1. Introduction

This report presents the results from a comparative study on language training services in the Nordic countries. The study was commissioned by the Nordic Council of Ministers and the Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion to increase the knowledge on language training services for adult immigrants across Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden and give insights into the qualities and benefits of these services.

The report focuses on four main areas. First, it compares and analyses similarities and differences across the Nordic countries and immigrant sub-groups when it comes to eligibility to participate in language training services, motivation, and goals, as well as barriers to participation. Second, it provides an analysis of how three main stakeholder groups perceive the barriers, quality, and benefits of training: participants in language training, providers of language training, employers. Third, it attempts to determine criteria for best practices in language training services that can apply to both formal and non-formal services. Finally, based on the study’s findings, it provides suggestions for how the Nordic countries could organise language training in the future, to enhance its quality and benefits for immigrants.

The report is structured in the following way:

Chapter 1 introduces the study, key terminology and the methods used to conduct the study. It also presents a brief overview of immigration to the Nordic countries.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the systems for language training in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. This includes how training is regulated, organised, and funded, as well as eligibility, goals, and results for both formal and non-formal language training services.
Chapter 3 analyses how participants, providers and employers perceive the quality, benefits, and obstacles to participating in available language training services.
Chapter 4 presents a summary of the study’s main observations, including conclusions related to what characterises successful language training, criteria for best practices, and suggestions for how to organise language training, considering quality, benefits, and costs.

1.1 Immigration to the Nordic countries necessitates language training

People migrate for a variety of reasons: work, family, studies and to seek refuge. Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden have all experienced a steadily increasing positive net migration throughout the past decade. Immigration to the Nordic countries has increased steadily over the past ten years. This can partly be explained by the enlargement of the EU and the freedom of movement that EU membership brought about, partly by an increase in the number of refugees who have come to the region. In recent years, humanitarian migration has increased in significance – particularly during 2014–2015 when large numbers of displaced persons sought refuge in Europe. In all countries, immigration from non-EU countries has declined since its peak in 2015/2016.

There are, however, considerable differences between the Nordic countries when it comes to migration patterns as well as the proportion of the population that is foreign-born. While the Nordic countries have received a similar number of immigrants from EU countries, Sweden has received a substantially greater number of immigrants from non-EU countries (Figure 1). Relative to its population, Sweden has the highest proportion of foreign-born inhabitants, while Finland has the lowest (Table 2).

Figure 1. Immigration to the Nordic countries, by origin (EU27, non-EU27). 2013–2020. Source: Eurostat (2022)

	DK	FI	NO	SE
Total number of foreign-born people residing in the country	618,000	421,000	878,000	2,047,000
Foreign born population as a percentage of the entire population	11	8	16	20
Total population	5,840,045	5,533,793	5,391,369	10,379,295

Table 2. Foreign-born people residing in the Nordic countries per 1/1/2022.
Sources: OECD International Migration Database (2022)

The roles of immigration and labour market integration in the long-term sustainability of the Nordic welfare systems are highly topical political issues. With language skills linked to employment and educational opportunities as well as facilitating everyday life, learning the national language is important to both the immigrants themselves and the societies in which they reside. A myriad of language training services are thus available to adult immigrants in the Nordic countries. These comprise both formal, and sometimes statutory language education and training, and non-formal language training services. The plurality of services and structures in these Nordic countries has resulted in a language training landscape that varies both in content and formal competence requirements for the provider.

1.2 Key terminology

The study makes two key distinctions that inform our analysis: between different types of language training and between different immigrant sub-groups. When it comes to different types of language training, we differentiate between formal and non-formal language training services using the following definitions:

Formal language training services refer to language training that is funded and delivered through public sector actors or procured commercial providers. This type of training is subject to regulations concerning the curriculum, teacher qualifications, which immigrant sub-groups are eligible, how much time immigrants have to complete training, and examinations. Participation in formal language training can also be a prerequisite for residence permits and long-term citizenship.

Non-formal language training services is not regulated in terms of curriculum, exam requirements, and requirements for teaching qualifications. It encompasses a wide range of services provided by commercial or civil-society actors, either as non-formal traditional language courses or as activities focused on social integration. Activities can be both in-person and digital. Non-formal traditional language courses may be similar to formal language training but are not subject to the same regulatory requirements and are often specifically adapted to participant needs. Social language training services typically involve activities where informal learning takes place and where the purpose is to practice the language in a social setting.

Insofar as it is possible, the study differentiates between the following four target groups for language training:

Refugees and their reunited family members
Family members of Nordic citizens arriving through family reunification
Labour migrants from EU/EEA countries
Labour migrants from outside the EU/EEA

These groups are based on a Norwegian classification, which determines which immigrant sub-groups are entitled to which language training services. While similar distinctions are made in the other Nordic countries, they do not align completely. The main difference is that Norway is the only country that distinguishes between labour migrants from the EU/EEA and those from outside the EU/EEA when it comes to eligibility. As such, for the purpose of comparison and analysis, the group “labour migrants” is largely referred to as a single group.

1.3 Methods of data collection

The study has combined qualitative and quantitative methods for data collection and analysis. Data collection was conducted by Oxford Research’s consultants in their respective native language using templates with data collection instructions, research questions, and interview guides. It was organised in three distinct phases: a contextual mapping of the language training systems, a survey with participants and providers, and case studies of services considered to be examples of best practices.

The purpose of the contextual mapping of language training systems was to gain an overview of the language training systems in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, mapping and identifying both formal and non-formal training and how they relate to different sub-categories of immigrants. The mapping was based on desk research of available reports, studies, websites, legal documents etcetera, at national and Nordic levels. In addition, we conducted interviews with ministries and authorities, subject matter experts, employer and employee organisations, and providers of formal and non-formal training in the studied countries (see Table 3 for breakdown). We also collated quantitative data concerning participation in language training and results of formal language training services. Public data was, however, only available for Norway and Sweden. For Denmark, the cost of purchasing data was considered to be too high and for Finland no national-level data was available.

Based on findings from the contextual mapping, we conducted a survey with participants and providers. The survey focused on how providers and participants perceive the quality and benefits of the language training offered on a wider scale. The survey was sent to selected providers of formal and non-formal language training services, who were asked to distribute it to current and former participants in their services. In total, 98 participants and 77 providers responded to the survey.

See Annex C for a detailed breakdown of participants and providers who responded to the survey categorised by country.

However, the response rate to the survey was uneven, particularly at participant-level. Participants from Norway were underrepresented, whilst participants from Sweden were overrepresented. More than twice as many women as men responded. In addition, the level of education among the respondents was high, with 67 percent of respondents having completed more than 12 years of education. The survey was distributed in Danish, Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish, and English. This meant that the respondents were required to have adequate literacy, and either a basic understanding of their new language or sufficient proficiency in English to be able to respond. Altogether, this means that the sample of participants cannot be considered representative of immigrants in the Nordic countries. To validate the results, we complemented the findings with interviews with participants, providers, and experts. The responses from providers were more balanced. Nevertheless, Denmark stood out has having a high proportion of responses, whereas Sweden’s was low.

Based on an analysis of the findings from the contextual mapping and survey, we determined a list of tentative quality criteria. The criteria were used to select two language training services per country for case studies to gain a deeper understanding of best practices and what seems to make particular types of language training successful for particular immigrant sub-groups. The case studies explored the short- and long-term results of the selected training services, how the processes work and why they seem to be successful, challenges for the providers and participants, success factors, and which learnings could be disseminated to other providers. Data collection was conducted in different ways depending on the case. It included studies of documentation, interviews with providers, participants, and (where relevant), employers, as well as site visits. The case studies are summarised in Annex A.

Table 3. Interviews conducted according to interviewee category and country

	DK	FI	NO	SE	TOTAL
National ministries and authorities	1	3	4	2	10
Regional ministries and authorities	2	4	1	1	8
Trade unions and employer organisations	2	2	2	2	8
Subject-matter experts	2	1	0	3	6
Providers of formal training	3	3	1	2	9
Providers of non-formal training	4	4	4	5	17
Participants	4	2	5	2	13
Total	18	19	17	17	71