Blixtjobb Transfer of social innovation – Round 3

Blixtjobb

”An honest days pay for an honest days work”

• A unique form of employment agency.

• A scheme that gives people with dependency problems a chance to earn money through

temporary work.

– Without the precondition that they have to be free of their addiction.

– Sober the day they come to work.

• The Blixtjobb workers and the team leaders – who are they? Both men and women living with

dependecy problems and/or homelessness. Dependent of variuous form of welfare or supporting

them selves through ”the black market”.

• The customers : 30 % assigments from individual households and 70% from Corporates, NGO and

business.

• The jobs : Easyer construction work, gardening, paintning, cleaning, ”LEGO work”

• An honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work”.

• Positive effects both for the individuals and for society.

New and innovative

– Tailored for the target group. Originates in an actual need expressed by the individuals

themselves.

– Offering work to a target group excluded from the labour market.

– Entrepreneur approach instead of a traditional social worker approach.

– Taxes deducted from the wages – by Blixtjobb.

Sustainable benefits

Individual level

– Increased sense of self esteem (empowerment)

– Sense of belonging and meaning,

– Decreased substance abuse,

– Income - decreased welfare benefits,

Transferring the idea

The rolemodel for Blixtjobb is ”Lønn som Fortjent”(”Wages earned”), part of Kirkens Bymisjon

(The Church City Mission) in Oslo.

2009 - Oslo field studies

• Interviews with employees and representatives from the target group.

2009 -2011 - Trying to start Blixtjobb in Stockholm

• Workshop with the target group and other stakeholders on the subject of offering job

opportunities for people with dependency problems,

• Application for funding from the European Social Fund,

• Policy level – suggesting to the Ministry of Employment that they should promote Blixtjobb as a

pilot study conducted by the National Employment Agency in Sweden.

Late 2011 - project Blixtjobb starts in Stockholm.

• Starting on a small scale within Stockholm City Mission – one project leader together with one

part time team leader.

Which elements are transferable and why?

Transferable elements

The idea - ” An honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work”.

• Norway and Sweden similar working ethics/culture

• The target group faces similar problems in Oslo/Stockholm.

The organisational design – Certain elements are transferable;

• Team leaders employed to supervise and support the Blixtjobb workers on actual jobs. The team

leaders themselves having a background with dependency problems.

• The administration - paying of wages after every day´s work/ tax pay etc.

Not transferable (so far)

• Recurring bigger jobs offered by the City of Stockholm – comparing with Oslo where all the

stations in the subway system and certain areas of the city are kept clean by ”Lonn som fortjent”

Success factors

• The target group needs to be involved early in the process.

• Promoting local/recipient “ownership” of projects is recognised as a key issue in the strategy

for sustainable development.

• Similar values in the cooperating organisations – Stockholm City Mission – The Oslo City

Mission.

• Entrepreneur approach – not focusing on the social profession.

• Recruiting of staff - project leader needs to have entrepreneurial skills and interpersonal skills.

• The ”brand” of Stockholm City Mission – creating trust with the workers and credibility for the

potential customers.

• Important key individuals in the public debate promoting Blixtjobb. (Fölster mfl)

• Positive publicity in the form of award for CSR-related activities. (Visa vägen-galan).

Obstacles

• Norway not part of the European union – the transfer not eligable for transnational cooperation

funded by ESF.

• In Competition with the local government work integration programs – competing for the same

jobs.

• Difficulties built in the system – the target group is seen as not capable of working or at least

not encouraged to do so.

• Part of the target group is not seen at all since they are not part of the official employment

market.

• Small project – difficulties in balancing incoming jobs with available workers.

• No funding – neither possible to validate the method, nor to measure social impact (only on

individual level)