between the public sector and civil society are often based on the assumption that CSOs carry some distinctive characteristics such as values, norms and engagement that allow them, in the right conditions, to produce an added value compared to public or private for-profit actors (Jönsson & Scaramuzzino 2018). This assumption has however seldom been empirically investigated. This article is based a study of the collaborative project NAD and aims to explore how the distinctive character of Swedish CSOs is defined in the collaboration and if and how it can be related to an added value of the activities for the participants.

The study builds on two rounds of empirical investigation in the collaborative project NAD. The first round (Jönsson & Scaramuzzino 2016) addresses the cooperation between the associations and the EOs. Drawing on the concept of ‘organisational logics’ it aims at exploring how CSOs’ distinctive characteristics are defined within the project. For instance, they are often seen as carrying a more holistic approach to immigrants’ integration, emphasizing societal integration in a broader sense than the employment agencies that are more focused on mere labour market integration. The second round (Jönsson & Scaramuzzino 2018) explores the ‘added value’ of the CSOs’ activities by focusing on the experience of the immigrants that have been involved in associational activities and their view on how these activities contribute to their integration. For instance, some participants see the CSOs as an arena where they can access social support and guidance in the new context of Swedish society, something that is not possible in the statutory activities provided by the EOs.

The aim of the article is to understand how the distinctive character of CSOs unfolds in collaboration with public authorities and in what ways it can be related to an added value that CSOs contribute to.

The integration policy area in Sweden

The latest reform of the Swedish integration system (etableringsreformen) has meant one of the biggest changes in Swedish integration policy over the past thirty years. In the previous system, which was institutionalized in 1985, the municipalities had the total responsibility for refugee reception. It was the Social Services Act that was acted as guidance and focus was often on the refugees’ social and psychological needs. It was usually social workers who worked with refugees within specific ‘reception units’ (Sarstrand Marekovic 2011; Scaramuzzino 2012).

The reform that was launched in 2010, however, moved the overall responsibility for the reception of newly arrived immigrants over to the Swedish Public Employment Service, including the refugees’ introduction and the coordination of the different services. The municipalities retained responsibility for Swedish for Immigrants (SFI), community orientation and for the public services that pertain all municipal residents: school, childcare, housing etc. (Sarstrand Marekovic 2011). It has been argued that the transition from the municipalities to the EOs through the reform has meant a redefinition of integration in terms of ‘establishment in the labour market’ which has reduced the focus on other social, psychological, and cultural aspects of integration. It has also placed a greater emphasis on the individual’s responsibility in the integration process instead of seeing integration as a mutual adaptation process between the new members of the polity and the receiving society (Sarstrand Marekovic 2011; Scaramuzzino 2012, Scaramuzzino & Suter 2020). Hence, the reform has implied a change in the integration system both from an organizational and from an ideological point of view.

Distinctive character and added value as relational concepts

This article draws on the theoretical discussions on how civil society actors differ from actors in other sectors and societal spheres. Many of the concepts used to designate CSOs, e.g. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), non-profit organizations (NPOs) and third sector organizations, highlight how they are separated and differ from other sectors’ organizations such as public authorities and private enterprises. Most definitions tend to present civil society as a sphere separated from state, market, and family (e.g. Wijkström and Einarsson 2006; Salamon, Sokolowski, and List 2004).

What seems to characterize most CSOs is the fact that they are based on sets of values and norms that can be political, cultural, religious etc. (Anheier 2005). In a Swedish context, the discussion on distinctive character (särart) has also been related to the concept of added value (mervärde). The influential scholars Filip Wijkström and Torbjörn Einarsson (2006) argue that the distinctive character of CSOs can be the result of the faith or ideology on which basis the organizations work and run their activities. However, it can also be based on particular ways of organizing or on the employment of particular working methods or resources. Hence, while the distinctive characteristics can be related to norms, values, ideology or organizing, the added value is more a function of the social impact the activity have. As argued by Wijkström and Einarsson (2006), whether these distinctive characteristics lead to some kind of added value is a crucial research question to be addressed.

To be able to use the concepts analytically we argue that there is a need for some conceptual clarification. In our view both the concepts of distinct characteristics and added value have a relational dimension. Distinctive character implies a distinction from something else. Usually what is intended is what distinguishes civil society from state and market, which are the two other spheres upon which liberal democracy relies (Somers 1999). The concept of added value implies a similar relationship in which the value is added to something else. In a sense, it assumes a pre-existing societal situation or context to which civil society can contribute.

In the context of our study, we can be more specific when it comes to these two concepts. The case we are exploring, a collaboration between associations and public employment agencies, suggests an understanding of the distinctive characteristics of civil society in relation to these specific public authorities, as discussed earlier. The added value is instead to be interpreted within the specific context of the Swedish integration system for newly arrived immigrants. This system is dominated by public organizations in accordance with the Swedish welfare model and there is generally small room for actors from civil society. Hence, the value produced should be interpreted as adding to the pre-existing public integration system.

On a structural level the distinctive character of CSOs in relation to public authorities can be interpreted as the way in which individuals relate to each of the spheres of the state and of civil society. According to Wijkström and Lundström (2002), individuals relate to the state sphere mostly as taxpayers or voters while they do so as donors or members in the civil society sphere. The different logics behind the state sphere and the civil society sphere are mirrored by differences in the way in which public and CSOs function. The differences between public sector and civil society sector can be summarized in two ideal types as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Public sector and civil society sector logics.

Core elements	Public sector principles	Civil society sector principles
1. Ownership	Citizens	Members
2. Governance	Public elections	Private elections
3. Operational priorities	Public service and collective choice	Commitment about distinctive missions
4. Distinctive human resources	Paid public servants in legally backed bureaus	Members and volunteers in association
5. Distinctive other resources	Taxes	Dues, donations and legacies

Note. Adapted from Billis (2010), p. 55

In analysing the collaborative relationship between organizations belonging to the two sectors (as is the case with NAD) these distinctive characteristics of CSOs can be used to understand possible tensions and conflicts. In particular, the commitment to a distinctive mission, which can be understood as the organization’s ideology, becomes relevant when entering a policy field as migration and integration which has been on the top of the political agenda and ridden by conflict in society (Scaramuzzino & Suter 2020).

As previously discussed, the added value of civil society organizations should be contextualized. If we understand collaboration as a relationship based on a shared understanding of goals and means (Najam 2000), the added value of CSOs activities should be understood in relation to the policy field and system in which the collaboration takes place, and to which the CSOs aims to contribute, the integration policy.

There is extensive research showing that engagement in civil society can have positive effect on immigrants’ integration. An overview of Nordic research (see Jönsson & Scaramuzzino 2018) identifies several arenas in which this added value of civil society has been explored: giving access to networks (Nannestad, Svendsen, and Svendsen 2008; Walseth 2008) producing social capital and increasing social trust (Dinesen 2010, 2012), increasing well-being (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al. 2006; Johnson et al. 2017; Sundell Lecerof et al. 2016; Sherman, Amy 2003), giving support and guiding in accessing public health (Straiton and Myhre 2017), children’s performance in school (Behtoui and Neergaard 2016; Behtoui 2017), employment (Ahmad 2011; Bethoui 2008) and self-employment (Katila and Wahlbeck 2012).

The added value that is expected from public authorities in the Swedish integration system, relates not only to direct social interventions by civil society but also to the contact areas that arise within the associative life, the advocacy that is conducted and the role of representatives of vulnerable groups and critical voice towards the public (MUCF 2016a, 2016b). The activities included in NAD relate to both direct social intervention and creating arenas for social interaction.

Methodology

The empirical material for this study about the collaborative project NAD was collected in two distinctive rounds: one set of empirical material was gathered during 2015–2016 focusing on the collaboration between the CSOs and the EOs while the second set of empirical material was gathered in 2018 focusing on the participants’ experiences of the activities. Each set of empirical data was part of a commissioned evaluation of the project and have led to the publication of two separate ‘grey literature’ reports (see introduction).

The empirical data consists of 42 interviews with people involved in the collaborative project on different grounds and with different positions. Nine interviews were conducted with employment officers in charge of finding participants for the activities within the pool of newly arrived immigrants within the ‘establishment programme’. Nine interviews were conducted with representatives of CSOs arranging activities. Nine interviews were conducted with NAD-coordinators who were employed by CSOs and in charge of finding associational activities for the participants. In some cases, they also arranged activities within their own organizations. 14 interviews were conducted with participants who had had an activity in NAD between one and a half and two years before. One interview was also conducted with the project manager of NAD. We contacted the interviewees through the project manager of NAD and the coordinators. For the interviews with participants the manager of NAD reached out to the EOs and the coordinators in order to find interviewees, based on the fact that they had stayed in touch with the staff of the project (i.e. ‘convenience sample’). This means that our sample is not necessarily representative of all activities and participants, rather it reasonably focuses on the more successful cases. The sample in fact enables us to highlight and explore cases in which the collaboration with public authorities can be related to an added value that CSOs contribute to.

In the current study, we draw on the findings from both sets of data and related reports to reach new conclusions based on an analysis of the data across the two sets on collaboration and on participants’ experiences. The analysis of the first set of data showed a discrepancy and a tension between the logics of the public sector and the logics of the CSO and this is used to illustrate how the distinct character of CSOs plays out in the collaboration with the EOs. The analysis of the second set of data showed how participants of the activities ascribed some form of added value to these activities compared to the other activities in their integration plans. In this paper, we build upon these findings and re-examine how the two aspects (distinct character and added value) are related and/or intertwined to be able to explore if – and how – the added value of the activities can be seen as an effect of the distinctive character of CSOs. As such, this article is not focused on solely input in the collaboration in terms of the relationship between the two parties nor solely on the output in terms of the value produces but rather the relationship between them.

Because of the extrapolation of previous findings this study is more characterized by a meta-analysis rather than an empirically close analysis. In the re-reading of our material, we focused on the expressions of tension or conflicts in the 42 interviews. After our categorization of these tensions and conflicts, we examined what kinds of positive outcomes the interviewees brought up and what aspects of the NAD partnership they ascribed these outcomes to (if any); in some cases, these ascriptions were explicit while in other cases they were interpreted by us. In seeing the outcomes in relations to the tensions, we created a model, based on previous theories, relating to the aspects of added value and distinctive character.

We will present two dimensions of distinctive character, and the added values that evidently accompany them. The dimensions are ideology and organizational logics and have been chosen partly because they are theoretically relevant for our definition of distinctive character and partly because the difference regarding them seem to clearly ‘produce’ an added value perceived by the participants.

It might be important to add that we rely on the informants’ perspective on the issues we treat in the analysis. The distinctive character of the CSOs and the way in which it unfolds in the collaboration is inferred through the perspectives of the parties involved. It means that it is their understanding of integration of their core mission and of the collaboration that is in focus. The added value of the activities is inferred through the perspective of the participants and the value they ascribe to their participation in the programme.

Tensions between the employment office and civil society organizations

The EOs and the CSOs are different in a number of aspects. The differences between the two can be seen as differences in ideology as well as organizational logics. There is a difference in ideology between the parties in the sense that the prime objective differs: the EOs’ objective (which is defined by law and state regulations) is to enable immigrants integrate in the labour market while the CSOs do not have one single objective clearly mapped out, rather it depends on the type of organization and its specific mission. However, our interviews show that generally, the CSOs regarded the objective to be akin to helping the participants in their social integration and giving them an opportunity to practice their interests. As regards the NAD-activities, the objectives of the EOs and the CSOs were similar on an explicit level: supporting the participants’ integration with a focus on improving their language skills, health, and networks. There were however discrepancies in how they viewed and prioritized said objectives. There was also a difference in organizational logics between the two parties in terms of how the objectives were to be met. The EOs had a more bureaucratic working method, which was characterized by a slower pace and a focus on well-tried activities while the CSOs were more pragmatic, fast-paced, innovative, and did not hesitate to take chances when it came to trying out new activities. This different organizational logics can also be related to the fact that the EOs, as public authorities are bound to regulation concerning statutory services they are obliged to produce, while CSOs are only bound to their statute and mission and the internal decision-making related to the activities that are voluntary.

In other words, the EOs and the CSOs are quite different organizations. The CSOs have a distinctive character in relation to the EOs, something that was explicitly acknowledged in the project. It implied that that when EOs included the NAD activities in their plans, the outcome would inevitably be different than when the EOs stuck to their regular modus operandi, i.e. produced services by themselves or outsource them to other (often for-profit) actors. The EOs hence included the CSOs’ activities in the newly arrived immigrants’ plans because the outcome would be something different and not because they wished the CSOs to perform services on behalf of the EOs. The relation between the parties was hence bound to make room for and to handle possible tensions due to the differences in ideology and logic. Related to our concepts we would say that the collaborative relationship was structured in a way that ideally would allow the distinctive character of CSOs to be preserved in the activities organized within NAD.

In fact, despite these differences the relationship between the EOs and the CSOs can be defined as ‘collaborative’ since the parties within NAD generally shared the same view of both the goals to be achieved and the means to achieve them (cf. Najam 2000). Accordingly, the participants were supposed to improve their language skills, their health and/or increase their network through activities in CSOs. This would in continuation lead to an increase in the participants’ opportunities to be integrated into the labour market. However, our study shows that there was still room for a tension building up because of different ways of interpreting and prioritizing goals and different ways of navigating the means.

In the coming sections we will give some examples of these tensions based on the accounts from the people who are involved in NAD either as participants, employment officers or representatives. We will explore to what extent these tensions can be seen as an expression of ideological and organizational differences and hence as an expression of the distinctive character of CSOs. The analysis will further explore if and how these tensions can be seen as something that needs to be overcome in order for the collaboration to have a positive outcome or rather as something that gives the collaboration and the activities an added value in relation to the Employment Offices’ work outside the project’s framework.

Tension when it comes to the goals

When it comes to the views of the goals, what is supposed to be achieved through NAD, there was an agreement regarding the explicit goals but differences regarding how these goals were to be interpreted or prioritized. Even though there was a shared view on the fundamental goal, to ease the integration of the group into ‘Swedish’ society by improving language, health, and networks, there were different views regarding what kind of this integration was of importance and what the consequences of such an integration were.

The CSOs mainly referred to the social integration of the participants as the main goal of NAD:

You want networks and social contacts to emerge, so that there can be a natural integration. (Civil society coordinator)

You need networks! And I have always said that “I cannot live without positive networks, you need them”. And you are increasingly dependent on them. (Civil society representative)

In both of these quotes, we see that the representatives underlined the importance of the social aspects of integration, the need of networks and social contacts were brought up as aspects that were needed for the participant to have a smooth or positive integration. This social integration was not portrayed as having an instrumental value, i.e. a value due to what could be achieved through this, but rather as having a value of its own. There were, however, CSO representatives that brought up other effects of the activities on the integration of the participants, i.e. being integrated in the labour market:

I know a person who was part of [an NAD activity] and who got an internship in a school, through a contact. Even if it isn’t the ultimate goal to get employed or whatever. It is the social aspect and the progression and the language and the health that are important […] (Civil Society coordinator)

In the quote, the coordinator pointed out that it was positive for the participant to gain employment, but they also argued that it was not the primary goal of the NAD activities. The employment was rather a form of bonus or a positive spill-over effect. The representative also brought up goals that were closely related to the keywords of NAD (language, health and networks), keywords that both the EOs and the CSOs agreed on.

This view of the goal of the NAD activities as mainly being something to ease the participants’ social integration contrasted with the views of the employment officers who mainly viewed the activities as a way in which the participant could get an employment or internship.

When you are out playing football or something similar, then you get contacts which you can make use of when you apply for jobs. (Employment officer)

In the quote, the employment officer stressed how the NAD activity was an opportunity to make new contacts as a way to get ahead in the labour market. The football pitch, in their opinion, is an arena for the participant to increase their opportunities in the search for employment. It is not merely a place where the participant could practice their interests – in this case football. One employment officer brought up the keywords of NAD, but did so in a manner which was quite different from the CSOs’ representatives:

The keywords are “language”, “health” and “networks”; aspects that in the long run should lead to an employment or that the person is integrated into Sweden as best as possible … (Employment officer)

Here, the employment officer brought up the keywords as something positive but did not assign them any value of their own. Rather, these keywords were given an instrumental value in that they should help the participant finding a job or a way of getting integrated into Swedish society.

There are employment officers that brought up the social aspects of integration as a positive effect as well, but did this in a manner that was different from the CSOs’:

The participants should get something out of this, and then it is just a bonus if they think that it is fun and can continue with the activity on their own. (Employment officer)

By stating that it was a ‘bonus’ if the participant found the activity fun they also stated that it was not the ultimate goal of the activity to have fun. The enjoyment of the participant was therefore subordinate to the value of finding employment. In other words, there was a prioritization difference for the goals of the parties in NAD.

Even though the views on the goal of the activities in NAD differed between the CSOs’ representatives and the employment officers’, their views were not incompatible; what was considered the main goal for the CSOs’ representatives was considered a bonus for the employment officers and vice-versa. The goals of the other part was never considered to be incompatible with achieving the own goals.

The different views on the goals with the activities can be related to the distinctive character of CSOs which distinguish them from the public organizations. While public agencies are regulated in their mission by laws and regulations, CSOs are committed to their core mission which is defined in relation to the organizations’ values and ideology. These values can differ within civil society. Sports organizations, adult education organizations, human rights groups would have different ideological bases. What they clearly have in common and make them distinct from the EOs is their commitment to a more holistic approach to their position in society. While the EOs have a clear and well-defined responsibility when it comes immigrants’ employment, the CSOs perceive a responsibility towards the immigrants’ whole life situation, as expressed by many civil society representatives in the study. This clearly creates tension within the collaboration, but this tension is not solved by erasing CSOs’ distinctive character rather allowing it in a constant compromise between the two different understandings, as will be discussed in the next section.

Added value through ideological differences

Through the collaboration, and because of the differences in ideology, situations arise in which the tension in the collaboration is put to the test through the activities in NAD. Our material shows that there are several aspects which can bring beneficial results due to this tension, an added value that would not be possible to obtain through the regular activities run by the EOs. The CSOs bring an added value through their view on integration, their ability to act as an advocate, and placing the integration process in more of an everyday context.

When there is any problem I always call [laugh] and ask them, and they help me, no problem. And sometimes I’ll meet them at cafés. (Participant)

Take [the leader of the CSO] for example, any time I need anything or have a suggestion, I’ve got her number. Yes, she is really nice. (Participant)

Several of the participants brought up that what they felt was the most rewarding in NAD was the fact that they had developed close personal contacts with people within the CSOs who could help them with aspects that their contacts within the EOs could not. The goal for the EOs was mainly to enable the participants to enter the labour market while the CSOs regarded the social integration as a goal in itself. This gave the participants a closer contact with members, volunteers and staff of the CSOs. This was something that was regarded as positive by the Employment Officers since it facilitated the immigrants’ entrance into the labour market. The CSOs’ interpretation of the keyword ‘network’ was however different from that of the EOs. The CSOs ascribed the participants’ network a value of its own while the EOs ascribed the network an instrumental value since the network could be used to get an employment.

Since the EOs were a government agency with a clearly defined definition of integration as integration into the labour market, the CSOs could contribute with integrational aspects that were not included in the EOs’ definition. Hence, CSOs could focus on the social aspects of the participants’ integration, while not necessarily neglecting integration into the labour market.

Some participants talked about how they needed to be in contact with several public agencies and that it could be cumbersome to navigate through these different organizations, and in relation to that, they were pleased to have their contacts in the CSOs who could help them. The EOs had a hard time filling this role since they themselves were one of the agencies that the participants needed to be in contact with. The participants expressed that they were pleased to have this kind of closer relationship with people in the CSOs, a close relationship that was not possible with the Employment officers since that was more of a ‘professional’ relationship. The CSOs could act as an advocate for the participants’ interests; this advocacy was facilitated through the framework of NAD, since the participants were able to get in contact with the CSOs and were given time to make use of the CSOs as a resource.

Participants also brought up how the context of the activities enabled learning Swedish in a way that the more universal approach of Swedish for Immigrants (SFI) was unable to provide.

When you study [Swedish for Immigrants], or at some other school, they’ll help you learn the words but not to speak […]. They’ll just teach you the words and the grammar, but the teacher does not have the time to speak to you all the time. […] In order to get [immigrants] to progress they need to speak to other people. (Participant)

Several of the participants brought up that they had found a more ‘natural’ way of speaking Swedish through the activities in the associations and the words that they learned were put in a context they could more easily relate to. This kind of environment could not be recreated in a classroom environment since it was dependent on the less formal associational environment where the goals were not defined as to quickly grasp an understanding of Swedish for job application purposes.

The participants argued that the classroom setting and the way they were taught Swedish in the SFI programme were insufficient since it was a rather an instrumental way of learning a language and lacked any natural conversation setting. Participants expressed that the members of the associations usually had the time and the patience to go through the language thoroughly; an aspect that they lacked in the SFI classes. This is an example of how the activities provide an added value which was appreciated by both sides, CSOs and EOs, as it could be seen as both facilitating the establishment on the labour market and as a part of social integration.

Tension when it comes to organizational logics

There was not just tension when it comes to how the EOs and CSOs viewed the goals with the activities, but also when it comes to how these goals should be achieved. However, just like with the views on the goals, the two viewpoints were not diametrically opposed.

Within the CSOs there was an emphasis on the freedom in the activities. The participants were more or less equated with the other members and participants in the associations’ activities; and the activities’ role as part of an integration plan of the EOs was considered secondary. This applied both to the extent to which the activities should be ‘effective’ in terms of outcomes and ‘obligatory’ for the participants to attend.

[relating to the matching of participant to an CSO] What I am saying is that we can just try it out. It’s not the end of the world if it is not 100 % […]. I Can feel some frustration, they are a bit afraid to just try it out. It can’t go that wrong. (Coordinator)

If there is something that they like, it is not like they’ll … I mean, no one is forcing them to go, and that is apparent as well. Yeah, as I said, there isn’t total attendance. (Coordinator)

The representatives of the CSOs and the coordinators regard the activities in NAD in the same way as many other activities within civil society where participants are free to try them out and to opt-out if they are not satisfied. The activities are something that the participant should enjoy rather than something that is a precondition for fulfilling the plan of the EOs and giving the participants opportunities to find a job. The loss if the participants do not like the activities is seen as rather small.

Meanwhile the EOs have formal requirements similar to the ones regarding other activities in the participants ‘integration plan’:

The issue is the communication and the structure regarding the start-up, the ending, the content, and the description of the activity. That needs to be systematized clearly so that the flow of information can become adequate. (Employment Officer)

I know what the situation at the Employment Offices looks like, they are not that swift. So, I always try to explain that [to CSOs]. At this moment it is rare that we start new collaborations with associations since the situation is thus, and we have [activities] some that are up and running. But when we do, then we always explain that it will not be in an instant and that they will not be overrun with participants. Rather that there will be occasional participants in due time. (Coordinator)

The EOs’ approach was regarded, by both sides, to be more sluggish and bureaucratic. As the Employment Officer in the first quote states, the Employment Offices worked more smoothly when the associations had adjusted to the more bureaucratic or formal logic, i.e. the logic of the Employment Offices. The coordinator indicated that this logic could be a hindrance when it came to the collaboration between the Employment Offices and the CSOs.

Added value through differences of organizational logics

These differences did not hinder the ongoing collaboration, nor slowed it down to a halt. Even though there were differences in logics between the two sides, there was room for collaboration, and in some ways, the collaboration was expedited through the difference of logics. Even though it might seem paradoxical, the fact that there were two different logics to latch on to, created a space for activities or arrangements which otherwise would have been impossible to set up. The bureaucratic logic of the EOs enabled participation by people that under regular circumstances would not be able to participate in these activities, while at the same time the less restricted forms of organization in the CSOs enabled the association to receive the participants in a way that was more suited for the participants’ individual needs and preferences.

An ‘integration plan’, eight hours a day. [It is] very difficult to get involved outside [that], when you have things that need to be sorted regarding the living situation, family and all that. Then it is fantastic that you can be part of the civil society as part of the ‘integration plan’. (Coordinator)

They [the participants] have some tough days and for the most part they have small children […] A long way south of [town] they got SFI, and then they have been all around and then they come to us [here outside of town]. (Civil Society Representative).

The participants were seen as a group with a stressful situation since they had to juggle family life, uncertain living situations, and an ‘integration plan’ to follow. Several of those interviewed, from both EO and the CSOs, pointed out that many of the participants did not have a stable living situation and that in many cases their families, or part of them, still had not been able to reunite with them in Sweden. In light of this, several interviewees expressed how the participation in the activities were enabled by the collaboration with the EOs. The fact that the activities could be part of the ‘integration plan’ which the participants needed to follow in order to get ‘introduction benefits’, could be seen as the enabling factor for the participants to take part of the activities, since this cleared time in the their otherwise difficult life situation. This meant that the participant did not have to find time in between other activities to be able to participate in a CSO. Since the activities, thusly, became part of the ‘integration plan’ the participant could be eligible for other welfare services, such as the day-care programme for their children.

Some of the CSOs brought up the financial compensation as an aspect through which the participation was enabled:

[The financial compensation] does play a rather large part since we are in a tight spot economically here at [the CSO], so I would probably not have been able to start-up this activity since [my aide] is getting paid and that had been hard if … [–] No, without the money or part of the money, it would have been hard to get started; because then I would not been able to hire [my aide] for my boss. (Representative)

The financial compensation was brought up as one of the ways in which the collaboration facilitated the activities within the CSOs. As the representative above pointed out, it would have been hard to employ someone to lead the activities without this compensation, since it than would have resulted in a financial loss for the CSO. Hence, the compensation is portrayed as a vital part of the activity. Meanwhile, the bureaucratic logic of the EOs was brought up as the aspect, which enabled this kind of financial compensation. The collaboration was needed in order for the CSOs to get financial compensation whilst they wished to stay independent when it came to the activities performed. The project management expressed clearly that this compensation should be considered as a compensation for the expenditures that the CSOs had to face, not as a way of purchasing the services of the CSOs as service production on behalf of the EOs. Thusly, the CSOs did not become service producers in procurement as an extension of the EOs, but rather as a partner with a distinct characteristic.

Conclusions and discussion

The contribution of this article relates both to the discussion on the distinctive character of civil society and how it unfolds in collaboration with public organizations and to the discussion on the added value of civil society activities in integration. The main contribution is, however, to link these two processes together and understand the possible interplay between the distinctive character and the added value of CSOs.

Firstly, it is important to address to what extent the collaboration between CSOs and the EOs, in the sense of them working together, can be understood as ‘collaboration’ as a specific type of relation as defined at the beginning of the paper. If we understand collaboration as a relationship between actors based on a common understanding of purposes and means but where there is also an affirmation of differences and pluralism, for instance when it comes to areas of responsibility, the findings of our studies would support such a statement. While the CSOs provide services that the EO pays for the relationship is different from the ones that arise in contracting-out or outsourcing. In fact, in NAD there is room for negotiation and compromise about the content and form of these services as well as mutual respect for differences in ideology and organizational logic (the distinctive character of civil society).

The analysis of the collaboration between civil society actors and public authorities within the framework of NAD has shown how the concepts of distinctive character and added value grasp the dynamics in the relationship between civil society and the state in a welfare society. The analysis shows that the distinctive characteristics of civil society actors can be understood in terms of both different organizational logics and ideology. The distinctive characteristics of CSOs tend to produce tensions with the EOs that are not overcome in collaborations but handled in a way that respects each actors’ autonomy.

The analysis also shows that the collaboration is a precondition for the activities, as the CSOs would not have had access to the participants not the funding outside the collaboration while the EOs would not have been able to arrange the activities by themselves. Furthermore, some of the positive outcomes of the activities could be ascribed to the distinctive characteristics of the CSOs. A more strict ‘client-contractor relationship’ between the CSOs and the EOs would probably have limited the autonomy of CSOs not allowing their distinctive characteristics to be preserved and to inform the activities. Such an arrangement would possibly have made the added value of the activities less prominent.

Our analysis has also made evident the relational dimension in the concepts of distinctive character and of added value. The understanding of the concepts is contextual and would have other implications in another context. In the framework of Swedish welfare, they are defined very much in relation to the public sector and the public agencies. The activities performed by the associations produce an added value in relation to the state-dominated integration programme. The added value that is identified in the analysis is not understandable outside this framework as added to the value that is already been produced by the statutory services provided by the state. In a sense it is intrinsic, although not given per se, in the collaborative setting of NAD.

The results of our study of NAD contributes to research on state-civil society relation and on welfare by suggesting that the outcomes of different welfare arrangements are also a result of the type of relationship that different actors engage in and the concepts proposed allow a better understanding of these dynamics. Collaboration and co-production in welfare services’ initiation, planning, design and implementation have become a prominent topic in public administration in most advanced welfare societies not least in the Nordic countries (cf. Brandsen, Steen, and Verschuere 2018). More studies are needed comparing different types of relation and the way in which distinctive characteristics and added value are shaped by them in different contexts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The research presented in this article was conducted as two separate evaluations of the collaborative project NAD and funded by the County administrative board of Skåne and by The Civil Society Network in Skåne;.