In countries with prevalent family care and less developed care services, it is important to understand the ways families cope with the care needs of their frail family members as part of policy learning to make care systems more sustainable. Filial care is a vital element of family care, yet is significantly restrained by the involvement of carers in the labour market; unequal gender distribution of the care burden; and insufficient recognition of, and policy support, for family care. This article considered the issue of the sustainability of elderly care in a familialist country, Slovenia, by identifying the coping strategies families adopt for the provision of care. To this end, in-depth qualitative data based on a purposeful sample of 55 community-resident users of social home care services and their 55 family carers were used. We identified five external coping strategies: use of formal care services, use of extended family network, use of wider community network, cohabitation, and home adjustments. Among internal strategies, we detected work-related adjustments; abandoning leisure activities; abandoning vacations; establishing new routines; accepting and finding satisfaction in care; increased psychological distress, such as worries and overburdening; and some unmet care recipient needs. Very few strategies may be described as supported by policy actions, despite such support being essential for increasing the sustainability of the family-based care model.

Background/Objectives: This cross-national study focuses on adolescents who provide care and support to family members or significant others. Current evidence regarding their mental health and solutions to strengthen it is limited and mostly available in a few countries. The aim of this study is to evaluate the results of a primary prevention intervention for improving the mental health and well-being of adolescent young carers (AYCs) aged 15–17 years in six European countries. The intervention was based on a psychoeducational program and tools adapted from the Discoverer, Noticer, Advisor, and Values (DNA-V) model. Methods: We designed a randomized controlled trial with 217 AYCs participating in the study, either in the intervention or control group. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected via questionnaires at baseline, post-intervention, and a 3-month follow up. Results: The results were mixed, as positive improvements in primary (i.e., psychological well-being and skills) and secondary (school/training/work functioning) outcomes were shown by the experimental group but, in most cases, they were not statistically significant. The qualitative data supported positive claims about the intervention and its appropriateness for AYCs. Conclusions: The study implementation during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic forced the consortium to adapt the design and may have influenced the results. More long-term studies are needed to assess similar mental health programs with this hard-to-reach target group.

The authors examine the development of the civil society sector in Slovenia and its role in the country’s welfare system. They emphasise the ‘boom’ in the growth of civil society organisations, notably in the legal form of associations during the 1980s and 1990s. They argue that although civil society organisations rapidly proliferated at this time, they did not become more professionalised or financially stable. In the 1990s, a relationship of complementarity between the public/state and civil society sectors was established in Slovenia’s welfare system, though civil society organisations exerted little influence on public policies directed towards the provision of social protection and other contributions to people’s welfare.

Slovenia makes a compelling case for care policy analysis since it is marked by extreme dichotomy in care. Therefore, placing Slovenia on a continuum of care regimes ranging from defamilialised to familialised with respect to care is difficult, with...

The paper provides a comparative investigation into public attitudes to family policies. It shows that citizens’ support for family policies is diverse across different welfare regimes with respect to four countries belonging to distinct regimes: the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway and Slovenia. Using qualitative data, we unpack the ways individuals view the need for family policies, the rationale they use to explain their support for family policies and for imposing restrictions on access to family policies – ie. why, for whom and under which conditions. We find that social rights narratives are common in Norway; a social investment logic is prevalent in Germany and Slovenia; while in the United Kingdom, the dominant view is closer to the work-central individualised responsibility narrative of neoliberalism. In addition, we find differences across regimes in which family policies should target. In the United Kingdom and Germany, the focus is much more on providing support to activate parents, while in Norway and partly Slovenia, the focus is on providing well-being for children. The findings show that despite some convergence in family policies across Europe in recent times, we still find clear diversity in what and for whom family policies are for, its rationale largely embedded in the larger institutional normative structures of the welfare state. The results not only contribute to the literature on the relationship between public attitudes and welfare institutions, but also point towards shifting ideas about the role of family policies in the context of societal change.