Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T09:32:47.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking Care of the Refugees: Exploring Advocacy and Cross-sector Collaboration in Service Provision for Refugees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Michael Fehsenfeld Open the ORCID record for Michael Fehsenfeld [Opens in a new window]  and
Klaus Levinsen Open the ORCID record for Klaus Levinsen [Opens in a new window]
Michael Fehsenfeld*
Affiliation:
Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Klaus Levinsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark
*
mfehsenfeld@health.sdu.dk
khl@sam.sdu.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the interplay and collaboration between refugee organization volunteers and social service professionals. On the basis of qualitative interviews and observations, we study how volunteers from Danish local refugee organizations experience their interaction with refugees and social service professionals, and how they act and perceive their role as advocates for the refugees. The purpose is to gain insight into the everyday practices and strategies of civil society organizations attempting to balance the demands and interests of stakeholders and internal legitimacy claims in a hybrid environment. In addition to providing effective refugee assistance and services, refugee organizations achieve legitimacy through professional communication, campaign work, and networking with key political actors and stakeholders. However, although it may be less visible, advocacy-oriented activities also take place in local organizations at ‘street level.’ We identified three distinct types of strategies to balance issues of autonomy in the collaborative relationship with the municipalities and simultaneously engage in advocacy activities.

Keywords

VolunteersAdvocacyRefugeesPublic service professionalsCross-sector collaborationHybridity

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 422 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Åberg, P. (2013). Managing expectations, demands and myths: Swedish study associations caught between civil society, the state and the market. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24, 537–558. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9271-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2004). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bass, G. D., Arons, D. F., Kay Guinane, K., & Carter, M. F. (2007). Seen but not heard: Strengthening nonprofit advocacy. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
Bekendtgørelse af lov om integration af udlændinge i Danmark. (2014). LBK nr 1094 af 07/10/2014 https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/r0710.aspx?id=163323.Google Scholar
Bernard, H. R. (1994). Unstructured and semi-structured interviewing. In Bernard, H. R. (Ed.), Research methods in anthropology. Qualitative and quantitative approaches (pp. 208–236). Sage.Google Scholar
Bernard, H. R. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Brandsen, T., van de Donk, W., & Putters, P. (2005). Griffins or chameleons? Hybridity as a permanent and inevitable characteristic of the third sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(9–10), 749–765. doi: 10.1081/PAD-200067320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, B., & Harris, M. (2011). Local cross-sector partnerships. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 21(3), 311–324. doi: 10.1002/nml.20027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Careja, R. (2018). Making good citizens: Local authorities’ integration measures navigate national policies and local realities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. doi: 10.1080/1369183x.2018.1441613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey, J. (2011). Understanding advocacy: A primer on the policy-making role of non-profit Organizations. Working Paper series. July 2011. Center for Nonprofit Strategy and Management. New York: Baruch College. http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/mspia/centers-and-institutes/center-for-nonprofit-strategy-and-management/documents/Casey_UnderstandingAdvocacyaPrimeronthePolicyMakingRoleofNonoprofitOrganizations.pdf. Accessed 11 Sept 2018.Google Scholar
Casey, J., & Dalton, B. (2006). The best of times, the worst of times: Community-sector advocacy in the age of ‘compacts’. Australian Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 23–38. doi: 10.1080/10361140500507260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T., & Lægrid, P. (2011). Complexity and hybrid public administration—Theoretical and empirical challenges. Public Organization Review, 11(4), 407–423. doi: 10.1007/s11115-010-0141-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. D. (2010). Advocacy. In Anheier, H. K. & Toepler, S. (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of civil society (pp. 12–18). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Clear, A., Paull, M., & Holloway, D. (2017). Nonprofit advocacy tactics: Thinking inside the box?. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations (First online). doi: 10.1007/s11266-017-9907-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, G., Taylor, M., & Parkes, T. (2004). Protest or partnership? The voluntary and community sectors in the policy process. Social policy and Administration, 38(3), 221–239. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2004.00387.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dansk Flygtningehjælp: Dansk Flygtninghjælps fortalerarbejde (Notat). Retrieved January 12, 2018 from https://flygtning.dk/media/1143263/dansk-flygtningehjaelps-fortalerarbejde.pdf.Google Scholar
Donnelly-Cox, G. (2015). Civil society governance—Hybridization within third-sector and social enterprise domains. In Laville, J-L, Young, D. R., & Eynaud, P. (Eds.), Civil society, the third sector and social enterprise—Governance and democracy (pp. 30–45). New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315795317-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ejrnæs, A. (2014). Det etnisk mangfoldige samfund. In Greve, B., Jørgensen, A., & Larsen, J. L. (Eds.), Det danske samfund (pp. 385–412). Hans Reitzens forlag: København.Google Scholar
Evers, A. (1995). Part of the welfare mix: The third sector as an intermediate area. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 6(2), 159–182. doi: 10.1007/BF02353995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evers, A., & Laville, J. L. (2004). Defining the third sector in Europe. In Evers, A. & Laville, J. L. (Eds.), The third sector in Europe (pp. 11–42). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, M. (2005). Neoliberalism and local governance—Cross-national perspectives and speculations. Policy Studies, 26(3–4), 359–375. doi: 10.1080/01442870500198429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasenfeld, Y., & Gidron, B. (2005). Understanding multi-purpose hybrid voluntary organizations: The contributions of theories on civil society, social movements and non-profit organizations. Journal of Civil Society, 1(2), 97–112. doi: 10.1080/17448680500337350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, L. S., Smith, S. R., & Zimmer, A. (2015). Welfare mix and hybridity. Flexible adjustments to changed environments. Introduction to special issue. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(5), 1591–1600. doi: 10.1007/s11266-015-9622-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hustinx, L. (2014). Volunteering in a hybrid institutional and organizational environment: An emerging research agenda. In Freis, M. & Hallmann, T. (Eds.), Modernizing democracy—Associations and associating in the 21st century (pp. 99–111). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hustinx, L., & De Waele, E. (2015). Managing hybridity in a changing welfare mix: Everyday practices in an entrepreneurial nonprofit in Belgium. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(5), 1666–1689. doi: 10.1007/s11266-015-9625-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hustinx, L., De Waele, E., & Delcour, C. (2015). Hybridisation in a corporatist third sector regime: Paradoxes of ‘responsibilised autonomy’. Voluntary Sector Review, 6(2), 115–134. doi: 10.1332/204080515X14357650822877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibsen, B., & Espersen, H. H. (2016). Kommunernes samarbejde med civile aktører: Forskelle og ligheder i forventninger, praksis, samarbejdspartnere og oplevet udbytte. København: KORA - Det Nationale Institut for Kommuners og Regioners Analyse og Forskning.Google Scholar
Ilcan, S., & Basok, T. (2004). Community government: Voluntary agencies, social justice, and the responsibilization of citizens. Citizenship Studies, 8(2), 129–144. doi: 10.1080/1362102042000214714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, H., Arvidson, M., & Johansson, S. (2015). Welfare mix as a contested terrain: Political positions on government-non-profit relations at national and local levels in a social democratic welfare state. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(5), 1601–1619. doi: 10.1007/s11266-015-9580-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, M. B., & Thomsen, T. L. (2013). Crisis now and then—Comparing integration policy frameworks and immigrant target groups in denmark in the 1970s and 2000s. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 14(2), 245–262.Google Scholar
Kiviniemi, M. (2008). Conclusions: The state of our knowledge and future challenges. In Osborne, S. P. (Ed.), The third sector in Europe—Prospects and challenges (pp. 357–370). New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203932827.ch20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klausen, K. K., & Selle, P. (1996). The third sector in Scandinavia. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 7(2), 99–122. doi: 10.1007/BF02354107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kommunernes Landsforening. (2015). Analyse af Kommunernes integrationsindsats. København: KL Notat. http://www.kl.dk/ImageVaultFiles/id_75762/cf_202/Analyse_af_kommunernes_integrationsindsats.PDF.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (2005). New labour’s approach to the voluntary sector: Independence and the meaning of partnership. Social Policy & Society, 4(2), 121–131. doi: 10.1017/S147474640400226X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., & Milstein, K. K. (1998). Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology Methods, 10(2), 31–36. doi: 10.1177/1525822x980100020301.Google Scholar
Malterud, K. (2012). Systematic text condensation: A strategy for qualitative analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 40, 795–805. doi: 10.1177/1403494812465030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, M., Buber, R., & Aghamanoukjan, A. (2012). In search of legitimacy: Managerialism and legitimation in civil society organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(1), 167–193. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9306-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milbourne, L., & Cushman, M. (2013). From the third sector to the big society: How changing UK Government policies have eroded third sector trust. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(2), 485–508. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9302-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosley, J. E. (2011). Institutionalization, privatization, and political opportunity: What tactical choices reveal about the policy advocacy of human service non-profits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(3), 435–457. doi: 10.1177/0899764009346335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevile, A. (2009). Values and the legitimacy of third sector service delivery organizations: Evidence from Australia. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 20, 71–89. doi: 10.1007/s11266-008-9078-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onyx, J., Armitage, L., Dalton, B., Melville, R., Casey, J., & Banks, R. (2010). Advocacy with gloves on: The ‘manners’ of strategy used by some third sector organizations undertaking advocacy in NSW and Queensland. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(1), 41–61. doi: 10.1007/s11266-009-9106-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pache, A-C, & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, K., & Jønsson, H. V. (2012). Denmark: A national welfare state meets the world. In Brochmann, G. & Hagelund, A. (Eds.), Immigration policy and the Scandinavian welfare state 1945–2010 (pp. 97–148). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Reid, E. J. (1999). Nonprofit advocacy and political participation. In Boris, E. T. & Steuerle, C. E. (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (pp. 291–325). Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (2002). Explaining nonprofit advocacy: An exploratory analysis. Working Paper series. No. 21. Center for Civil Society Studies. John Hopkins University, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 849–873. doi: 10.1177/0149206305279601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spradley, J. (1980). Ethnography and culture. In Spradley, J. P. (Ed.), Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rheinhardt and Winston.Google Scholar
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17–28. doi: 10.1111/1468-2451.00106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar