Incompatible logics? Professionals and volunteers as collaborating partners in the disability services, the social services, and the probation services

ABSTRACT

This study explores the integration of volunteers within Sweden’s public sector, specifically in disability services, probation services, and social services. In a study of public documents, it examines the differing logics of professional and voluntary social work, noting three key distinctions: practical preconditions, qualifications, and tasks. Professionals are paid employees with formal education, while volunteers are often unpaid, valued more for their personal engagement. Volunteers tend to focus on interpersonal relations, whereas professionals handle more complex tasks like assessments. Despite legislative support for volunteer involvement, practical implementation reveals several challenges. Recruitment difficulties, lack of comprehensive guidelines, and the different operational logics of professionals and volunteers complicate integration. For instance, recruitment is claimed to be hard, there is a notable lack of knowledge about the specific content of volunteer interventions as well as of expected outcomes. In the frame of such logics, a shift is ongoing in practice, from volunteer involvement to professionals taking on the task of being the persons people in need meet. The study highlights a gap between legislative aspirations and professional practices, noting that the political idea of integrating volunteers often does not align with the ideas of structured professional social work. Working together with volunteers, adding their humanistic approach to the professionals’ work, do not fit into the structured, outcome-focused framework of professional social work. The study concludes that more support and structured guidance of the professionals are needed to effectively combine the logics of professional and voluntary work in social services.

KEYWORDS:

• Civic engagement
• institutional logics
• social services
• disability service
• probation service

Volunteers are engaged in social work in many capacities, including in the public sector. This study focusses on civic engagement within the public sector in Sweden. The focus is on the authorities’ assignments of volunteers for supporting clients in one-to-one contact within the areas of disability services, probation services, and the social services. These three areas have legally defined tasks and are staffed with professionals who carry out the work. However, the laws also allow volunteers to implement some interventions. Thus, the authorities work comprise different logics, the logic of professional public service and the logic of volunteering as civic engagement.

Voluntary social work differs from professional social work in three key aspects: the practical preconditions, the qualifications needed, and the tasks done. Together, this three aspects build the base for different logics, which implies different ways of thinking about the practice. First and foremost, there are different practical preconditions for the actors in these two different roles. Professional work is a paid job and executed as employed, or self-employed, while volunteers are commonly unpaid, or given a minor, symbolic remuneration (cf. Payne 2006, 143). The professional social work is thus connected to the actors’ livelihood, while voluntary work is carried out in spare time. Second, the qualifications differ between being hired as a professional employee or assigned as a volunteer. Even if both categories are valued both for their personality and their competences, the emphasis is different. While formal education is most important for employment, the personal engagement is most highly valued for volunteers.Third, there are different tasks connected to the various qualifications. Payne (2006) argues that tasks as assessment, exercising discretion based on investigation and understanding of complex social situations characterize professional social work. Voluntary work is more connected to interpersonal relations and interaction. The employee has a set of tasks and can most often not fully decide which persons to engage with. A volunteer, engaged for supporting another person, can take a stand for the specific relationship.

Taken all together, the different logics between professional and voluntary social work, is built on the differences in the practical preconditions, the qualifications needed, and the tasks done. These aspects give different perspectives and different ways of understanding the work. These aspects connects to the fact that professional and voluntary social work have their grounds in different sectors of practices. The volunteers’ logic is based on humanistic values and concerns people’s values and identities, they have chosen to engage in this on their free time. Professionals in public services are more related to bureaucracy, rules of law, etc., and they are doing their job based on education, training and payment. A professional social worker has the role Lipsky (2010) calls ‘street level bureaucrat’ in a position where they meet citizens as representatives of the authority. As such, they uphold a function first and foremost and they are interchangeable with other representatives. The voluntary workers represent themselves as persons and engage in the spirit of civil society, for giving service and voice for people in need. Civil society can be considered as an arena for building and using what Putnam (2000) has called ‘social capital’. Engaging in voluntary work can concern organizing for own interests, but also for helping others, as well as for social change on individual or societal level (Johansson and Meeuwisse 2017).

When a mix of public, private and/or third sector practices appear, it could be understood as a hybridization. When this is studied, the organizations are in focus (cf. Billis and Rochester 2020). Research on interconnections between voluntary and professional social work has also shown hybridization, but mainly regarding professionalization of the volunteers. This is seen as professional competences often are demanded also for volunteers (Franséhn 2016), as well as volunteers are replacing professionals in non-profit organizations (Handy, Mook, and Quarter 2008), or in other welfare organizations (f.ex. van Bochove et al. 2018). When the two logics are combined, this might support the development of a hybrid form of social work, but it does seldom happen. Contrary, van Bochove et al. (2018) showed that nurses and social workers instead developed a clearer professional role when volunteers took over some of their basic tasks. Hoogervorst et al. (2016) showed that clients preferred support from volunteers with altruistic and sincere motives relative to support from paid workers, why the differences are valued.

As argued in national overviews of civic engagement in Sweden, the idea of engaging volunteers in the public sector also could be a way of safeguarding humanistic values, while satisfying democratic interests and providing transparency into the activities of the authorities (von Essen and Svedberg 2020; von Essen, Svedberg, and Jegermalm 2015). Civic participation by volunteers in authorities allows the volunteers to perform in different spheres simultaneously (cf. Wijkström and Lundström 2002). For the authority, it enables flexibility, where each case can be individually addressed through different combinations of professional and voluntary services.

Inclusion of volunteers parallel to professionals in the execution of the services exists in the legislation for three welfare areas: the disability services, the social services and the prison and probation services. By studying arguments in these three fields, we seek empirical answers how legislative actors have motivated this form of civic engagement in the practice of public authorities in recent decades.

In this study, we want to deepen the understanding of how Swedish welfare legislations open for combining volunteers and professionals in the disability services, social services and probation services. How do legislators and policymakers argue about the volunteers’ roles and function? How are the logics of professional and voluntary work intended to be combined in the work with individual clients?

Context and background

The field of study concerns the public welfare sector. Focus is on the public, law-based, welfare work where single, unorganized volunteers are assigned for specific persons. The periodic population surveys on non-profit work in Sweden show that around half of the population, 51% in 2019, is engaged in some kind of voluntary work. Most voluntary work concerns doing administration and practical tasks (49%) or being member of a board (35%), followed by leading activities (27%). The main areas for the activities concern sport, leisure, and interest groups and organizations (von Essen and Svedberg 2020). This survey includes a category labelled ‘outside civil society organisations’, encompassing voluntary work in the public sector. During the 1990s and 2000s such volunteering was performed by around 2–3% of the population. Since 2014, the data for this group also includes tasks that involve ‘non-profit work in networks and within the framework of an employment’ (von Essen and Svedberg 2020). However, the latest available data does not provide updated information on the number of persons actively engaged in assignments involving one-to-one contact with clients, as such tasks are not categorized separately.

In Sweden, three legislations facilitate for civic engagement through volunteer assignments for socially engaging with specific persons. The Social Services Act (SoL, Socialtjänstlagen 2001:624) calls these volunteers contact persons and contact families. The Act on support and service for persons with certain functional impairments (LSS, Lag (1993:387) om stöd och service till vissa funktionshindrade) also use the concept contact persons, while the Criminal Code (BrB, Brottsbalken 1962:700) refers to the volunteers as assistant supervisors. The volunteers’ roles in all the three contexts are based on civic engagement as a social responsibility for a fellow human being. They receive a small remuneration for their work and any incurred costs but they are not employed by the authorities’ organizations. Statistical reports primarily capture the number of individuals with a volunteer assigned, not the number of volunteers performing the tasks. Nevertheless, from available sources, as we show in this study, each year between 30,000 and 35,000 Swedish citizens are assigned as volunteers for a specific person/client within the disability services, the social services, or the probation services.

This form of civic engagement on behalf of authorities has a long history, dating back to the early 20th century, when officials started to be employed in various social services. This idea elicited great opposition in the philanthropic organizations that used to perform the tasks that are now known as social work. Extensive debates were held in Sweden; who was best at doing social work? After years of discussion, leading social work organizations decided that the best option would be to combine the two systems. The professional officials would handle the legal and administrative aspects, such as investigations, assessments, and follow-ups, while the volunteers would handle the personal aspects in meaningful relationships with persons and families (CSA 1906; Swärd 1997; cf.; Payne 2006). This became the basis for the enduring systems that still exist. During the 20th century, social work became professionalized, and the work of the authorities came to primarily be carried out by professionals (Brante, Svensson, and Svensson 2019; Lundström 1993). The volunteers’ involvement was retained, however, for specific assignments by the authorities.

During the 1980s and 1990s, Swedish society underwent significant changes, affecting the relationship between the state and civil society. It was during this time that the term ‘civil society’ began to be used in Sweden (Linde and Scaramuzzino 2017; Wijkström and Lundström 2002). Since then, several various forms of civic engagement have emerged alongside the public sector. Terms such as ‘welfare mix’ or ‘welfare pluralism’ are more suitable for understanding the contemporary situation (see Chapell and Blandford 1991; Jegermalm, Hermansen, and Fladmore 2019). Despite these changes, the historical construct of adding volunteers to authorities’ measures has endured for over a hundred years, though the more recent arguments for its persistence remain unclear.

The laws central to this project have continuously been debated and changed. The Criminal Code originated in 1965, undergoing fundamental changes regarding penalties in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Social Services Act was adopted in 1980 and underwent changes in the 1990s and more thoroughly in 2001. The Act on support and service for persons with certain functional impairments (LSS) was decided in 1993. These reforms serve as the starting point for this study, and we will trace the amendments of the legislations from these reforms to the present situation.

Methods, material, and analysis

The study starts with the premise that it is possible to uncover the institutional logics existing in a specific field. The concept of institutional logic describes the variation in how individuals, organizations, and society relate to each other (Alford and Friedland 1985; Friedland and Alford 1991). These logics support actors’ actions, and several different logics can exist simultaneously, contributing to a dynamic where contradictions between logics create change. Logics are socially constructed, historical patterns of practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules, providing meaning for social reality (Thornton and Ocasion 2008). Thornton and Ocasion (2008) distinguish between three dimensions of institutions: regulatory, normative, and cultural-cognitive. We focus on the regulatory dimensions, which exists at a structural level and is expressed in legislation, guidelines, etc.

The study is inspired by George and Bennett’s (2005) case study method, useful for providing a theoretical understanding of phenomena that are challenging to measure. Key materials include documents directly connected to forming and developing legislation and its implementation. In-depth comparisons between and within different types of materials aim to achieve a deeper understanding of the subject. Like George and Bennett (2005), we compare over time within each area of legislation and between the three areas, exploring if and how the logics of professional and voluntary work are combined and how legislators argue about the volunteers’ roles and function.

The method for data management is inspired by Foucault’s (1972) genealogy and archaeology. Each layer is exposed like an archaeological work, and the relationships, the kinship, between the logics of different adjustments to the legislation are analysed genealogically. In the same spirit, we regard the statements found in the literature as discursive, characterized within the context of what was considered reasonable discourse at the time. We searched for preparatory works for the legislations in the three areas, collecting official documents related to the legislative process, such as committee directives, state investigations, and enquiry reports (SOU), governmental bills, and overall regulations, guidelines, and instructions (where available) for the three areas. These documents are central, as they explain the ideas, the logic, behind the regulation. The documents were collected through ‘snowball-processes’, one for each legislation. Each of these documents refers to earlier documents. By following these references we could cover the periods from 1980 onwards,

We started with an overall scan of all commission reports within the three areas. They are available online with possibility to search for specific concepts, which facilitates finding the relevant reports. The common Swedish concept ‘frivillig*’ (English: ‘volunt*’) was used for all the three areas. For the area of BrB, the Swedish words connected to the specific volunteers here, ‘lekm*’ and ‘övervakare’ (English: ‘volunt*’, ‘supervisor’), was used. For the areas of the SoL and LSS the equivalent concept ‘kontaktperson’ (English: contact person) was used. This search gave us the main material. After contacts with persons involved in the implementation of the laws in the three areas, additional material they recommended, such as handbooks and guidelines, was added.

The material consists of legislation concerning disability services (LSS), child welfare and social services (SoL) and probation service through the Criminal Code (BrB). The preparatory works for these laws, where these volunteers are included, consists of a total of total two directives (LSS), twelve enquiry reports (four concerning LSS, five for SoL and three for BrB) and nine governmental propositions (four for LSS, four for SoL, and one for BrB). Moreover, national guidelines for the three areas were included. The sections discussing volunteers in the documents were read, and text directly connected to the theme was copied into separate documents for each area. The analysis was performed as a qualitative content analysis (Drisko and Maschi 2015). The texts about volunteers were repeatedly read to find the central arguments and their contexts. The main details sought concerned what is expected of the volunteers and what value they were seen as adding. By being two researchers, both working with the material, we have also been able to compare and discuss our interpretations of the material.

Parallel to the collection and analysis of the documents, we interviewed key persons for gaining familiarity with the areas and for contextualizing central documents. The persons were found by contacting the central organizations for each of the three areas. Interviews were held with two officials at the headquarters for the Prison and Probation Service, with specific tasks related to collaboration with volunteers (BrB). We also talked to representatives of the National Association for Voluntary Work (Riksförbundet Frivilliga Samhällsarbetare, RFS) which is an interest organization for volunteers with assignments for authorities, the Swedish Disability Rights Federation (Funktionsrätt Sverige), the only users organization operating in relation to the studied areas, and the Swedish Agency for Participation (Myndigheten för delaktighet, MFD), which has had governmental assignments for investigating the question of recruitment of volunteers within the area of disability (LSS). In the early phase of our analysis, we arranged a focus group in November 2022 with participants from RFS and from the Swedish Disability Rights Federation and MFD. This was used for anchoring and validate our material and analysis, why we presented our preliminary results and held a discussion with the participants. Neither the interviews nor the focus group should be regarded as research material that has been analysed, but has been essential for ensuring the credibility in our results.

A seldom studied field of practice

This field has received limited attention in research. While there are a few studies on each of the three groups of volunteers, no study has sought to understand the broader ideas behind civic engagement in the authorities’ executive tasks. This form of collaboration between Swedish citizens and authorities has parallels with similar activities in other Nordic countries, but it is rare elsewhere. From an international perspective, the most common form of civic engagement in government activities involves recruiting the individual volunteer via a non-governmental civil society organization. For example, volunteers’ participation in correctional services also occurs in other countries but is usually conducted through an organization under contract for such assignments (see e.g. Hucklesby and Corcoran 2016). Research from outside the Nordic states is therefore seldom comparable.

The most studied area with volunteers assigned to the authorities’ work is the social services with as contact persons for children and families. Yet only very few Nordic studies are published, although the intervention is part of the social services in all the countries. A recent Nordic literature review found only 16 studies on contact persons since 2010, ten from Sweden, five from Finland, one from Norway but none from Denmark (Lehto-Lundén et al. 2024). The 16 studies were characterized by being local, small and descriptive. Furthermore, they seldom built on each other, why no coherent knowledge base has developed. In Sweden, two more comprehensive works have been conducted on contact families, Regnér (2006) and Berg Eklundh (2010), both focused on the relationships between clients and contact families. One registry study has been conducted and indicated that youth who have had a contact person or family are more likely to be placed in foster care later in life. The results also showed that the registers lacked information on why the intervention was used or what the aim was (Brännström and Vinnerljung 2014; Vinnerljung, Brännström, and Hjern 2012). Franséhn (2012, 2016) showed that the expectations on volunteers have become more stringent. While the rhetoric of social workers still emphasizes the importance of the contact person being ‘an ordinary person’, there is a tendency to look for ‘professional volunteers’. A pilot study observed similar tendencies, that social workers tend to prefer highly competent and educated people who are willing to take on these tasks in their spare time (Svensson and Jägervi 2020). Even if most Nordic studies come from Sweden, government enquiry reports have concluded that there is limited Swedish research on such interventions. Studies on the short- and long-term effects of the interventions are lacking, as are studies of how such interventions are carried out in practice (SOU 2009, 68; SOU 2020:47).

There are even fewer studies of assistant supervisors in the probation services. Those that exist are descriptive reports that repeatedly show that the parties involved are satisfied, and while both volunteers and clients value the support, some volunteers require more support in their task (Kindgren 2012; Svensson 2017, 2023). Kindgren (2012) showed the characteristics of the volunteers in probation and their supporting role, while, conversely, the probation officers claimed problems with recruitment and supervision of volunteers. Regardless, both volunteers and their clients viewed their experiences positively. Concerning contact persons according to LSS, only one study has been published. Mallander (2011) focused on the ambition behind the intervention, to create friendship, and what that meant in practice. The mission was considered as a friendship with a focus on well-being and with little or no ambition to create any change in the users’ condition. For example, no formalized goals were set, and the effort had a particularly low degree of follow-up and control, which led to ambiguities about what the assignment entailed.

Because there are so few studies, any ‘field of study’ could not really be said to exist.

Results

In the following sections, we illustrate the logics in the three areas by using examples from our study. The three themes in the examples – a problematic hybrid, lack of knowledge and competing scripts – concern all the fields. In the presentation here, we focus on one theme per area for pedagogical reasons. In the thereafter following concluding discussion, we discuss the overarching questions on the phenomena of combining volunteers and professionals in social work, with help of the presented examples. Our focus is to deepen the understanding of the logics in combining professional and voluntary work in public sector social work with individual clients.

A problematic hybrid: the disability services

The area and its preconditions

Contact persons have existed in the field of disability services since the enactment of the former legislation, The Care Act (1985, 568). During that era, contact persons served as a supplementary resource, complementing personal support and advice provided by employees. Presently, approximately 17,500 persons have a designated contact person based on LSS (1993:387) the Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments (Socialstyrelsen 2022a). This number has experienced a decline since its peak in 2016, when 19,000 individuals benefited from having a contact person. The primary role of these volunteers is to be ‘a good friend’, a companion who engages in shared activities with the person, akin to friends spending time together (Mallander 2011). The activities are ideally conducted outside the home, aligning with the overarching goal of breaking the individual’s isolation and fostering their participation in society (prop. 1992/93:159).

Young people with disabilities seeking to engage in various activities alongside their peers often require someone to accompany them to and from these activities and provide company during the event. Alternatively, some may simply need a supportive person or family to regularly converse with and spend time with (prop 1992/93, 159, p.75).

The role of a contact person should be viewed as non-professional support, serving as a valuable addition to professional work. An ideal contact person is someone with a genuine interest in others and the capacity for meaningful engagement (prop 1992/93, 159). In 2006, 1,300 cases of contact persons were decided but not implemented, with similar numbers in 2001 and 2004 (SOU 2004, 118; 2008, 77, p. 78). In 2008, several complications were highlighted (SOU 2008, 77), particularly emphasizing that ’[p]roviding ‘a friend’ can never be the same as providing accommodation’ (p. 673). Nevertheless, assigning a contact person was discussed as one of the most important and frequently used interventions.

A low-cost resource, hard to recruit

The investigations outlined in the enquiry report revealed that while a contact person served as a low-cost resource, officials responsible for its arrangement encountered challenges in recruiting volunteers. These difficulties stemmed from practical issues in recruitment or the challenge of finding a suitable match between a contact person and a specific individual. Factors such as mismatched chemistry, personal preferences, or disruptive behaviour from the person in need could contribute to recruitment issues. Additionally, concerns were raised about the inadequacy of low payments. Although these concerns were echoed in the survey, the investigation indicated that active recruitment campaigns yielded positive outcomes. Consequently, the government committee concluded that it was uncertain whether the difficulties in recruiting were genuine or if municipal officials were averse to the extra effort required (SOU 2008, 77).

Recruitment challenges may be intertwined with the conflicting logics within an authority when recruiting volunteers. Public administration logic typically revolves around working hours, salary considerations, and the like, whereas the logic of voluntary work is grounded in values and engagement. The committee report SOU (2008), 77 touched upon this complexity in the structure but did not delve deeper into articulating it. They also asserted that the legislation was unclear, and there were no sanctions against municipalities that failed to implement this measure. However, subsequent amendments to the law have dictated that if the authority struggles to arrange for a contact person, financial sanctions (28 a–c §§ LSS) can be imposed. While there is no available data on the implementation of these sanctions, anecdotal evidence suggests their documented use has been limited.

A demanding construction without support

In the latest governmental enquiry report in this area, a recurring message highlighted the imperative need for knowledge on recruitment practices, emphasizing that no tangible improvements had been made thus far (SOU 2018, 88). The report underscored the significance of adaptability in tailoring the measure to individual needs while concurrently advocating for even greater flexibility to facilitate group activities. As previously noted, there is a dearth of comprehensive knowledge on contact persons in the disability services field (LSS), with only one existing study (Mallander 2011). Additionally, there are no guidelines or readily available resources to aid in recruiting and engaging volunteers for the task. This collective lack suggests an absence of structured and easily accessible support for officials when tasked with devising a task and recruiting volunteers.

The current state of weak guidelines forces officials to rely on improvisation when managing these cases. Improvisation, rooted in local knowledge and familiarity with past cases, leaves room for various ideas to solidify as truths. If there is a prevailing belief that recruiting is challenging, it becomes the local truth dictating the implementation of improvisations. These unverified values, taken for granted, can be likened to what Meyer and Rowan (1977) describe as ‘rationalized myths’. These myths form part of the institutional understanding within organizations, constructing and legitimizing a particular way of working. The lens of the myth shapes perceptions of how things function and provides unquestioned explanations. Thus, officials’ experiences play a crucial role in determining how cases evolve and whether a volunteer is ultimately assigned.

The Swedish Agency for Participation (MFD) has been assigned the responsibility of producing knowledge support for municipalities in their work with contact persons under the LSS. In line with this mandate, informational films and written materials have been created to disseminate information about the volunteers’ tasks, practices, and the value of civic engagement. This material has also influenced a revision of the guidelines issued by the National Board for Health and Welfare (Myndigheten för delaktighet 2023).

Lack of knowledge: the social services

The area and its preconditions

Annually in Sweden 10,000–15,000 children receive the support of a volunteer assigned by the social services. A contact person or contact family stands out as not only one of the most prevalent interventions for children (SKR 2022) but also as one of the oldest and frequently employed early interventions within Swedish social services. The term ‘supervisors’ was initially used in the Child Welfare Act (1960, 97). With the enactment of the Social Services Act (1980, 620), the terminology evolved to ‘contact persons’, and concurrently, ‘contact families’ were introduced. Throughout the history of these interventions, knowledge about this group of volunteers – how to recruit and collaborate with them, understand their roles and capabilities – remains inadequate (SOU 2009, 68; SOU 2020:47). The evolving demands on social services have underscored the need for evidence-based interventions in recent decades, making knowledge about outcomes essential (SOU 2020:47).

Post-implementation of the Social Services Act (1980, 620), this became a popular measure in social services. Between 1982 and 1992, the number of interventions increased threefold (SOU 1994, 139, p. 29). However, since then, the utilization of these measures has consistently decreased. While 1% of children aged 0–18 received any of these interventions in 2003, only half that number did so in 2021 (Socialstyrelsen 2022b). It’s worth noting that contact persons can be appointed for adults as well, although national statistics only specify children and do not distinguish between contact persons and contact families.

Both interventions share the same legal foundations. The social services can assist an individual and their closest relatives in personal affairs by appointing volunteers, either a person (contact person) or a family (contact family), contingent upon the person applying for or agreeing to the intervention (Social Service Act 2001, 624, ch. 3 §6b). This intervention is means-tested and follows a needs assessment. A decision by the social services hinges on receiving an application by the child and/or parents, or an agreement from them to undergo intervention. For children below the age of 15, a parent or caretaker must apply or agree, while adults and those aged 15 and above can initiate the process themselves.

A demanding tool without known outcomes

Social workers involved in child protection contend that interventions such as contact persons and contact families offer flexibility, allowing customization to the specific needs and situations of children. However, this flexibility comes at a resource-intensive cost, requiring the social services to formulate the intervention’s content, recruit suitable volunteers, and evaluate its delivery and outcomes. Consequently, social workers may opt for other content-specific interventions provided by contracted private companies, as documented by Svensson and Jägervi (2020).

The lack of knowledge is a central concern in all discussions surrounding contact persons and contact families in child protection. Notably, one frequently referenced study by Brännström and Vinnerljung (2014) conducted a follow-up based on registry data for children who underwent the intervention between 1981 and 1997, specifically when they were aged 10–13 years. The study revealed no positive long-term developmental outcomes for the children. The authors meticulously outlined the limitations of their research, emphasizing the intervention’s popularity and the absence of observed negative outcomes (Brännström and Vinnerljung 2014). They underscored that the lack of long-term outcomes might stem from the registries’ insufficient data on the goals for these interventions. Importantly, no studies have delved into the reasons for using these interventions, their specific content, or the achievement of set goals.

The dearth of studies not only leaves outcomes unknown but also results in a lack of fundamental aggregate-level data. The National Board for Health and Welfare fails to distinguish between the two interventions in their statistics. The national guidelines primarily reiterate the legal framework, incorporating the requirement for a documented plan for implementation. This plan, outlining how the intervention will be conducted, should be developed in consultation with both the client and the volunteer (SOSFS 2014, 5). However, there is a notable absence of aggregated data detailing who receives a contact person or contact family, the identities of these individuals and families, the circumstances warranting the interventions, the duration of interventions, and other critical details.

It is good, isn’t it

In the absence of comprehensive knowledge in this domain, committee proposals have consistently broadened the spectrum of tasks assigned to contact persons. Notably, the government introduced a new category, the ‘specially qualified contact person’ (prop 2005/06a, 165), following a committee’s assertion that contact persons could positively impact youth involved in criminal activities. This novel category imposed a more stringent framework, emphasizing the need for individuals to be ‘specially qualified’. he intention behind this intervention was to:

prevent adverse developments resulting from the actions of young individuals. The focus was on providing special support and guidance to mitigate the risk of substance abuse, criminal activities, or other socially destructive behaviours. (prop 2005/06a, 165 s.99)

In various enquiry reports, a pervasive societal belief in supporting those who encounter or contribute to problems in the community is evident. Legislators’ arguments are coloured by the logics of voluntary work, possibly influenced by philanthropic ideals. However, discussions about the challenges of working with involuntary clients or the lack of knowledge regarding specific interventions are infrequent. Social services practice places a strong emphasis on evidence-based methods and an awareness of effects and results. The absence of knowledge about an intervention renders it incompatible with the institutional logics of social services. Whether the logics of civic engagement can effectively compete remains uncertain, primarily due to the prevailing lack of knowledge in this domain.

Divergent perspectives: the probation services

The area and its preconditions

In the realm of probation services, international contexts echo the encouragement of involving volunteers. The UN (1990) has articulated minimum rules for non-custodial measures, emphasizing the importance of public participation as a significant resource in enhancing connections between offenders undergoing non-custodial measures and the family and community (UN 1990, VII, 17.1). While the Swedish Criminal Code employs the term ‘supervisor’ (övervakare) without specifying whether the role should be performed by professionals or volunteers, the trend has shifted from substantial volunteer involvement to almost discontinuing their participation.

The professionalization of the Prison and Probation Service in the 1970s marked a shift, with the employment of numerous social workers leading to a decline in the percentage of clients in contact with volunteers – from 90 to 50%. This level was deemed realistic for a considerable period. However, over the past decade, there has been a drastic decrease, with some local agencies reporting as low as 1% of clients being matched with assigned volunteers (Prison and Probation Services 2021). The initial intent behind involving volunteers was to facilitate clients’ interactions with established community members and raise awareness among society about the challenges faced by individuals who commit crimes and serve sentences (SOU 1981, 90). Examining the evolution of probation services in Sweden reveals two significant changes: first, the professionalization in the 1970s, and more recently, a surge in cognitive-behavioural methods based on manuals. In both instances, volunteers witnessed a diminishing role.

Volunteers, lost and reinvented

Despite ongoing political ambitions for volunteer involvement, shifts in ideas are discernible in governmental enquiry reports. In the 1990s, the stance was unequivocal: ‘volunteers should always be part of the supervision work’ (SOU 1993, 35, p. 563). However, a decade later, the language evolved to ‘A volunteer must be appointed - - - unless there are special reasons’ (SOU 2005, 54, p. 829), marking a transition from an imperative to an option. Not only are these differences evident over time, but they also manifest in the widening gap between policy and practice, alongside diverse improvisations in practice.

The Prison and Probation Services heavily embrace models grounded in Risk-Needs-Responsivity and standardized techniques, adopting the internationally recognized STICS (Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision). Since 2017, this way of working has been implemented in all Swedish probation work under the name of Krimstics (Starfeldt, Dynevall, and Wennerholm 2019). As this model does not include volunteers, collaboration with volunteers wanted very quickly. In more rural areas, geographical conditions necessitated their continued involvement. The integration of cognitive-behavioural ideas into standardized models reflected the probation services’ preferred mode of practice. Despite the government’s directive, the implementation personnel retained the right to decide how the work should be conducted, leading to an evident gap between policy and practice, albeit one both parties sought to bridge. While the authority started to regain the involvement of volunteers, the government enhanced and supported it by including a phrase in the Letter of Regulation for 2020 that the Prison and Probation Service should report ‘in which way the authority plans to use assistant supervisors within the context of the changed working methods’ (Prison and Probation Service 2021). In response, the Prison and Probation Service developed their action plan, a iming to have volunteers assigned to all ‘low-risk’ clients by the end of 2021 and half of those with higher ‘risk’ by the end of 2023. While the 2021 goals were not met, the authority asserted improvements in their work with volunteers, accompanied by adjustments to their guidelines.

New and comprehensive guidelines

The guidelines for working with volunteers are very detailed, and it is made very clear that the probation officer should govern the situation and gets to decide the volunteer’s tasks (Prison and Probation Service 2019). A notable departure from earlier motivations centred on raising public awareness of clients’ hardships, the new rationale emphasizes making society cognizant of the work undertaken by the Prison and Probation Service. A distinctive shift is observable in the guidelines, allowing volunteers to attend meetings between the probation officer and the client ‘to gain insight into the work the probation officer is doing’ (Prison and Probation Service 2019, 62). This represents a departure from the model of professionals and volunteers working collaboratively with the client. The guidelines underscore a more distant relationship, framing the volunteers’ involvement as an ‘intervention’ and positioning them as representatives of civil society, akin to collaborators with whom the probation service engages. Despite this shift, the guidelines maintain the argument that volunteers can enhance clients’ networks and foster their ‘sense of participation’ in society (Prison and Probation Service 2019, 68). Notably, the logics of Risk-Needs-Responsivity are extended to encompass volunteers, framing their role within more delimited and focused tasks explicitly subordinated to professionals. This evolution in guidelines signifies a paradigm shift in the conceptualization and management of volunteer involvement within the probation services, where they are more explicitly subordinated the professionals.

Concluding discussion

This study delves into the logics in public authorities’ assigning volunteers to individuals in the areas of disability services, social services, and probation services. The study aimed towards deepening the understanding of how Swedish welfare legislations argue for combining volunteers and professionals in these three areas. Based on a study of documents, we have shown how legislators and policymakers argue about the volunteers’ roles and function. We have also shown that the legislator and policymakers are positive to the combination of professional and voluntary work. The legislator obviously envisions that it should be possible to combine but says nothing about how. Therefore, it leaves it to practice solving it, however, the idea of combined logics is difficult to implement. We found that these ideas had turned out to be problematic when policy should be practice. The documents show that the legislators and policymakers struggle with practices that do not follow the ideas behind the regulation.

The findings reveal a notable disparity between legislative aspirations to engage society in supporting marginalized individuals and the realities of professional practices within bureaucracies. The logics of volunteering and the logics of the professional practices seems not to amalgamate to a hybrid way of working. Rather, there tend to be an evident gap between the legislators’ ambitions of engaging members of society for supporting socially marginalized persons, and the professional practices in the bureaucracies. Professionals are tasked with implementing legislation that mandates the assignment of volunteers, yet information in the documents in this study identifies potential hindrances to this mandate. Through examples, we have highlighted three possible explanations for why the two logics does not amalgamate, even if the volunteers still are involved: The idea of difficulties in finding suitable volunteers, the lack of knowledge that makes the involvement of volunteers uncertain and the parallel development of a more and more structured professional work.

The three examples could be encompassed within the framework of developing evidence-based practices for social work, where the principle of ‘knowing what you are doing’ holds a key position. The continual expansion of the principles derived from evidence-based practice distances social work practice further from the logics of volunteering. Legislators’ ambitions to involve volunteers turn into a peculiar supplement that doesn’t quite align with ongoing practices. The logic of voluntary work is rooted in humanistic values and emphasizes meaningful relationships, such as being a friend, as Mallander (2011) highlights. In contrast, the professional logic in authorities is framed by their regulatory framework and the ambition to be able to follow up on the work. This is tightly connected to evidence-based practice and being able to know the effectiveness of the interventions.

Assigning a volunteer to a person in need of social support has, in some cases, come to be regarded as an ‘intervention’. As we have shown, this has happened in the probation service, where the volunteers now are integrated into the strict guidelines for the working methods used. The volunteers have this way started to get back in a practice that was about to lose them, but they have gotten a new position, where they are more obviously subordinated the probation officer. Even if it could be that it is the volunteer that has the closest and most personal relationship with the client. In social services, the assignment of volunteers is not explicitly labelled as interventions, but other studies imply that volunteers may also be regarded as such here. Follow-up studies, conducted through the examination of registers, have shown that individuals who had a contact person or family are more likely to be placed in foster care later in life (Brännström and Vinnerljung 2014; Vinnerljung, Brännström, and Hjern 2012). Such studies presume some kind of effect of the involvement of a volunteer as an intervention that can hold back more extensive measures. But, as also Vinnerljung and Brännström say, was that the explicit aim for connecting the children to volunteers? What if the aim was to support well-being here and now by giving the child the chance to meet an adult that cares for them and want to spend time with them? Can it then be measured as an intervention with effects? Maybe, but where do those effects appear, and when? Probably not in registers.

The argument that these volunteers are hard to find appears in all the three areas. We have here shown it through the development in disability services as there was a reaction, and state organizations were given the task to get further knowledge. It was then found to be a well-established myth, that gave rational explanations to the difficulties the professionals experienced. The case could rather be understood as a problem for the professionals for arranging individual ways of collaborating with volunteers. The legislators’ idea that professionals and volunteers should combine their skills and competences has not been implemented in the logics of the professionals. The professionals do not get any support in how to collaborate with volunteers, no training, no guidelines. If you do not understand why or how you should engage volunteer, it is of course also hard to recruit them. This could also explain why Franséhn (2012, 2016) observed a trend of seeking ‘professional volunteers’, referring to professionally trained social workers who engaged in civic activities outside their formal roles.

In summary, we have highlighted the difficulties in combining the logics of volunteering with the logics of professional social work. Much more needs to be known in this field of practice. Our contribution is based on legislators’ perspectives and their belief in the potential for people to support each other in society. Perhaps that is an idea worth believing in and, thus, striving to learn more about these practices?

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil Society Dnr [0666/21].