1As the main interviewer of the survey, I was deeply impressed by the NGO SF and its manager, Liu. In the past 20 years, Shanghai’s mobile children’s education has experienced many policy changes, such as “pure marketization of private schools,” “cooperation between government and private schools,” “centralized government management and all-round provision,” and “centralized government management and conditional provision” (Xu and Zhang 2016; Han 2017; Xiong 2020). As the third sector beyond state power and market forces, social organizations have played a unique role in this process: they have never been involved in the core of basic education, nor have they intended to improve differential treatment systematically; instead, they chose to offer supplementary services in the form of extracurricular tutoring and quality development, and have become a spiritual shelter for migrant children to acquire self-identity to some extent for their strong value orientation (Cao and Zhu 2014; Jiang and He 2019). Without doubt, SF is a typical example of this kind of organization.

2Since the case text covers basic information, such as policy background and organizational profile, this review will be based on the on-the-spot observations and reflections of the survey, and it will introduce some questions that need to be discussed: How do public service organizations set goals and service content? Would the appeal of the organization be consistent with the needs of children if the setting is based on their own judgment? If the funds for public welfare projects can come from multiple sources, such as government, enterprises, and foundations, then what is the impact of different sponsors on the organization? When an organization encounters economic pressure, can public service activities charge any fees? How should organizations respond to population control policies? And how do migrant children view their own fate?

How Public Welfare Organizations Set Goals and Service Content: Self-Directed, Beneficiary-Oriented, or Resource Provider–Oriented

3Contrary to pre-investigation speculation, public welfare organizations that serve migrant children’s education were mostly initiated by “chance,” and their goal-setting and choice of service content are “ordinary.” According to Liu, SF was started by several classmates and friends “who felt sympathy for children from other places,” so the idea of helping them improve their academic performance came up. Since one of the founders had volunteered/worked for the organization The HL, SF was taken as a program attached to it.

4As a supplementary organization to migrant children’s education, it is natural for SF to try to improve students’ academic performance in the first place, but the difficulty is apparent. Similarly to SF, many organizations started with this goal but quickly quit and turned to “developing children’s problem-solving ability,” “improving their adaptability to urban life,” and other developmental education tasks, trying to avoid any involvement with the core content set by the national compulsory education system. Liu believes the shift is out of children’s real needs: “At first in the community, we started out with academic tutoring as a starting point … but in fact the child is not satisfied with these academic developments, he wants to have more diverse development, interests and hobbies.” Interestingly, this view is slightly different from that expressed by Ms X, the head of another organization. In her view, the group could not sense any “change” in helping children’s study, “as if nothing changed after studying.” On the one hand, this sense of helplessness comes from the limited extracurricular help; on the other hand, it comes from the locked promotion channel by the policy. As can be seen, self-orientation and beneficiary orientation are intertwined in goal-setting (which will be discussed later) and are potentially constrained by policy.

5Although the constraint is rigid, the social organization wherein still has room for change—at least choosing to give up resources. In Liu’s description, the service content and method of SF are in sustained innovation, but there are some principles to which they adhered: first, insisting on serving the migrant children. Although the participation of locally disadvantaged children is not excluded, the organization’s core service objective is clearly directed towards migrant children. It has even given up government-funded programs that serve local children, such as the Charity Summer Vacation School, in order to stick to this point; and, secondly, it stuck to self-directed organizational goals rather than resource-directed ones. When talking about the organization’s goals and work decisions, Liu stressed that he decided almost everything. Although there were many disagreements between him and the council, he would stick to the old model as long as he remained in charge. Besides, he made it clear that the fund-raising process would be subject to pressure from the sponsors/government, so he didn’t like fund-raising and preferred to focus on the activities. It is noteworthy that Liu did not clearly describe the reasons for his insistence, whether they pertained to the welfare of migrant children or his own value orientation. So, does he think he can accurately grasp the real needs of migrant children and thus act as a qualified spokesman?

Is the Organization’s Appeal Consistent with the Needs of Children? The True Value of Urban Middle-Class Values

6All social organizations need to answer this question: What is the relationship between their goals and the real needs of their recipients (Salamon 1987)? In the survey, we gathered the following views: (1) the organization believes that the problem does not exist, that its goals are in line with the natural values of mobile children, and that there is no need to investigate; (2) there is an awareness that organizational goals may differ from the needs of mobile children, so that the organization attaches great importance to the so-called beneficiary survey and is willing to adjust at any time; and (3) there is an awareness that there may be a difference between the two, but the organization is more concerned with how mobile children’s values are shaped, i.e. that they cannot be judged by the present expressions of mobile children. Generally speaking, Liu belongs to the third category and is also slightly close to the second.

7In response to this question, he said: “Some of the goals did come from the sense that we’ve received education, or that we’ve been educated, to offer value to them … maybe their parents lack such awareness … and some of them came from the child’s own needs, so we’ll take that into consideration. So, I think it’s a comprehensive result … the activities of SF maybe at first seemed boring to the children, but later it turned out to be, well, it’s an interesting activity … so this is the process of education.”

8For managers of the organization who hold the “shaping theory,” the real needs of migrant children are close to pseudo-propositions. The managers either hold certain universal values, or they hold the ideas of enlightenment of education; however, they would not choose to delve deeper into the self-expression of migrant children to set goals and activity content. In a sense, the first viewpoint also belongs to this category—even the organizations that emphasize the “beneficiary survey” in the second category would not necessarily make overall adjustments based on the results; they are more likely to choose information adapting to the organization’s goals. The key to the problem is that both migrant children and their parents are the grassroots of the society, in a marginal place in terms of modern discourse and power of expression, basically equal to aphasia (Hou 2012). The realistic choice of social organizations focuses on “enlightenment” rather than “respect,” and so everything becomes easy to understand.

What Impact Does the Source of Funding Have on the Organization: Differences Between Government and Foundation Projects

9Objectively, social organizations that serve the educational needs of migrant children in Shanghai have access to funds from various sources, such as the government, other organizations or foundations, public individuals, and enterprises. But because different types of sponsors tend to have their own “benefit-value” goals and have different programmatic expectations for the use of funds and the organization’s activities, organizations often make specific choices based on their own considerations. In Liu’s description, SF rarely applied for or received government-funded projects; usually it applied for funding to various foundations for its own projects. In addition to the growing neglect of migrant children in government programs, Liu repeatedly emphasized the differences in communicating with two types of sponsors: for government projects, he had to attend meetings, fill out forms, and often accompany officials to demonstrate political achievements, and the final audit is “rigorous,” requiring a large number of procedures that are almost impossible to provide. Liu is not good at the things listed above and even feels disgusted by them; meanwhile, the foundation projects are much better for him. Although some proof material is required to be filled in the audit section, it is not cumbersome. More project observations take place in the process, and members of the foundation will follow up on the progress of the project on a regular basis to get to know the details.

10In Liu’s view, different working modes imply different deep concepts in terms of the significance to migrant children’s educational well-being: government officials don’t care about migrant children, and they don’t care about the real effect of the project. What they care about is the “book record” that reflects performance, so they focus on the final audit materials; most foundations are more concerned about the real effect of the project; moreover, influenced by the way the public good industry works (in foreign countries), they pay more attention to process management. If regular theoretical discussions emphasize the PSM (public service motivation) question of “how to effectively motivate the action of bureaucracies and the public to improve social welfare,” we found that social organization decision-making in reality tends to select sponsors who meet their own appeals in the group of existing objectives.

11There are two other questions worth discussion: first, can the assessment of public welfare social organization projects be put under the rigorous and quantitative index system? Liu’s experience shows that in China’s current public welfare environment, it is most likely inappropriate to enforce quantitative assessment, which would only give rise to fraud and formalism; secondly, is the difference between the government and the foundation in terms of project management style and effect preference simply caused by their concern for migrant children? In addition to the differences in convention and purpose between the two types of funding organizations, it is also related to the degree of involvement in supervision of the sponsors: the project funds allocated by the government to social organizations are subject to taxpayer supervision, and each grant of the foundation should be evaluated by the sponsor’s representative from the beginning of the application, which will ultimately reflect the degree to which the two sides pay attention to the real welfare of migrant children’s education.

Should the Public Welfare Activities Be Free? Disputes and Explanations about Charges by the Organizational Projects

12In a society like China, where public welfare is still in its infancy, activity fees is a sensitive topic that no social organization can escape (Yan and Meng 2018), and one that we pay special attention to in our survey. Similarly, the questions on the topics of the “marketization of social organizations” and the “withdrawal of public welfare organizations” are related to this point. Restricted by sources of funding and rules of procedure, social organizations often need to introduce fee arrangements to a certain extent. Liu mentioned in the interview that, “We also began to charge some fees, but the standards are very low, just like nominal fees … because we have to bear part of the rent and insurance.” Interviewer: When did the charge start? “Very early, after constantly trying, it is a gradual rising process …. But it’s still very low.” According to other respondents, it can be inferred that the public welfare organizations charge for the following reasons: first, the fixed costs, such as rent and insurance costs, should be borne by parents; second, some teaching volunteers have to be paid for their more specialized courses, and the money cannot be paid by the foundation (“can’t be reimbursed”), since it is an additional cost for parents; and third, the fees can be charged to parents and children to let them participate in these activities with perseverance. It needs to be pointed out that although some researchers have mentioned the reason for charging for participation incentive or behavior restriction or both, in reality it is much closer to the fact that the organization wanted to solve financial predicaments and legal pressures, and charging would scare off a great deal of migrant children, and so most social organizations have never stopped such behaviors.

13When social organizations have to evolve from pure commonweal to social enterprise (or other complex forms) to maintain operations, the first step often begins with charges within the limits allowed by the commonweal rules (Liu 2017). On the one hand, such an attempt needs to be broadly consistent with the goal of public interest legitimacy, otherwise it will result in a loss of social image and self-worth, and ultimately will result in greater financial pressure to raise funds. On the other hand, it will require some ingenious form of positive feedback on the market for parents and children (beneficiaries) to accept and participate in the promotion of their level of commercialization. Still, it is hard to determine whether an organization’s choice is a convergence decision based on real-world pressures or a destructive imitation of innovation. Perhaps both.

What Is the Influence of Population Control Policies for Migrant Children, Immigrant Families, and Organizations?

14It is described in the SF case that, “Since 2013, Shanghai has greatly raised the entry threshold for migrant children in order to control the size of the migrant population, blocking a large number of migrant children from entering schools.” The dramatic change of this governance measure has had a profound impact on the relationship between migrant children and families, social organizations, and the government, and their future development (Zhang 2020).

15For migrant children and families, Liu believes that the regulatory policies directly affect parents’ ability to earn a living and the way they live. The direct result is a sharp rise in the cost of living in central urban areas, and migrant children had to follow their parents to surrounding suburbs or leave Shanghai for their hometowns. For SF, this means that its core service object group shrinks or migrates. Of course, the object shrinks is compared to the service place, which was “accepting private primary schools” (a private school management policy in Shanghai, namely, “including primary schools for migrant workers’ children in the private education management system”). In this case, the social organizations in the school completely lost the object of service; things were better for the organizations, such as SF, that are rooted in communities. In the face of policy pressure, Liu started to consider abandoning the organization’s current activity locations and shifting the focus to more remote suburbs. But he insisted that he would not change the organization’s goal of serving stay-at-home children: “We serve the migrant children in Shanghai, yes, that’s our orientation. So, we may no longer serve them back home, but we’ll keep in touch with them and provide them with some necessary help, but it’s impossible to go back to their hometown.” Why is Liu unwilling to make changes, such as leaving Shanghai or changing the organization’s goals, in order to make new adjustments in the context of population control? In addition to the unbearable cost, a potential reason may lie in his notion of flexible resistance against “illegality” in governance: now that we cannot make any changes, SF’s sustained existence is a triumph of some kind. Not all organizations will do so, of course.

16Regarding the relationship between SF and the government, Liu made it clear that the government’s management of social organizations improved significantly after the population control policy, often in the form of “conditional project support.” And his attitude towards cooperation with the government remains pessimistic: first, the main resources of SF come from foundations, so there is no need to “flatter” the government to get funding. Although once supported by the government in terms of site rental, a few years ago the organization started to rent commercial sites; second, government project funding brings with it too much administrative work, such as “boring meetings,” “preparing a large number of meaningless forms,” and other cumbersome procedures. Liu is not good at and has even resisted such work, and although he got a few projects from the government in the past, he did not intend to get more in the future; population control policies did not deprive SF of too much of its existing resources, so refusing the governmental departments’ directives to serve local children would not bring about too much loss. Not all organizations are so steady and lucky. Liu said that the government adopted a “no strict restriction, but providing no support” policy to organizations that refused its guidance; in fact, that is to “let it run its own course,” which is completely different from the years 2004–2005, when the government offered full support.

17Finally, Liu gave an in-depth discussion about his understanding of “how Shanghai’s local society views the migrant children group.” He believes that the constraint of population control policy on social organizations that serve migrant children has a general socio-psychological basis under the system text: “The government may have a red line for migrant children, or resource loss …. Because many of the government officials are natives, they naturally keep some distance from people from other regions.” As for ordinary local citizens who are not government officials, they hold a more subtle attitude toward migrant children: “There might be some people … who want to help these children, but the purpose of helping them is not to really help, but to keep them from bringing troubles to the society.” Even if this slightly dark answer is only Liu’s personal view, it actually reminds us of the hidden role of local social psychology at the bottom of policy: The root of “conservatism” of urban governance lies in many aspects, such as cultural psychology and policy practice.

How Migrant Children View Their Own Fate: The Children’s Real Life and Attitude towards Life

18When governance strategies give rise to institutional constraints (discrimination), how do migrant children view their own fate? How can one achieve cognitive coordination? How can one set sub-optimal goals and act within this framework? What is more subtle, how do the organizations claiming they are “providing a better life for migrant children” explain such discrimination to the children and guide them to face it? These are the issues that I paid special attention to in the survey, especially while talking with a respondent who is obviously value-oriented, such as Liu.

19Unlike his insistence on organizational goals, Liu’s attitude toward children shows some kind of “gentle persistence,” which seems to be full of hope. “He may become a bricklayer or even a dustman in the future, but some values will work on him … for a lifetime,” he said. Whether the situation was caused by the children themselves or the family environment or institutional factors, it is necessary for us to teach children how to treat the challenges brought about by realistic institutional factors.

20When it comes to the true state of mind of migrant children, Liu’s sound sociological training allowed him to keep a calm tone: “Three kinds of situations. One is self-destruction: anyway, I can’t go to high school in Shanghai now, well, forget it, just play, because I can’t get admitted to college anyway. The second is relatively better, and more positive, just like me, after I finished high school in Shanghai, I have other choices …. There’s also another kind, totally having no idea, and no plan, they would do anything required by their parents …. Most of them belong to the third kind, an unconscious state.”

21When hope interweaves with reality, Liu tends to resolve conflicts from the perspective of individual effort rather than institutional change: “First of all, we give them an attitude that we have to face up to the problem …. You have several options in this reality that cannot be changed. And it’s true, most of the time you should go ahead on your own. The system is one aspect, but what you want, which direction you want to go, lies in your efforts … anyway, you have to do the best you can.”

22Doing all the things that can be done within the framework of the system is the behavior of social organizations and the idea that they pass on to the beneficiaries. But what is the view of the beneficiaries? Whether there is anger accumulated is still unknown and yet to be investigated. In another interview, a respondent who was once a migrant child said: “The system now discriminates against us, so we have to do better, and after we make it, we will change it.”

23Contemporary China is undergoing one of the few major social changes in human history. In the overall process of the objective of upgrading the system and welfare, the existence of some small gaps is the necessity of logic and reality, but it suffices to subvert the whole fate of an individual or even a group. As a kind of contradiction lubricant or problem solution, social organizations and their activities are of great significance, and of course they are also subject to the control of institutional structure and cultural psychology. In this sense, the case of SF has the enlightening value of “The falling of one leaf heralds the autumn.” Nevertheless, the impact of Liu’s personal style on organizational behavior is prominent: a “Don Quixote”–style insistence determines the status of keeping “neutral” in SF’s position of hardship under the dual invasion of the government and market forces. Is this the original definition of “social power”? Probably not. Doubt or selective neglect of the real needs of migrant children suggests that the notion of “elite” and “enlightenment” is deeply rooted, although this may be the first step towards change.