Thirty Years of Slovenian Developments Youth : in the Youth Sector Since Independence Tomaž Deželan, ed. Thirty Years of Slovenian Developments Youth : in the Youth Sector Since Independence Tomaž Deželan, ed. Thirty Years of Slovenian Youth: Developments in the Youth Sector Since Independence Editor Tomaž Deželan (Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana) Youth Authors Tomaž Deželan, Karolina Babič, Maja Drobne, Tin Kampl, Marko Majce, Katja Nacevski, Nina Vombergar, Andraž Zgonc Review Mitja Sardoč (Educational Research Institute) Marko Radovan (Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana) Translation Joel Smith Design With Youth studiobotas Published by Založba Univerze v Ljubljani (University of Ljubljana Press), Kongresni trg 12, Ljubljana, Slovenia (Gregor Majdič, Rector) Issued by University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, Ljubljana (Iztok Prezelj, Dean) Published By Youth Ljubljana, January 2025 First e-edition. Publication is available in open access at: https://ebooks.uni-lj.si/ DOI: 10.51936/9789612975791 Publication is free of charge. Copyright University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences. All rights reserved. Youth Publication of this book has been financed by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency, For the Office for Youth of the Republic of Slovenia at the Ministry of Education, the European Union (Jean Monnet Programme, PutEUfor project), MOVIT (Zavod za razvoj mobilnosti mladih) and Zavod Mladinska mreža MaMa. Kataložni zapis o publikaciji (CIP) pripravili v Without Youth Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici v Ljubljani COBISS.SI-ID 232251139 No Youth CONTENTS 6 Dr Howard Williamson Preface 9 Intro Tomaž Deželan The Beginnings of a 30-Year Journey 15 Chapter 1 Tin Kampl and Tomaž Deželan Miles Between Theory and Practice 41 Chapter 2 Andraž Zgonc, Tin Kampl and Tomaž Deželan Paper Tiger 57 Chapter 3 Tin Kampl and Tomaž Deželan A Bit of a Mix 87 Chapter 4 Maja Drobne, Tomaž Deželan and Karolina Babič No Youth Without Europe 109 Chapter 5 Tomaž Deželan, Katja Nacevski and Marko Majce The Central Importance of the Mladina Series 133 Chapter 6 Nina Vombergar and Tomaž Deželan The Transition to Adulthood Dr Howard Williamson an ‘accumulated knowledge and experience’ that provides an Preface Professor of European Youth Policy invaluable font of ideas for the future. 5 November 2024 As Slovenia emerged from state socialism, with its ‘transmis- sion’ approaches to youth and youth policy (securing the transmis- sion of established political structures and values), young people embraced issues such as peace, ecology and sexual freedom, mirroring the ‘key concerns of progressive youth in other parts of the world’. Those key concerns coalesced into one overarching demand, to be an integral part of the political system not, as a con- ference elsewhere in ‘eastern’ Europe has put it in the 1970s, as ‘factors’, but as a later Council of Europe conference in the 2000s put it, as ‘actors’ in social change. Yet demographic pressures, amongst others, have consistently denied or diminished the voice of young people in political decision-making, even on matters of When I first went to Slovenia in the late 1990s, for an important direct concern to them – the bedrock of Article 12 of the United conference on youth transitions (Flying Over, or Falling Through Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. the Cracks?), I was handed one of the best youth studies books There is invariably a gap, sometimes gaping, between theories e ac I have ever read (and I have read a lot!). Youth in Slovenia: new of youth political participation and its practice, between rhetoric ef perspectives from the nineties, by Mirjana Ule and Tanja Rener, Pr and reality. It is not the only gap! The six substantive chapters of two distinguished sociologists from the University of Ljubljana, this book address both youth policy and the youth sector in Slove- was a majestic piece of work, illuminating the changes and the nia, its institutional and operational development, and its resource challenges experienced by, and facing young people in Slovenia, and evidence base. The findings, reflection and implications are, following the break-up of state socialism and Yugoslavia. unsurprisingly, revealing. Its intense attention to detail is immense- Tomaž Deželan’s new publication is a text that, for both intel- ly informative, traversing the always rather uneasy relationships lectual and inspirational reasons, follows in those footsteps. Al- between policy proclamation, anchoring research knowledge and most thirty years on, Slovenia has tasted and embraced liberal evidence, and practical developments on the ground at local level. democracy, become a member of various transnational clubs, But that is the story everywhere. This story provides us with a including the European Union, and developed a participative and wealth of understanding about Slovenia but it also conveys many progressive policy framework for its young people. The latter is salutary tales that we would be wise to consider in relation to our the essence of this book. own youth policy and youth work histories and circumstances. To Each chapter considers the main shifts over the past three dec- learn about Slovenia and to grapple with the tensions within the ades, accounts for evolution and development, and concludes with triangle of youth policy, research and practice is the important The Beginnings Tomaž Deželan of a 30-Year Journey This monograph aims to offer an in-depth look at the key shifts that have taken place within the most prominent youth and youth policy dimensions in Slovenia over the last three decades. The list of dimensions is, of course, not exhaustive; there are certainly others that deserve a closer look. Nevertheless, our work should be seen as an authentic attempt to provide a solid overview of over 30 years of effort in this often neglected field. By tracing the key steps that have been taken in the period since Slovenian inde- pendence in 1991, we hope to establish a reference point for a consideration of the relevant development-related issues around the future of the Slovenian youth sector, and to provide key pointers for a wide variety of youth policy stakeholders. It is with this in mind that the topics and chapters have been arranged in roughly the same way throughout: an overview of the main shifts and turning points in the area under discussion, a description of how the area has developed over the last three decades, and finally (albeit to a more limited extent) an evaluation of the progress made. As far as evaluation is concerned, we offer a set of impressions and glimpses into the past, supported by data available from a variety of sources. While it is therefore difficult to refer to this monograph as an ‘evaluation study’ in any true sense, our assessments do provide a good starting point for a consideration of how the Slovenian youth field might look in the future. This is a common feature of all the chapters and one of the key characteristics of the monograph. The authors (or perhaps more accurately the ‘correspondents’) have rooted their views on future development mainly in the thoughts and opinions of the key stakeholders who have shaped, and who continue can be traced to the years preceding independence, mainly in the work that was done from within youth organisations, young people were, by this point, actively addressing to organise young people and involve them in the political process. If we leave aside political, social, economic and other major concerns. Their overarching demand was the period before 1980 (see e.g. Škulj, 2016), we could say that the youth arena was, that young people be involved in the political system — a system that was denying prior to 1990, shared by social and political organisations that played a specific role them the political participation to which, in theory and principle, they were entitled. in the system in place at the time, whether as ‘sectoral’ organisations, as an agreed This shift was already becoming evident with the issue of ‘guided education’,2 which link between young people and the world beyond, or as institutionalised ideologi- gradually shaped the ZSMS into an organisation that sought to defend the interests cal custodians of the system (Vurnik, 2005).1 Under the socialist system, social and of young people. Over time this graduated to a critique of the social, economic and political organisations were a key form of political association for the population political situation and to the idea of a ‘front’ organisation, which would eventually at large. One of most prominent was the Socialist Youth League of Slovenia (Zveza lead to the inclusion of new social movements. This was a highly resonant issue at socialistične mladine Slovenije, ZSMS), which was designed to bring young people several levels: first, it raised the question of competition within the political system; together, ‘activate’ them in a social and political sense, prepare them for entry into second, the ZSMS became a link between all forms of youth association and organ- politics, and instil in them the values of the system. As an institution it was guaranteed isation. In turn this enabled a certain pluralism of interests to arise, along with the delegate positions and, in a more informal sense, enjoyed the status of a ‘transmission possibility of the membership throwing serious weight behind its support for the organisation’ within the constellation of social and political organisations, the basic organisation. As new social movements emerged, the ZSMS slowly began to make purpose of which was to create cadres who would later enter the social and political political interventions of its own and to step up its activism. Issues concerning the life of the country. This began to change at the beginning of the 1980s, when the social and economic position of young people came to the fore, particularly housing, ZSMS embarked on a process of transforming itself and the role it had been assigned scholarship policy, education and employment. under the system. For the ZSMS, the 1980s saw an abandonment of the values of the Nevertheless, the general direction of travel was towards the transformation of the post-war era in favour of links with civil society and the gradual assumption of the ZSMS into a political party. Its statutes were amended to abolish automatic member- values that underpinned the various (new) social movements. It therefore became ship and divide the organisation into two parts: a political party and a student organi- increasingly involved in issues around the peace movement, ecology, spiritual and sation. By becoming a political party, the ZSMS renounced its position as the umbrella sexual freedom, and political pluralism and economic liberalism. This mirrored the youth organisation, which paved the way for the establishment of the National Youth key concerns of progressive youth in other parts of the world. Council of Slovenia, a non-political organisation designed to bring together all youth From then to now organisations and represent their interests. The ZSMS welcomed this initiative and ginnings 3 conceived the role of the council as the ‘other half of the so-called ministry of youth’, With its broad organisational footing, the ZSMS in some sense provided the tem- or as an institutional space in which its members could meet on a continuous basis plate for the structures that followed it. It operated in schools and universities, and The Be and carry out projects in the interests of young people. However, this did not stop the in companies in which there were at least five active individuals aged 27 or under. National Youth Council setting up its own organisations of interest on 25 April 1990. The basic organisations came together in municipal organisations, with their leading Initiatives to establish a youth council came from all sides, and were also presented members taking part in municipal conferences. Students and young university staff to the Slovenian parliament as a ‘general call to all social and state institutions to were organised within two university organisations, in Ljubljana and Maribor, and their support this form of participation by youth organisations.’4 leadership took part in university conferences. Apart from the republic (i.e. national) The opening-up of the space to new ideas and organisational structures that took conference, these were the only social and political organisations that participated in place in the 1980s brought the issue of the position of young people into political high-level politics, on occasions as a kind of opposition to the republic conference. As discourse and the arena of political ideas. It also meant that the ‘youth dimension’ the umbrella organisation that encompassed all lower forms of organisation, social became bound up with the independence process, in terms of the substance of that organisations and youth societies/associations, the ZSMS was governed, in any pe- dimension and the broader issue of youth organisation, although the topic of youth riod between two congresses, by the republic conference and its leadership bodies, was all but ignored at the first elections (Deželan and Matjašič, 2020). It was therefore including in individual areas of public policy. In addition to participating in formal clear that, for young people, political pluralism would bring with it the many pitfalls structures, young people within the ZSMS were engaged in a variety of forms and inherent in liberal democracy, one of the most important being the young population’s methods of work: conferences organised to address specific issues, commissions, numerical disadvantage in comparison with others (pensioners, for example). This coordinating committees and centres, councils, student clubs, clubs for scholar- continues to result in a lack of political interest in the problems that young people face. ship-holders, associations of young cooperative members, inter-municipal councils, territorial defence organisations, Model UN clubs and so on. instrumentalised for the recruitment of future political cadres, the ZSMS began to Although its status was that of a transmission organisation, by formal definition Guided education (usmerjeno izobraževanje) was the system introduced into schools in 2 Yugoslavia to address the perceived inequalities of the academic grammar school system. shape itself into an independent organisation at the beginning of the 1980s. Working 3 Informacija RK ZSMS No 38, 20 October 1989, ‘K zasnovi nacionalnega združevanja Structure of the monograph We start with a discussion of the three decades of development of youth policy in Slovenia, with Tin Kampl and Tomaž Deželan addressing the distance that has arisen over the years between what the regulations require and what actually happens on the ground. This is followed by a chapter on the Office for Youth, or the national au- thority as it is often referred to in the European Union and its programmes, by Andraž Zgonc Tin Kampl and Tomaž Deželan. The role and activities of the Office for Youth are further evidence of the strange gap between theory and practice in the youth field in Slovenia. There is then a discussion of the development of the youth sector as a whole (Tin Kampl and Tomaž Deželan), which highlights its diversity by examining all its prevailing forms. This repertoire of key youth-related areas is rounded off by Nina Vombergar and Tomaž Deželan in a discussion of youth work in Slovenia. Particular focus is placed on the factors that have led to its recognition and consolidation over the last few decades. We close with two important aspects of support for the youth sector: the creation of adequate financial and data-based foundations for the opera- tion of the sector generally. Maja Drobne, Karolina Babič and Tomaž Deželan analyse the financial aspect with particular reference to the importance of European youth development programmes, while Tomaž Deželan, Katja Nacevski and Marko Majce address the data- or research-related aspect by examining the history of youth-cen- tred research in Slovenia, the reference studies produced and the most important findings of those studies in terms of their significance for the youth field. In place of a conclusion, each chapter offers points for further consideration. These are designed to point the way forward towards well-informed, evidence-based action by the key stakeholders in the youth sector. ginnings The Be References Deželan, T. and Matjašič, M. (2020). ‘Mladina kot polje volilnega boja med vzgojo in izobraževanjem ter mladinskim delom’ (Youth as a field of electoral struggle between education and youth work). In Krašovec, A. and Deželan, T. (eds), Volilno leto (Election Year) (pp. 89–110). Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences, Založba FDV. Miles Chapter 1 Between Practice Three Decades Theory and of Youth Policy in Slovenia Tin Kampl Tomaž Deželan development of policy type, but chiefly in terms of the range of principles on which it is based and the wide spectrum of impacts that it sets out to achieve. It is more than simply a public policy in Slovenia Key milestones in the Youth policy contexts in Slovenia Youth policy is a distinct field that differs from other public policies in terms of youth response to the specific challenges that need to be addressed in relation to young people, as it represents a clear commitment on the part of government to ensure good 1990: living conditions and opportunities for the young (Denstad, 2009). Generally speaking, National Youth Council of Slovenia founded youth policy addresses different and interconnected dimensions in the lives of young 1991: people, such as their welfare, education, democratic participation and inclusion. It Office for Youth founded can also offer young people the opportunity to develop their knowledge, skills and 2005: attitudes so that they are able find their place in society, be autonomous, play a role Strategy for Youth in the Field of Youth Policy Until 2010 in civil society and enter the labour market (Youth Partnership, 2019). Youth policy has evolved radically in recent decades to the point where it now ad- 2009: dresses the wide range of risks and opportunities encountered by young people; this Government Council for Youth founded requires a broader strategy covering a variety of public policy domains (employment, 2010: social protection, formal and non-formal education, health, housing policy, culture, Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act etc.) as well as transversal challenges such as social inclusion, youth participation 2011: and gender equality (Youth Partnership, 2019). However, it is important to note that Results of the Mladina 2010 study published e there are considerable differences between countries; we cannot therefore talk of 2013: shared understandings of core terms such as ‘youth policy’, ‘youth work’ or even Resolution on the National Youth Programme 2013–2022 actic ‘youth’ itself, as the way these terms are understood can vary between countries and public policy fields (Taru, 2017). 2017: It is also true that international organisations have had a strong impact on youth First interim report published on the National Youth Programme 2013–2022 ory and Pr policy in many countries, often providing an important incentive for the systematic development of policy even before an awareness of the need for it developed within een The those countries themselves. Slovenia is one such country, as this chapter will show. Of tw course, this has also helped to establish a tendency towards an integrated approach s Be to youth policy, one that is supported by many international organisations and asso- Mile ciations (Kuhar and Leskošek, 2008). In Slovenia’s case, the main organisations are the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the European Union. This chapter provides an overview of the development of Slovenian youth policy that pays due regard to the major role played by international organisations. It also attempts to define that role in more detail. Alongside this, we have taken as a guide- line the key principles of good youth policy; this, we hope, will enable us to produce a balanced overview of the key developments as well as the missed opportunities. Key international starting points for Slovenian youth policy While the first stirrings of youth policy can be traced as far back as the 19th century, when young people began to be seen as a distinct social category, modern youth policy ideas only properly emerged after the Second World War, in tandem with the development of the welfare state (Taru, 2017). Within international organisations, the first signs of an integrated (or cross-sectoral) youth policy began to appear at the end of the 1950s and beginning of the 1960s. In Europe, the field of youth policy gained EU economic and social agenda whose main policy goal is the fight against poverty Framework, which was adopted by the Council of Ministers in 2009, enhanced the and social exclusion (Colley, in Taru, 2017). framework for European cooperation in the youth field in place at that time, with the Youth policy at the Council of Europe has had a different focus, emphasising youth Council following the guidelines and proposals published by the European Commission participation at organisational, community and societal level, as well as the impor- in the spring of that year in the EU Strategy for Youth – Investing and Empowering: A Re- tance of democratic and civil society movements (Eberhard, 2002). Although the newed Open Method of Coordination to Address Youth Challenges and Opportunities. socio-economic integration of young people with vulnerable social backgrounds The core vision of the EU Strategy for Youth was to boost investment in young has not been the only goal set out in European documents, it has remained a central people by increasing funds for the development of areas that had an impact on young concern of European youth policy since the beginning of the 21st century (Taru, people and their welfare, and to strengthen the role of young people in renewing 2017). The EU and the Council of Europe have played an important role, not just at society; within this context, the Commission saw the renewed OMC as a tool for international level but also at the level of individual countries’ youth policies, perhaps promoting the youth dimension in other sectoral policies and boosting participation. most obviously with the introduction of the ‘open method of coordination’1 at the turn At the same time, the Renewed Framework provided for the use of instruments such of the millennium (ibid). as evidence-based public policymaking, mutual learning between Member States, European Union progress reporting, and consultations and structured dialogue with young people and youth organisations (Council of the European Union, 2009). Further contributions to Not all young people are students and it was only relatively recently, in the Maas- EU youth policy were made in the Europe 2020 strategy, adopted in 2010. Based on tricht Treaty of 1992, that the EU began to insert the formal youth field into its general seven flagship initiatives aimed at promoting smart, sustainable and inclusive growth policies ― even then, its efforts were modest, with a single reference in Article 126 (including ‘Youth on the Move’), it replaced the earlier Lisbon Strategy and was an youth workers (or, as the Treaty calls them, ‘socio-educational instructors’). That said, young people onto the labour market (Communication from the Commission, 2010). e it did also provide (albeit indirectly) the basis for the development of youth policy at of the Treaty on European Union to encouraging youth exchanges and exchanges of attempt to enhance the performance of education systems and facilitate the entry of This signalled that the role of young people and youth policy was gaining greater European level in a variety of fields relevant to young people, such as employment, actic weight within the EU’s strategic policies. the mobility of young researchers, culture, health and consumer protection (Debel- The period since the adoption of the Lisbon Strategy has been one of accelerated jak, 2009). While it is possible to argue that youth-centred activities did start earlier development for EU youth policy, resulting in a higher profile for that policy and the than this, they tended to be limited solely to specific programmes, such as Youth for ory and Pr development of several instruments that have had an impact on the development of and Youth Policies operating from 1973, the breakthrough within the EU came with the While acknowledging the foundations laid down by the Department for Education radical change in how young people and youth policy are understood; it is also clear een The Europe, which the European Commission set in motion in 1988. youth policy in the Member States themselves. This period has undoubtedly seen a Lisbon Strategy of 2000, which prioritised the development of human capital ― and other sectoral policies. These are all important steps towards creating an integrated s Be therefore of young people as well. This was followed by A New Impetus for European tw that the ‘youth dimension’ has also begun to be addressed within the framework of cross-sectoral youth policy. Youth, a White Paper that signalled the start of the accelerated development of the Mile The current EU Youth Strategy 2019–2027, which was adopted by the Council of field in the years that followed. The White Paper proposed the institutionalisation of the European Union at the end of 2018 and builds on the experiences and decisions cooperation between Member States in the youth field by using the open method of of previous years, aims to tackle the existing and upcoming challenges that young coordination (OMC) in four priority areas (providing young people with information, people face, and to provide a framework of objectives, principles, priorities, core ar- participation, voluntary service and greater understanding of youth), and the strength- eas and measures for youth policy cooperation for all relevant stakeholders (Council ening of youth dimensions in other sectoral policies (education, lifelong learning, of the European Union, 2018). It is split into three thematic sections (engagement, mobility, employment and social integration, and tackling racism and xenophobia) connection and empowerment), and is complemented by the European Youth Goals, (European Commission, 2001). which are the product of consultation with young people within the Structured Di- This was followed by two key documents that helped to rapidly consolidate the alogue process. To help realise the EU Youth Strategy, a number of instruments are field: the European Youth Pact of 2005 and the Resolution on a Renewed Framework set out that enhance those contained in the Renewed Framework: evidence-based for European Cooperation in the Youth Field (2010–2018, also known as the Renewed youth policy-making and knowledge-building; mutual learning and dissemination; Framework) of 2009. The European Youth Pact was adopted by the European Council in participatory governance; the mobilisation of EU programmes and funds; the Future 2005 as one of the key instruments for achieving the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy. National Activities Planner; Youth Dialogue (previously known as Structured Dialogue); It obliged Member States to redouble their efforts in the fields of growth and jobs, and an EU Youth Coordinator; Youth Information and Support; three-year EU Work Plans raised awareness of youth policy at EU level and of the importance of empowering young for Youth; monitoring, reporting and evaluation; and Mid-Term Reviews. Council of Europe systematic development of youth policy coming 20 years later in 1985, which the UN The Council of Europe began to address the youth field in 1972 with the estab- General Assembly proclaimed as International Youth Year. This aimed to draw attention lishment of the ad hoc intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Youth Questions to the important role young people played in society, and to promote national youth and the organisation of the first Conference of European Ministers Responsible for policies that were cross-sectoral and integrated (Nico, 2017). Youth in 1985 (eight such conferences took place between that year and 2012). Based The themes identified by the UN General Assembly for International Youth Year on the conference discussions, the Youth Department has developed a range of (‘Participation, Development, Peace’) reflected a predominant concern of the inter- instruments and programmes aimed at promoting and supporting youth policy devel- national community with distributive justice, popular participation and quality of opment within the Council of Europe and the Member States (Siurala, 2006). These life. These themes were also reflected in the guidelines, and were installed as the instruments include reviews of national youth policies that are designed to support overarching themes of the World Programme of Action for Youth to the Year 2000 and other countries in their efforts to develop their own. In addition to providing support, Beyond (WPAY) (United Nations, 2010). In its action plan, the UN built on its efforts to the reviews have also sought to identify those common characteristics of national foster the development of youth policy, defining the framework and guidelines for the youth policies that would make it possible to establish a European approach to the formulation of youth policy at global and national level. This made it the first global youth policy field, and contribute to mutual learning within the context of the develop- initiative to plan effective national youth policies (Cink, 2016). The plan encouraged ment, formulation and delivery of youth policy (Cink, 2016). These efforts have been Member States to create and adopt integrated youth policies, and to engage in the continued through one of the most recent youth policy development instruments continuous monitoring and evaluation of the position of young people by putting in presented by the Council of Europe, the Self-Assessment Tool for Youth Policy, which place cross-sectoral programmes and measures with clear, time-determined objec- was created to help Member States assess the compliance of their national youth tives and the systematic monitoring of progress (ibid.). youth policy standards, upon which the tool is based, proceed from its basic values during his time in office, and his efforts bore fruit with the adoption of the Youth- e SWAP document (2013), the main aim of which was to enhance the coherence of policies with the Council’s own youth policy standards. The Council of Europe’s basic Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon focused heavily on young people and from a broader understanding of youth policy. They address the fields of active cooperation, information, the promotion of inclusion, mobility, access to rights by actic the UN’s system-wide activities in key youth-related areas, and to present a blueprint young people and high-quality youth work (see Council of Europe, 2021). for identifying the major priorities of the UN’s system as they related to youth (United Of all the Council of Europe instruments that operate on a continuous basis and Nations, 2013). The first Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth was also appointed in make an important contribution to youth policy development at both Council and ory and Pr 2013, followed the year after by the first Global Forum on Youth Policies. This took Member State levels, particular mention should be made of the relevant co-govern- place in Baku and featured a broad range of participants. ing bodies active in the youth field and within which national authorities and repre- een The Principles of good youth policy as a conceptual starting decisions on youth policy within the Council of Europe: the European Youth Centres point sentatives of youth organisations, as well as young people themselves, make joint tw in Strasbourg and Budapest, the European Youth Foundation, and partnerships with s Be Youth policy is the means by which a country works to improve the position of the European Commission in the youth field. Mile young people, empower them and ensure that they are fully involved in society. It The Council of Europe’s overarching document, one that summarises previous also provides an insight into how the state and its decision-makers understand young developments and achievements in youth policy and sets policies going forward, is people ― indeed, one of the central characteristics of a well-functioning youth pol- the Youth Sector Strategy 2030 (COEYSS), which was adopted in 2019. The mission icy is whether the state regards young people as a resource or as a problem. While set out in this document is to broaden youth participation, strengthen young people’s this might appear to be just another political cliché, it is a dichotomy with significant access to rights, and deepen youth knowledge (Council of Europe, 2020). Within the presence in perceptions of youth policy (Denstad, 2009). In turn, it leads us to a COEYSS, the Council of Europe has established a range of priorities that it wishes to series of important questions: whether youth policy is a mainstream or marginal address through instruments already in place; these include revitalising pluralistic component of public policy, for example, and whether its approach is synchronised democracy, young people’s access to rights, living together in peaceful and inclusive or segmented (Williamson, 2002). Understanding youth policy as a problem-oriented societies, and youth work (ibid.). field means perceiving young people as requiring of protection through public policies because of their vulnerable and endangered position; at the same time, they are seen United Nations as ‘trouble-makers’. Youth policy therefore tends to target specific segments of the The United Nations is, of course, one of the most prominent international organi- youth population, with very little (if any) coordination between different sectors. This sations active in the youth field; and while its processes cannot be said to have had a is also reflected in practice in the tendency for countries to use measures to respond direct and decisive impact on the development of youth policy in Slovenia, they have to individual challenges as they arise. Owing to the cross-sectoral nature of youth policy, it is therefore also important to have a clearly defined and established government authority on youth responsible for coordinating the development of a national youth policy (Denstad, 2009). This author- ity, which can be organised as an independent ministry or some other governmental body, must be recognised and have strong links with ministries if coordination and cooperation are to be successful. As we have already pointed out, one of the most important attributes of a youth policy that regards young people as a resource is youth participation through the entire public policy process ― that is, in both the development and delivery of youth policy. Young people should have the right, means, support, opportunities and space to participate as partners in youth policy, advising or deciding jointly on its design, contributing to youth policy service delivery, and monitoring and evaluating the im- pacts of the policies. They should not merely be seen as ‘beneficiaries’ of services (Youth Partnership, 2019). There is a broad set of reasons why youth participation in the public policy process should be encouraged; they range from viewing young people as a resource to the fact that there are formalistic and legal reasons why young people should be natural partners in decision-making ― for example, to keep the promises made by governments when they sign up to international agreements and e charters (Denstad, 2009). Of course, any discussion about encouraging participation should mention the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 12 of which actic addresses children’s participation in government decisions that affect them, as well as the Revised European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life, which was adopted in 2003 by the Congress of Local and Regional ory and Pr Authorities in Europe, one of the pillars of the Council of Europe (ibid.). One further The key areas in this approach are education and the provision of support to young reason for encouraging youth participation is worth highlighting here: that where people to become active citizens (Kuhar and Leskošek, 2008). This type of youth young people are involved, policymakers are better able to identify and, with the help een The policy also helps young people lead lives appropriate to their age group, encourages tw of those young people, understand the needs and challenges of the young. They also independence and critical thinking, and aims to foster an integrated cross-sectoral acquire the necessary legitimacy for their decisions and, by involving young people s Be governmental approach towards young people and their needs and challenges (Den- in decision-making, take ownership of those decisions together with them. This can stad, 2009). Mile help to ensure that the policies are delivered more effectively (ibid.). One of the features specific to youth policy is its inter- or cross-sectoral nature, Non-governmental youth organisations that enjoy strong recognition and support as it cuts across many other fields of public policy (Rakar et al., 2011). Youth policy from policymakers have an important role to play in youth policy (Denstad, 2009). As is not only a collection of actions by different sectors that affect young people, but a civil society organisations that bring large numbers of young people together, youth deliberate and structured inter-sectoral policy of the youth sector, which cooperates organisations are defined as autonomous democratic voluntary associations whose with other sectors and coordinates services for young people (Kuhar and Leskošek, operations enable young people to create planned and unplanned learning experi- 2008). We can understand the word ‘sector’ in the context of youth policy in two ences, formulate and express their positions, and carry out activities in accordance ways: as a public policy sector or area (e.g. education, employment, health) or as a with their interests and their cultural, sectoral or political orientations (National Youth sector in the wider social sense (e.g. the public sector, the non-governmental sector, Council of Slovenia, 2010). Youth organisations that involve young people and are part the economic sector). Within the context of European youth policy, ‘sector’ is usually of the wider public policy process have shown themselves to be more than capable thought of in the first sense, i.e. as relating to different policy sectors, to different of addressing and overcoming the problems of disconnected youth, general apathy ministries or to different departments within ministries, although it is also used in and the absence of adequate representation of young people’s interests (Rakar et al., the latter sense in certain contexts (Taru, 2017). We can add yet another dimension, 2011). In most European countries, youth councils are a key point of contact between where ‘cross-sectoral youth policy’ may also refer to vertical cooperation ― between youth organisations and the interests of young people, and are designed to occupy a central government and municipalities, for example (ibid.). When we look at the dif- privileged position as a partner to political decision-makers in the development and to take responsibility for helping to create society (Denstad, 2009). At the same time, Early impact of the Council of Europe political decision-makers should be aware that not all young people are involved in In the 1990s youth policy in Slovenia was heavily influenced by the Council of Eu-youth organisations, and give an opportunity for those young people to be consulted rope, whose operations in the youth field were joined by the Office for Youth in 1992, when youth policies are being designed. One mechanism that directly involves young when Slovenia became a State Party to the European Cultural Convention. The Office people in the consultation process is Youth Dialogue (formerly Structured Dialogue), had been founded in 1991 in response to initiatives from three committees of the which enables young people, youth organisations, youth councils and researchers in Slovenian Assembly during discussions on the draft Youth Councils Act (Škulj, 2016). the youth field to become actively involved in political dialogue with those responsible After 1992 it began taking part in the activities of the European Steering Committee for youth policy. for Youth (CDEJ), which comprised ministries and other bodies responsible for youth. Another important feature of a high-quality youth policy is a concrete and transpar-The CDEJ was designed to foster cooperation between governments in the youth ent strategy capable of analysing and addressing the youth population’s most pressing sector, and provide a framework for comparing national youth policies, exchanging issues as effectively as possible. This can be achieved with clearly established and best practices and drafting standard-setting texts (Council of Europe, n.d.). defined objectives, and measures to support their achievement. The objectives must The Office’s participation in the CDEJ has had an impact on youth policy in Slovenia be set out in such a way as to enable long-, medium- and short-term scrutiny of their in substantive, organisational and administrative terms. The administrative impact implementation, with mechanisms in place to ensure a prompt response in the event has come chiefly in the context of the management model established at Council of of any shortcomings in delivery; where possible, they should also be equipped with Europe level and its introduction into Slovenia with the setting-up of the Joint Com-appropriate indicators that allow them to be monitored and measured. The transpar-mission for Youth Affairs (Mešana komisija za mladinska vprašanja), which was the ency of the strategy is reflected in the clearly defined responsibilities of the youth co-management body comprising representatives of youth organisations (National policy coordinator and those responsible for individual measures, as well as in the link Youth Council) on the one side and central government representatives (Office for between objectives on the one hand and measures on the other (Denstad, 2009). By Youth) on the other. In this context, the commission was the predecessor of today’s e being transparent, we also ensure that there is accountability towards young people. Government Council for Youth (Svet Vlade RS za mladino, SVM). At the substantive If the objectives and measures of youth policy are to be formulated in a way that actic level, participation in the Council of Europe’s working and other bodies led the Office to addresses the actual needs of young people, they must be supported by adequate focus more heavily on providing information and advice to young people (Škulj, 2016). data. An evidence- and knowledge-based youth policy comprises two dimensions The Office for Youth then set about building on its earlier work in these two areas ― research/scientific knowledge and practical/experiential knowledge ― which ory and Pr with the publication of an information and counselling plan for young people, which are of equal importance to policy development (Denstad, 2009). In addition to the was based on the Council of Europe’s Recommendation to Member States Concern-requirement for relevant knowledge and evidence to be deployed in youth policy de-een The ing Information and Counselling for Young People in Europe (1990), the European sign, data and research on the youth field needs to be collected so that the policies tw Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life (1992) and can be regularly monitored and evaluated. This offers the only tangible way in which s Be the European Youth Information Charter, which was adopted in 1993 by the European the success (or otherwise) of specific measures and programmes can be evaluated. Youth Information and Counselling Agency (ERIYCA) (Cink, 2016). Youth mobility has Mile been another area of focus for the Council of Europe, one that has been developed Development of youth policy in Slovenia mainly through the European Youth Card, which Slovenia joined in 1999 by sign-The beginnings of youth policy in Slovenia can be traced back to around the time ing the Council of Europe’s Partial Agreement on Youth Mobility Through the Youth of the country’s independence in 1991, which is when the Office for Youth (Urad Card. Responsibility for introducing the card was assumed by a non-governmental RS za mladino, URSM) was founded and a start made on addressing the position of partner, originally Zavod MOVIT and, from 2010, Zavod MOBIN (which later became young people in Slovenia within the context of national policies and institutions. The the SLOAM Youth Agency). National Youth Council of Slovenia (Mladinski svet Slovenije, MSS) had been estab-The first step towards the legislative regulation of youth policy and the youth sector lished the year before as the country’s umbrella youth organisation, assuming the was taken in 2000 with the adoption of the Youth Councils Act (Zakon o mladinskih role of advocate of the interests of youth organisations in their dealings with political svetih), which regulated the position, operations, activities and financing of the nation-decision-makers. If we look back at the last three decades of youth policy in Slovenia, al and local community youth councils. The need for the law had arisen as a result of we can see that it has developed at different levels of intensity in different periods the unregulated status and legal personality of the National Youth Council, which was of time and has, as we pointed out at the beginning, been under the influence of the affecting its ability to draw on budget funds. 2 The legislation in force at the time did international organisations of which Slovenia is part. Generally speaking, we can divide not give the National Youth Council the option of acquiring legal personality, mainly this 30-year period into the period before Slovenia’s accession to the EU, the period because of the links between member organisations organised under the provisions of accession, the period immediately after accession (when important steps were of the Societies Act and those subject to the Political Parties Act, as it also included taken towards adopting a law on the public interest in the youth sector and a national youth wings of political parties (Škulj, 2016). To bridge these legal gaps, youth councils programme) and the period that followed the adoption of the national programme. were established as legal entities sui generis. The legislator also pointed out, as the ‘youth work’, ‘youth policy’, ‘youth organisation’ and ‘organisation for work with young basic reason for the adoption of the law, that children and young people who were or- people’, and defined the factors (key actors) of youth policy at national and local level. ganised within different organisations and formed a youth council would now be able At national level, these were the National Youth Council of Slovenia, the coordinators to determine, express and implement joint positions and activities, thereby enjoying of various different fields (Zavod MOVIT, Zavod MISSS, MaMa Youth Network), youth a more suitable status as an organised form of expression of the common interests organisations and organisations for work with young people; at local level, they includ- of the participating youth organisations in the public sphere (Report on the Draft ed youth centres, local community youth councils, local youth organisations, youth Youth Councils Act, 2000). The law therefore instructed the government, ministries initiatives and local youth committees (ibid.). That the Strategy represented the start of and other central government and local community authorities to inform the National the comprehensive and systematic regulation of the youth sector and youth policy in Youth Council or local community youth councils before setting out draft laws and Slovenia is also confirmed by the fact that the Office defined it as a ‘living’ document other regulations with a direct impact on the life and work of young people (Youth designed to serve as a platform for continuous public discussion, and encourage a Councils Act, 2000, Article 6). However, apart from regulating the position of youth higher degree of social consensus on its objectives and greater cooperation in its councils, the Youth Councils Act failed to make any inroads into the broader field of realisation. Judging by its impact on youth policy today, the Strategy for Youth has met youth policy and the youth sector, nor did it establish any of the related definitions its objective of initiating a discussion on the development of youth policy. that would have allowed this to happen. Formulation and adoption of the umbrella law EU accession and the beginnings of the systematic The first steps that followed the realisation of the objectives of the Strategy for regulation of youth policy Youth after its adoption in 2005 were taken in the same year when the process of The breakthrough in the regulation of youth policy in Slovenia, also infused by the drafting an umbrella law on youth was initiated. In September 2005 the Office for Youth insights of the recent Council of Europe’s Advisory mission, came in 2005 with the commissioned the preparation of a comparative law analysis and the drafting of a law e publication of the Office for Youth’s Strategy for Youth in the Field of Youth Policy Until designed to systemically regulate youth policy and youth work from the NGO legal information centre (PIC). The Office set up a working group to provide support to the 2010 (Strategija Urada RS za mladino na področju mladinske politike do leta 2010). actic This was the first comprehensive document to regulate youth policy in Slovenia, de- work of the PIC comprising representatives from the Office, a representative from the fine the basic terms and set out the key youth policy areas, with goals, measures and Association of Municipalities and Towns of Slovenia, and representatives from the programmes for individual areas aimed at improving the conditions for youth work. ory and Pr PIC and National Youth Council (Rakar et al., 2011). The comparative law analysis and i.e. those fields specific to young people and youth work, although its vision for the March 2006. Agreement was reached on certain amendments and additions, which een The future development of youth policy encompassed the development of a horizontal At its core, it contained measures and programmes in the vertical youth policy field, the theses for the law compiled by the PIC were discussed by the working group in tw the PIC inserted and then sent to the Office. As agreed with the working group, the youth policy as well. This was reflected chiefly in the fundamental strategic objectives Office presented the theses to the ministry in charge, and then forwarded them to s Be for youth policy in Slovenia set out in the Strategy (Office for Youth, 2005), which youth sector organisations for discussion. The first draft of the law was produced in Mile contained, inter alia, the requirement ‘to incorporate youth policy into all national autumn 2006 and was discussed at a consultation organised by the Office. However, the draft did not gain support, which brought the process to a complete halt (Rakar policies whose strategies, national programmes or legal frameworks specifically also address the youth population’. The Strategy therefore also established vertical and et al., 2011). The National Youth Council attempted to revive the process in 2007 horizontal axes for the formulation and delivery of youth policy by stating that while with the preparation of its own proposed law (‘Mladina je zakon’, Youth Rules), but the horizontal level included measures that were otherwise an integral part of other no further progress was made. policies, the state was particularly keen to introduce special measures to create in- The process was revived again in 2008, when it received support from the newly centives to make it easier for young people to integrate into society (housing policy, established governing coalition that arose following the general election. At the in- employment policy, etc.). The vertical axis included measures that were essentially itiative of its junior partners (Rakar et al., 2011), the coalition inserted the following specific to young people and aimed at promoting their involvement in youth work, commitment into the coalition agreement: that a law on youth work and youth policy putting in place the conditions for youth work, and laying the foundations for a deter- would be adopted to provide the basis for a national programme in the youth field; that mination of objectives and measures in the youth policy field (ibid.). the Office for Youth would be transferred from the Ministry of Education and Sport The Office for Youth set itself the task of boosting the quality and profile of youth to become a government office, and would be tasked with the inter-departmental work in Slovenia, strengthening links between different youth work entities, and in- coordination of issues of concern to young people; and that a Slovenian Government creasing the mobility of knowledge, ideas and people (Office for Youth, 2005). The Council for Youth Issues would be established (Coalition Agreement, 2008) On the political and substantive premises of the Strategy were provided by several basic basis of new findings and past experiences with legislative preparations, the position it discussed the draft and issued a decision authorising the National Youth Council to lead a preliminary discussion within the youth sector in cooperation with the Of- fice for Youth to gather comments on the law (ibid.). On the basis of the comments received at the consultations, the Office, together with the working group, drew up a new draft law, the Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act (Zakon o javnem interesu v mladinskem sektorju), which was approved unanimously by the Government Council for Youth in November 2009. The draft law underwent some minor changes when it reached the government, and was sent to the National Assembly for discussion at the beginning of 2010. After receiving broad parliamentary support, it was passed unanimously on 18 May 2010. Although the legislators had gone for the narrower option, the law did never- theless represent an important breakthrough in the development of youth policy, the youth sector and youth work in Slovenia by comprehensively establishing a nor- mative framework for the youth field. Most importantly of all, the public interest act provided a basis for the adoption of a national youth programme, the need for which arose from the realisation that the Office for Youth’s strategy in force at the time was having limited impact. What was needed was the targeted integration of the wider field of the ‘state’ and the inclusion of more ministries if broader impacts were to be achieved and the youth sector developed (Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act e [Draft], 2010). To ensure that the youth field matched the international context and the processes taking place at international level closely as possible, the legislators actic examined and considered various strategic policies and documents produced by in- ternational institutions, in particular the EU and the Council of Europe. They included the Recommendation to Member States Concerning Information and Counselling for ory and Pr Young people in Europe, adopted in 1990 by the Council of Europe; the UN Conven- tion on the Rights the Child; the European Commission White Paper A New Impetus een The for European Youth of 2001, which laid down the framework for cooperation in the tw youth field; the Revised European Charter on the Participation of Young People in s Be Local and Regional Life, which was adopted by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe; the European Youth Information Charter (ERYI- Mile CA); the Rotterdam Declaration; Recommendations on the European Commission’s Proposals Regarding the Youth in Action 2007–2013 Programme; the European Youth Pact; and the Revised Lisbon Strategy. The law defined the youth sector and the public interest in the youth sector, iden- tified the actors and entities operating within the youth sector, and the youth sector bodies and their powers, laid down the conditions and procedures for acquiring the status of organisation operating in the public interest in the youth sector, provided a framework definition of the role of self-governing local communities in the youth sector, and laid the groundwork for a binding strategic document, the National Youth Programme (NPM), which was required to contain strategic objectives, and measures for the achievement of those objectives, and to form the basis for the co-financing of youth sector programmes. The public interest act defined the basic terms, including ‘youth policy’, which became ‘the coordinated set of measures of different sectoral public policies aimed at encouraging and easing the integration of young people into Interest in the Youth Sector Act, 2010, Article 3). The definition was formulated in a When the Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act was passed, it was expected that comprehensive way, one that incorporated the whole spectrum of measures that the National Youth Programme would be adopted within 18 months of the entry into take place within vertical and horizontal youth policy. Horizontal youth policy there- force of the law. However, there were delays to its formulation and final adoption, and fore involved a coordinated set of policies of different ministries aimed at effectively the first Programme was not adopted until October 2013 (for the period up to 2022). and successfully integrating young people into society (e.g. employment, education, The process of drafting the 2013–2022 Programme nevertheless began in 2009 with housing policy, culture), while vertical youth policy comprised measures specific to an intensive study of young people in Slovenia; this was because it first required the young people and youth work. production of expert background documents based on the facts pertaining to young National Youth Programme people, along with some indication of their real needs. A start was therefore made on promoting and financing analyses and research (Resolution on the National Youth As the basic programming document setting out the youth sector priorities and Programme 2013–2022, 2013). In 2009 the Social Protection Institute (Inštitut RS za measures deemed to be in the public interest (Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act, socialno varstvo) compiled an analysis titled Med otroštvom in odraslostjo – Analiza 2010, Article 16), the National Youth Programme is one of the most important elements položaja mladih v Sloveniji 2009 (Between Childhood and Adulthood – An Analysis of of the Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act and of the drive to ensure comprehensive the Position of Young People in Slovenia 2009), while the Statistical Office produced regulation of the position of young people within society (as the definition of ‘youth the first comprehensive statistical overview of young people (Mladi v Sloveniji, Young policy’ suggested). At its core, the Programme demonstrates this ambition by seeking People in Slovenia). An analysis titled Matrika ukrepov državnih organov na področju to ensure the coordinated introduction of a uniform and transparently arranged system mladinske politike (Matrix of Measures of State Authorities in the Field of Youth Policy) of inter-departmental priorities and measures designed to improve conditions and was produced in 2010 with the aim of evaluating the success of public policies in a horizontal programme, which means that it brings together measures from areas pearance of an analytical study, Mladinsko delo in mladinska politika na lokalni ravni e that lie within the remit of different ministries with the aim of creating new value and (Youth Work and Youth Policy at Local Level), which sought to provide a comprehensive address the problems highlighted by analyses, research and public discussions. It is resolving the specific problems faced by young people. The same year saw the ap- ensuring that measures are coordinated and visible (Resolution on the National Youth actic overview and analysis of the organisational status of the youth sector at local level, Programme 2013–2022, 2013). The Programme’s contents are determined in detail the instruments in place for supporting youth work and the standards of locally based by the Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act (2010, Article 16), which requires it to youth policy in the light of the creation of the National Youth Programme. Probably the contain programmes, financial plans (with an indication of costs and funding sources), ory and Pr most important document in this set was the Mladina 2010 (Youth 2010) study, which effects and the indicators used to measure those effects, and the periods and dead- answers to key questions regarding changes among young people in Slovenia since een The lines for delivery of the programme. The National Youth Programme is adopted for a tw the people and organisations responsible for delivery, the expected development enabled national youth programmes to be based on scientific findings, and provided nine-year period by the National Assembly, following a proposal by the government. In contrast to the Office for Youth’s previous strategy, the National Youth Pro- s Be To enable detailed implementation, the government is required to adopt delivery 2000 (and also after that year), as well as several points of international comparison. gramme was much more heavily focused on delivering both horizontal and vertical plans in accordance with the central government budget, while individual ministries Mile youth policy, as demonstrated by the guidelines on which it is based and the areas it are responsible for delivering the Programme and the planned measures. The gov- covers: education, employment and enterprise, the living conditions of young people, ernment is also required to present an interim report on Programme delivery and an health and well-being, young people and society, the importance of the youth sector, evaluation of the results to the National Assembly every three years, as well as a final and culture, creativity, heritage and the media. With the public interest act and then the report at the end of the Programme (ibid.). National Youth Programme, Slovenia therefore took a major step towards addressing the position of young people via an integrated and cross-sectoral youth policy. Gap between theory and practice The regulation of youth policy in Slovenia at the normative level is well-aligned with the international standards that constitute the reference framework for development of the field. The specificity of this youth policy requires consistency in its formulation and delivery; only in this way can it be successful and effective. Below we offer an overview of the successes of Slovenian youth policy in realising some of the key attributes of good youth policy (strategic approach, cross-sectoral character and the involvement of young people themselves), as well as an insight into relationships between the na- Strategic approach to youth policy character. With the arrival of the Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act, youth policy came together within a single framework, although even that law originally addressed A high-quality youth policy requires a concrete and transparent strategy capable of the regulation of vertical youth policy ― a pragmatic decision taken to ensure that analysing and addressing the youth population’s most pressing issues as effectively as it would be passed. Nevertheless, Article 5, which addressed the public interest in possible. The method by which youth policy is regulated in Slovenia, via an umbrella the youth sector, did make reference to the regulation of horizontal youth policy, i.e. a law and a strategic document in the form of a national programme, is completely policy that had an impact on other sectoral policies as well. The public interest was to aligned with this approach, as the establishment of a legal basis has enabled the be realised through the incorporation of youth-related issues into strategies, policies normative conditions to be put in place for a systemic and strategic approach towards and measures that affected the lives of young people. youth policy. The National Youth Programme enables Slovenia to pursue all the steps With the National Youth Programme addressing horizontal youth policy in more de- in this process, from analysing the position of and consulting young people, to moni- tail and the public interest act at least referring to it, an important chapter was opened toring, delivering and evaluating the programme. Evaluation of the Programme, which for youth policy in Slovenia: here was the first systemic opportunity the country had takes place every three years, has also revealed its strategic nature, as evident from had to develop a horizontal youth policy that emphasised its cross-sectoral character. the impact it has had on the development of youth policy. The Programme has had an The first step was to raise the awareness of all relevant parties of the cross-sectoral important effect on the way young people are understood within public policymaking challenges facing young people, which was achieved with the help of research and and delivery processes, and raised the awareness of key stakeholders of the specific with support for capacity-strengthening provided primarily at international level. One needs and interests of this group. It has placed young people on the administrative former director of the Office for Youth, Peter Debeljak, believes that fundamental and political agenda, and made an essential contribution by increasing the profile shifts took place at that time that have had an impact on the subsequent development of this important target group. This in turn has led to a greater levels of involvement of youth policy in Slovenia. He pointed out that this period was heavily marked by a on the part of young people in the planning, delivery and evaluation of the various consideration of other youth policies within the EU, as well as by the availability of measures in this field (Deželan, 2020). e funds for this purpose from the EU. Debeljak also acknowledges the important shift However, the National Youth Programme has been slightly less successful when in mentality that occurred in Slovenian youth policy, ‘from activism to the bureaucratic actic it comes to monitoring and measuring the achievement of its objectives. At certain and systemic regulation of the youth policy field’ (interview, 10 May 2021). points, the performance indicators do not enable realistic measurements to be car- However, despite the positive prospects that attended the development of a hori- ried out (because they are not backed up by mechanisms that systematically collect ory and Pr zontal youth policy and were heralded by the adoption of the public interest act and the necessary data), and the delivery of commitments varies from department to the National Youth Programme, cross-sectoral cooperation continues to face major department, especially where areas are covered by multiple departments. The Na- challenges today. Debeljak highlights the lack of an adequate system for funding such tional Youth Council has also drawn attention to the lack of an adequate mechanism een The policies; and since this approach is not rewarded with budget funds, the success for monitoring the delivery of measures, pointing out that such a mechanism was tw of horizontal policy is, to a large degree, dependent on political interests, whether envisaged in the framework guidelines for the National Youth Programme (guidelines s Be they are in favour of such an approach or not (Debeljak, interview, 10 May 2021). that have not yet been implemented). The National Youth Council believes that no Mile That political interests can play a decisive role in the development of youth policy system yet exists for measuring how successful the Programme’s measures are, or in Slovenia is demonstrated by the fact that key shifts have taken place in periods the extent to which the position of young people has improved as a result of them when political parties and politicians have acknowledged the policy and made it one (National Youth Council of Slovenia, 2020). of their priorities. Nowhere was this clearer than in the coalition agreement for Borut Cross-sectoral character of youth policy Pahor’s government, which prioritised the adoption of the public interest act and the In practice, youth policy cuts across a large number of areas and is in no way National Youth Programme and the establishment of the Government Council for connected simply to youth organisations per se. Youth policy is connected Youth. Certain similar shifts in importance could also be seen later ― during Alen- to young people, and young people are present in all spheres of public and ka Bratušek’s government, for example, when the idea was mooted of appointing a private life. Therefore, when we talk about youth policy, we are talking about state secretary for young people and making the Office for Youth a government-level a policy that encompasses all spheres of society. This means that we must authority, although this idea did not come to fruition at that time. As Tadej Beočanin approach it in that way. In practice, it is an explicitly inter-sectoral policy pointed out in an interview on 15 April 2021: and must be conducted as such (Tadej Beočanin, interview, 15 April 2021).3 We […] have not gathered enough energy and have missed the opportunity to unite around an individual who would perform this function. I remember The first references to horizontal youth policy can be found in the Office for Youth’s what the prime minister said at the time: that we should sort it out and that However, the lack of an appropriate legal basis for the strategy meant that it could the same political obstacles as existed in central government policy as a not itself have the status of a publicly recognised horizontal strategic document; whole, and we were unable to coalesce around someone whose appoint- strategy of 2005, which defined youth policy as having vertical and horizontal aspects. she would be happy to appoint someone. But logically, this ran up against Miro Cerar’s government also paid a certain degree of attention to the field, or- for promoting youth-related topics. As a coordinator, you don’t have the ganising a special government session at which youth organisation representatives power to change things. The role of the Office is currently also to support were invited to put forward their proposals. However, this failed to have any major the umbrella youth organisations to ensure that they are active in the field, impact on the development of youth policy itself. The importance of political interests because then ideas or pressures, whatever you want to call them, arrive at is also confirmed by Tine Radinja, mayor of Škofja Loka and former president of the specific ministries from different angles. European Youth Forum, who had this to say in an interview on 9 April 2021: [E]verything depends on politics in Slovenia. It seems to me that this area Inclusion of young people come up with a vision or with ideas of what to do with youth work and youth A central plank of good youth policy is un-has been undervalued by politicians. Only rarely have national politicians policy. But basically, we’re lucky in Slovenia because youth organisations its entire public policy cycle ― that is, from for-doubtedly the participation of young people in about a youth policy in Slovenia. mulation and monitoring, to delivery and evalu-and youth workers have built ‘from the bottom up’, so that we can now talk ation. At the normative level, Slovenia is aware In practice, the lack of inter-departmental cooperation and the poor understanding of this; and while the mechanisms are in place, of the inter-sectoral dimension of youth policy are evident from the fact that when ‘the- the delivery phase could be more consistent and ories of action from other sectoral policies and their related instruments encroach on successful. The Government Council for Youth was established with the aim of includ- the measures themselves, the programme is shown to be an instrument with limited ing young people in the process of creating youth policy. It performs two functions: reach. At best it intersects with other sectoral public policy mechanisms, at worst it first, it fosters the formalised participation of young people in the creation of youth is in direct conflict with them’ (Deželan, 2020). The National Youth Programme can, at policy and, as such, constitutes the highest level of youth dialogue in the country; and measures that also pursue their own objectives and their own logic of delivery, resentatives of different youth organisations on the one side and representatives of actic various ministries (government representatives) on the other. This is an ideal picture several points, be understood as the glue that binds together specific sectoral policies second, it promotes the cross-sectoral character of youth policy by comprising rep- e reporting and evaluation ― and that only find themselves in the Programme as a result ministries and with other stakeholders (National Youth Council of Slovenia, 2020): [I]t has managed to fulfil its mission only to a certain extent. Because as een The soon as there are indecisive, bureaucratic people at the table, particularly on In recent years, young people have been inserted into horizontal policies tw the government side, it starts to lose its validity as a decision-making body. and at least partly included in the priorities of other ministries, which can s Be be seen as a positive thing. At the same time, individual ministries give the This is a problem that young people themselves were quick to recognise, leading youth sector and other key stakeholders insufficient recognition as relevant Mile the National Youth Council to propose that the presence of more senior-level political factors in the creation, planning and delivery of measures that relate to funding for the creation of new measures (Deželan, 2020; Debeljak, interview, 10 May of interest in discussion and decision-making. In an interview conducted on 15 April ory and Pr 2021, Tadej Beočanin, a former member of the Council, had this to say about it: 2021). The National Youth Council also highlights a lack of cooperation, both between of a lack of vision in addressing the challenges that young people face and a lack of only on paper; in practice, it is ineffective, with the Council displaying a distinct lack young people and youth organisations. Youth representatives should not representation be secured within the Government Council for Youth. With the support of the Office for Youth and the line ministry, ministers began to be appointed to the just be involved in preparation ― their proposals should also be taken into Government Council. However, this has not proved effective because the lack of in- consideration. terest means that they simply do not attend meetings and do not send deputies. This Youth coordinators have been introduced into specific ministries, at the proposal is a further example of the importance of political will to youth policy. In this context, of youth organisations, in an attempt to overcome the problems of cooperation with the past support for the Government Council at prime ministerial level proved very departments and strengthen the youth dimension in specific sectoral policies. positive, and attracted media attention, with various prime ministers attending some On several occasions in the past, the idea was formed of bringing the Office for Council meetings. Youth directly under the prime minister’s office in order to overcome the obstacles According to the principles of good youth policy, one of the most important roles to inter-departmental coordination. The majority of our interviewees are of one mind, in the development of youth policy should also be played by the umbrella youth or- however: that the Office for Youth needs, first and foremost, to be strengthened in ganisation. In Slovenia’s case, we can say that the importance of the National Youth terms of personnel, funding and powers. Another former director of the Office pointed Council is recognised by politicians, who are prepared to involve it in policymaking out that her role was very undefined (Dolores Koles, interview, 18 May 2021): and delivery processes. As its policy officer Tanja Baumkirher says: ‘It has had the In terms of its competencies, the Office has only a coordinating role in the most significant role of all youth organisations in the field of youth policy. For students remain unimplemented, she does point out that ‘certain things do happen if enough Looking towards the future work is done on them’ (ibid.). • If we are to have a targeted and effective (national) youth strategy, elements of Relationship between national and local levels the national programme must be formulated in collaboration with line ministries. out the major issues that attend the relationship between national and local lev- individual line ministries have at their disposal. els ― or more specifically, the powers of local communities versus those of central • To monitor the performance and effectiveness of youth policy measures, particular-government. As the material produced during the adoption of the public interest act ly for the National Youth Programme, we require a special mechanism, supported Any overview of the development of youth policy in Slovenia cannot but help point or transferred to the national programme can realise the delivery potential that Only mirrored starting points that are either repeated in departmental strategies states (Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act [Draft], 2010): With due regard to the guidelines of the resolutions, which highlight the by adequate data that enables the effective measuring of indicators and progress, responsibilities and powers of local actors in relation to young people and and by a robust research and analytical infrastructure. youth work, the powers of central government and local communities are • An instrument for assessing the impacts on young people should be introduced, separated in the text of the draft law. Local communities should themselves with young people themselves being involved in the assessment process (‘youth establish the specific features of their youth population and produce meas- mainstreaming’). This would prevent the adoption of sectoral policies that have a ures on that basis. negative effect on the position and status of young people. palities are responsible for the youth field at local level. However, the provision on made one of the compulsory tasks of municipalities (which should also be given the obligations that municipalities have in this area is slightly less clear, as the youth sufficient funding for this purpose) field is not one of the tasks of municipalities set out in the Local Self-Government e • Cooperation between national and local decision-makers and policymakers must This demarcation is entirely clear in the law itself, which provides that munici- be given to amending the Local Self-Government Act so that the youth field is • To bolster the development of youth policy at local level, consideration should Act. There is therefore a general belief that the development of youth policy at local actic be strengthened if the National Youth Programme and its measures are to be level is, to a large degree, dependent on the interest of the mayor. This is confirmed delivered with greater success. by Tine Radinja, mayor of Škofja Loka, who says that while making the youth field • Consideration should be given to drafting special programming and financial one of the tasks of municipalities is a positive move, the necessary mechanisms do ory and Pr mechanisms to encourage municipalities to develop youth policies that bolster have to be set up, including financial mechanisms, as municipalities often finance the local youth policy development. entirety of youth policy measures from their own funds (interview, 9 April 2021); only then can municipalities begin to think about young people and youth policy as being een The • As participation is a key feature of good youth policy, steps must be taken to ensure tw among their compulsory tasks. Of course, while views on this differ, it is undeniable that young people are able to take part in the creation and delivery of public policy, s Be that ‘it is financial resources, if provided by central government, that would encourage for example by participating and helping to make decisions in bodies set up to municipalities to begin to address this area in a more comprehensive way, or begin to Mile draft regulations, and in structures that indirectly or directly oversee their delivery. invest more funds and do so more quickly’ (Tadej Beočanin, interview, 15 April 2021). • To improve inter-sectoral cooperation, youth coordinators should be appointed to Key players at national level are also aware of the need to strengthen cooperation ministries with a clear set of tasks and responsibilities, and organisational, human between national and local levels. The National Youth Council points out that youth resource and management support secured so as to enable them to carry out policy can only be effective if it is carried out in close cooperation between national those tasks smoothly. and local authorities, and that the two levels must determine a systemic arrangement • It would also make sense to organise regular training in the fields of youth, youth of the powers and obligations of municipalities in the management and financing of policy and youth work for public officials at all levels who deal with the youth field youth work and policies (National Youth Council of Slovenia, 2020). The awareness of in the course of their work. the need for closer cooperation between national and local authorities also prompted the creation of the ‘Rastimo skupaj’ (Growing Together) project. This is carried out by the Office for Youth and National Youth Council together, and aims to integrate and strengthen municipalities’ capacities to develop youth policy successfully. The Europe Goes Local project, which is designed to develop youth work at local level and is led by the MOVIT Institute for the Development of Youth Mobility, is also part of these efforts, as is the Youth-Friendly Municipality Certificate, which is administered by the Institute for Youth Policy (Inštitut za mladinsko politiko). References National Youth Council of Slovenia (n.d.). Mladinski dialog (Youth Dialogue). https://mss.si/ projekti/strukturirani-dialog/ Cink, B. (2016). Mladinska politika v Sloveniji (Youth Policy in Slovenia, undergraduate thesis). Nico, M. (2017). ‘A primary look at secondary data – CSYP in official documents’. In Nico, M., https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/Dokument.php?id=92800&lang=slv Taru, M., Potočnik, D. and Salikau, A. (eds.), Needles in Haystacks: Finding a Way Forward Coalition Agreement (2008). https://www.zares.si/wp-content/uploads/koalicijska_pogodba- for Cross-Sectoral Youth Policy (pp. 33–43). Strasbourg: Council of Europe and European 2008-11-06.pdf Commission. Communication from the Commission – Europe 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable Office for Youth (2005). Strategija Urada RS za mladino na področju mladinske politike do leta and Inclusive Growth (2010). COM(2010) 2020 final, 3 March. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ 2010 (Strategy for Youth in the Field of Youth Policy Until 2010). Internal material. Ljubljana: legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52010DC2020 Office of the Republic of Slovenia for Youth. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act (Zakon o javnem interesu v mladinskem sektorju, ZJIMS) Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – An EU Strategy for (2010). Adopted by the National Assembly, effective from 12 June. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis. Youth: Investing and Empowering – A Renewed Open Method of Coordination to Address web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO5834 Youth Challenges and Opportunities (2009). COM(2009) 200 final, 27 April. https://eur-lex. Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act (Draft) (Predlog Zakona o javnem interesu v mladinskem europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0200:FIN:EN:PDF sektorju, ZJIMS) (2010). Slovenian government to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. https://eur-lex. 11 March, First reading. https://imss.dz-rs.si/IMiS/ImisAdmin.nsf/ImisnetAgent?Ope- europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT nAgent&2&DZ-MSS-01/d5e8d2e7ab776281c589c9a53e1da52c5b872fe47d6568ceb- Council of Europe (2021). Self-Assessment Tool for Youth Policy. https://rm.coe.int/self-assess- c1bf2e5c0c2589d ment-tool-for-youth-policy-english/16808d76c5 Rakar, T., Deželan, T., Vrbica, S. Š., Kolarič, Z., Črnak Meglič, A. and Nagode, M. (2011). Civilna Council of Europe (n.d.). Youth Department of the Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/ družba v Sloveniji (Civil Society in Slovenia). Ljubljana: Uradni list Republike Slovenije. web/youth/home Report on the draft Youth Councils Act (ZMS) (2000) (Poročilo k predlogu zakona o mladinskih Council of Europe (2020). Council of Europe Youth Sector Strategy 2030. CM/Res (2020)2, 22 svetih (ZMS)). Odbor za notranjo politiko in pravosodje Državnega zbora RS/National January. https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=0900001680998935 Assembly Committee on the Interior and Justice. Reading – fast-track report https://www. Council of the European Union (2009). Council Resolution on a Renewed Framework for e dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/zakonodaja/izbran/!ut/p/z1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMA- European Cooperation in the Youth Field (2010–2018). 2009/C 311/01. https://eur-lex.europa. fIjo8zivSy9Hb283Q0N3E3dLQwCQ7z9g7w8nAwsnMz1w9EUGAWZGgS6GDn5BhsYG- eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009G1219(01) actic wQHG-pHEaPfAAdwNCBOPx4FUfiNL8gNDQ11VFQEAAXcoa4!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9n- Council of the European Union (2018). Council Resolution: European Union Youth Strategy QSEh/?uid=C12565D400354E68C12568FF002D2D09&db=kon_zak&mandat=II&tip=doc 2019–2027. 2018/C 456/01. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=O- Resolution on the National Youth Programme 2013–2022 (Resolucija o Nacionalnem programu za J:C:2018:456:FULL&from=EN mladino 2013–2022, ReNPM13–22) (2013). Adopted by the National Assembly, effective from Debeljak, P. (2009). ‘Mladina’ (Youth). In Kajnč, S. and Lajh, D. (eds.), Evropska unija od A do Ž ory and Pr 30 October. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=RESO93# (European Union from A to Ž) (pp. 233–236). Ljubljana: Uradni list Republike Slovenije. Siurala, L. (2006). A European Framework for Youth Policy. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Denstad, F. Y. (2009). Youth Policy Manual: How to Develop a National Youth Strategy. Strasbourg: een The Publishing. Council of Europe Publishing. tw Student Association Act (Zakon o skupnosti študentov) (1994). Adopted by the National Assembly, Deželan, T. (2020). Vmesna evalvacija Nacionalnega programa za mladino v letih effective from 15 July. http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO346 2017–2019 (Interim Evaluation of the National Youth Programme 2017–2019). s Be Škulj, J. (2016). Prispevki k zgodovini razvoja mladinskega sektorja (Contributions to the History of http://84.39.218.201/MANDAT20/VLADNAGRADIVA.NSF/18a6b9887c33a0bd- Mile the Development of the Youth Sector). Ljubljana: MOVIT. c12570e50034eb54/71a9020e21e01b40c12585fc002a93f5/$FILE/EvalvacijaNPM.pdf Taru, M. (2017). ‘Integrated youth policy – Riding the wave of cross-sectoralism’. In Nico, M., Eberhard, L. (2002). The Council of Europe and Youth. Thirty Years of Experience. Strasbourg: Taru, M., Potočnik, D. and Salikau, A. (eds.), Needles in Haystacks: Finding a Way Forward Council of Europe Publishing. for Cross-Sectoral Youth Policy (pp. 33–43). Strasbourg: Council of Europe and European European Commission (2001). White Paper – A New Impetus for European Youth. COM (2001) Commission. 0681. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52001DC0681 Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Kuhar, M. and Leskošek, V. (2008). ‘Mladinsko delo na lokalni ravni: primerjalna analiza petih (consolidated versions). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uris- držav’ (Youth work at the local level: a comparative analysis of five countries). Socialna erv%3AOJ.C_.2016.202.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AC%3A2016%3A202%3ATOC pedagogika, 12 (4), pp. 325–344. http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-QFOVRRP7/ United Nations (2010). World Programme of Action for Youth. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/ d45b6deb-ebb8-4a6f-96b7-1338e253238c/PDF unyin/documents/wpay2010.pdf National Youth Council of Slovenia (2010). Programski dokument Mladinskega sveta Slovenije United Nations (2013). United Nations System-Wide Action Plan on Youth (report). https://www. ‘Mladinsko organiziranje’ (Programming Document of the National Youth Council of Slovenia: un.org/development/desa/youth/wpcontent/uploads/sites/21/2018/02/Youth-SWAP.pdf Youth Organising) http://mss.si/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/organiziranje_web.pdf Williamson, H. (2002). Supporting Young People in Europe: Principles, Policy and Practice. National Youth Council of Slovenia (2020). Ocena Mladinskega sveta Slovenije o izvajanju Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Nacionalnega programa za mladino 2013–2022 v letih 2017–2019 (Assessment of the Youth Councils Act (Zakon o mladinskih svetih, ZMS) (2000). Adopted by the National Assembly, National Youth Council of Slovenia on the implementation of the National Youth Programme effective from 16 August. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO2614 2013–2022 in the 2017–2019 Period). http://84.39.218.201/MANDAT20/VLADNAGRADIVA. Youth Partnership, Partnership between the European Commission and the Council of Europe NSF/18a6b9887c33a0bdc12570e50034eb54/71a9020e21e01b40c12585fc002a93f5/$FILE/ in the Field of Youth (2019). Youth Policy Essentials. Strasbourg: Council of Europe and OcenaMSS.pdf European Commission. Tiger The Development and Position of the Slovenian Office for Paper Chapter 2 Youth Andraž Zgonc Tin Kampl Tomaž Deželan of the Office of good youth policy. The explicitly cross-sectoral character of that policy also makes it imperative that we know precisely which entity is responsible for the youth field for Key milestones in the development National authority in the field of youth policy A clearly defined and established public authority is one of the key requirements Youth within the structure of the state and for acting as coordinator between different de- partments, the aim being to ensure that the goals of youth policy are realised in a 1991 balanced and concerted manner. In Slovenia this role has been assigned to the Office : Office for Youth founded for Youth (Urad RS za mladino, URSM), which is the central institutionalised entity for 1994 youth policy in Slovenia. : Student Association Act The institutional development of youth policy in Slovenia has passed through sev- 2000: eral phases over the last three decades, with each phase building on the one before. Youth Councils Act That development can be regarded as having started in 1991 with the establishment 2009 of the Office for Youth as the state body responsible for youth policy. However, for : Government Council for Youth founded most of its existence the Office had no adequate grounding in law that would have 2010: Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act enabled it to make a more decisive contribution to the development of an institution- alised youth policy — a situation that was not rectified until nearly 20 years later with 2013: Resolution on the National Youth Programme the adoption of the Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act (Zakon o javnem interesu v mladinskem sektorju, 2010). This law, which has been instrumental in enabling 2013–2022 youth policy to develop to its current dimensions, was the first time the youth field in Slovenia had seen any type of comprehensive legal regulation. As the central youth policy institution in Slovenia, the Office for Youth is important not only because it performs key tasks and functions, but also because it exerts an impact on the social and political environment of the country. That impact is a con- er Tiger tinuous one, since the Office is part of an environment that includes representatives of young people as a social group as well as civil society youth organisations. In Pap addition to surveying the interests of young people and parlaying them into public policies in other areas, the Office ensures that youth policy occupies a stable position within the established legislative framework (which is also to some extent conditional upon whether the Office itself is stable and suitably positioned in terms of content, expertise, organisation and finances). This chapter examines in detail the position of the Office for Youth as the central youth policy institution tasked with realising the public interest in the youth sector at national level. Some of its tasks also provide an insight into how the public interest in that sector is realised in practice. Formulation of the role and tasks of the Office for Youth The Office for Youth is the central government authority responsible for the youth field ― or, more specifically, for ensuring that the public interest in the youth sector is realised at national level. Since its establishment in 1991 ‘as a consequence of the debate on the youth councils act’, which failed to be adopted at that time (Janez Škulj, interview, 16 April 2021),1 it has operated as an authority affiliated to the ministry responsible for education. This was the role envisaged for it in the Organisation and Area of Work of the Republic Administration Act passed in June 1991 by the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, which instructed the Office to ‘carry out tasks relating to the organisation of youth camps and voluntary work, contacts with non-party-affiliat- youth-related activities’ (Organisation and Area of Work of the Republic Administration change in the level of commitment required and the drafting of the measures that Act, 1991, Article 22). ultimately brought these changes about. They included the establishment of the Slo- An authority responsible for the youth field was therefore first established within venian Government Council for Youth (Svet Vlade RS za mladino, SVM), the drafting a state administration setting in 1991. Its tasks were focused largely on the man- and adoption of the Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act, and the preparation of the agement of or participation in established state measures and activities in the youth Resolution on the National Youth Programme 2013–2022 (Resolucija o Nacionalnem field ― that is to say, it was less interested in the issue of development. However, the programu za mladino 2013–2022, ReNPM13–22, 2013). These milestones today con- establishment of the Office for Youth should be understood primarily in terms of the stitute the main building blocks for the institutional regulation of youth policy and the perceived importance, at that time, of inserting youth-related issues into the work of youth sector in Slovenia, and have, in turn, transformed the Office’s tasks in terms of central government, and of setting up a competent authority that could be developed the relationship between vertical and horizontal youth policy. The public interest act over the years and gain additional recognition and responsibilities. Indeed, its tasks sees the youth sector as the primary domain of the Office, and sets out the process did change in this direction over time, most notably in response to the provisions by which youth policy in the broader sense is to be formulated and delivered (Public of the Decree on Administrative Authorities Within Ministries, which were adopted Interest in the Youth Sector Act, 2010, Article 3), chiefly from the point of view of the around ten years after the Office was founded. These provisions instructed the Office Office’s responsibility for coordinating the preparation, delivery and evaluation of the to perform tasks ‘relating to the planning and delivery of measures in the field of youth national programme. policy, to the implementation of social policies for children and young people, and Among other things, the Office for Youth promotes processes of non-formal learn- to schooling and non-formal education, leisure activities, culture, public information ing with the aim of better equipping young people with the skills they need to pass and international cooperation in these areas’ (Decree on Administrative Authorities from childhood to adulthood, and is also responsible for the establishment and growth Within Ministries, 2003, Article 15). of mechanisms of support for youth organisations and organisations for young people Since 2015, that Decree has tasked the Office with performing expert, adminis- — mechanisms that are seen as vitally important to active youth participation. Simi- trative, organisational and developmental work in the youth sector; monitoring the larly, in cooperation with other central government bodies and local communities, it position of young people and the impact of measures in the youth sector; overseeing monitors the position of young people and the impact of measures designed for them the implementation of regulations and measures in the youth sector; participating with the aim of incorporating young people’s needs and interests into the formulation in youth-related matters at international level; and performing other work laid down of other public policies, and carries out expert, organisational and administrative tasks by the law governing the youth sector (Decree on Administrative Authorities Within for the Government Council for Youth. Ministries, 2015, Article 8). The best synthesis of the functions of the Office as a er Tiger The Office for Youth is therefore responsible for developing youth policy and youth state-level administrative body responsible for taking an integrated approach to the Pap work in Slovenia. Since youth policy and youth work take place in an arena that en-regulation of youth policy and the youth sector in Slovenia is probably to be found in ables young people to develop their potential, it employs a variety of measures to the sectoral Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act (2010), Article 7 of which defines promote and develop youth organisation and the participation of young people in the tasks of the Office as being to draft regulations and measures in the youth sector, societal processes; it also actively participates in the competent bodies of the EU, provide financial support to youth programmes and programmes for young people, the Council of Europe and other international alliances concerned with the position ensure that youth sector regulations and measures are implemented (and oversee that of young people, and ensures, through international cooperation, that the goals of implementation), monitor the position of young people and the impact of measures youth policy are realised through the strengthening of the youth sector in Slovenia. in the youth sector, work with competent authorities and other youth sector enti- As the competent national authority, the Office oversees the implementation of the ties, represent the country in European Union and Council of Europe bodies and on Erasmus+: Youth in Action and European Solidarity Corps programmes, which are youth-related matters at international level, and perform other tasks mandated by law. led by the national agency that operates within Zavod MOVIT, a non-governmental As this overview shows, there have also been changes over time to the way the organisation. The importance of the Office in providing young people with informa- Office for Youth’s work addresses the narrower and wider contexts of youth policy. tion can also be seen from the establishment of the mlad.si portal in 2010, which is The initial tight focus on individual measures and activities designed for young people, evidence of the ambition to set up a central online information point for young people which tended to exclude a broader consideration of what youth policy might entail, within a national youth communications hub. Today, the Office’s tasks relate chiefly to the youth sector, although we should again Regulation of the status of the Office for gradually gave way to an approach that sought to include other areas and fields. Youth regard this in both its broader and narrower senses if we wish to come to a fuller un- and the legislative framework for youth derstanding of the Office’s role and position. Indeed, the name of the Office for Youth As we have already seen, the Office for Youth was established and has operated and its designated tasks often led to its role being somewhat misunderstood. From throughout as a body affiliated to the ministry responsible for education. Ministry-af- arising from the publication of administrative acts, mainly decisions and resolutions, younger adolescents (those aged between 14 and 16); older adolescents (those who in public tender procedures and in procedures for deciding on the granting of public have reached the age of 16 but are not yet 18); and young adults, who are over the interest status to organisations. age of 18 and have committed a criminal offence as an adult, but who have not yet Since the founding of the Office in 1991, debates have taken place on a range reached the age of 21. The Code of Obligations and the Marriage and Family Relations of dilemmas that have never been properly and comprehensively resolved; these Act (1977) are the two main pieces of civil legislation with relevance to young people. include the issue of whether an education ministry is the right setting for the Office, Both provide that a person acquires partial legal and business capacity at 15 and with several entities and individuals within the youth work sector (particularly those full legal and business capacity at 18 (although they may acquire full legal capacity active predominantly in other fields, such as employment, social affairs, health and earlier if they marry or become a parent). The Employment Relationships Act (2013) culture, that nevertheless have a bearing on the youth sector) arguing that it changes provides that a young person may sign an employment contract when they reach the the strategic focus of youth work and therefore the purpose of that work. Others have age of 15, and that any contract signed before that age is null and void. highlighted dilemmas connected to the Office’s powers, or whether it can play a mean- The State Administration Act lays down the conditions under which ministry-af- ingful horizontal youth policy role. Their arguments focus on the fact that, because filiated bodies are established, and provides that administrative tasks shall be per- it is located within a single ministry, it is unable to foster successful inter-sectoral formed by ministries, ministry-affiliated bodies and administrative units. Under that coordination of youth policy that goes beyond its home ministry. law, ministry-affiliated bodies are founded for the purpose of performing specialised These dilemmas have led to the formulation of several different ideas on how the expert tasks, executive and development administrative tasks, inspection tasks, and position of a national authority responsible for youth might be regulated; these have other tasks and forms of oversight in areas designated as public services if this en- ranged from the creation of a special ministry for youth or the establishment of an sures that tasks are thereby performed more effectively and to a higher standard, or office directly at government level, with the aim of increasing political recognition if a greater degree of professional independence in the performance of tasks needs of the field, to the setting-up of an independent agency to ensure a greater level of to be secured because of the nature of the tasks or the area of work involved. While professionalism, particularly in the development of youth work. While none of these the establishment of the Office for Youth led to a special role being granted to the alternatives have been the subject of serious consideration, perhaps the most sig- youth sector, youth organisations and youth work generally, we cannot argue that it nificant step came in 2014 during Alenka Bratušek’s government, when the prime assigned a special role to young people as a target group; this is chiefly because the minister threw her weight behind a proposal to reorganise the Office by moving it from task of realising the interests and objectives of the youth field has remained within the position of a ministry-affiliated body to that of a government-level office, which the domain of the respective line ministries. was made on this proposal, but we should note that, had it become a government Pap Co-management of youth policy and the role would have led to the appointment of a state secretary for youth affairs. No progress er Tiger service, the Office would likely not have been able to perform one of its central tasks: of the Government Council for Youth that of assessing whether applicants are entitled to acquire the status of an organi- Although youth participation is not explicitly determined as one of its central func- sation operating in the public interest. tions, the Office for Youth has been a key factor in promoting and strengthening it One of the key challenges that has accompanied the Office for Youth since its over the years. This is a two-way process, as the Office has also evolved in response inception, that of ensuring a suitable legal basis for its own work and that of the to the impact that the environment has had on it. The participation of youth sector youth sector generally, has rendered certain urgent systemic changes impossible in organisations, which played an important role in the Office’s establishment and sub- the past. One such example is its Strategy for Youth in the Field of Youth Policy Until sequent development, has been at the forefront of this process. These organisations 2010 (Strategija Urada RS za mladino na področju mladinske politike do leta 2010), have therefore never perceived the Office as being a state body on the ‘opposing’ side; which was an attempt to create a strategic document to determine the priorities and rather, they have generally embraced it and seen it as a partner, and even in some goals of the youth sector. However, because of the lack of any legal basis, it could not cases as an ‘extended arm’ when it comes to advocating for the interests of young acquire anything more than the status of an ‘internal’ Office document. people and youth sector organisations in their dealings with political decision-makers. One significant piece of legislation associated with the Office is the Public Interest It is precisely because of this interconnection and interaction (which has, of course, in the Youth Sector Act of 2010. As its name suggests, it defines the public interest in been more pronounced at some points than others) that the promotion and realisation the youth sector and the method by which that public interest is realised. It defines of participation of youth sector stakeholders has been such an integral part of the young people as all adolescents and young adults of both sexes aged between 15 Office’s work over the years. and 29, and contains provisions defining the youth sector, the status of youth organ- Management of the youth policy field jointly with youth and youth sector represent- isations, the procedure of providing financial support, and national awards. It also atives was already an important part of the Office’s remit in the 1990s, when moves established the Office for Youth as the public authority responsible for the youth field were made to study how the youth field was co-managed at the Council of Europe. within the Office’s domain, such as the co-financing of youth work programmes; in that basis for the adoption of a national youth programme, which has subsequently be- respect, it was the predecessor of today’s Government Council for Youth (although come the strongest institutional tool that Slovenian youth policy and the Office for the scope of the latter’s operations exceeds that of the Joint Commission, which was Youth possess. It also provided a broad and relatively precise basis for the drafting restricted to the competencies covered by the Office). and implementation of the National Youth Programme by defining the elements of The Government Council for Youth was set up following a founding decision adopt- the programme, the role of the entity in charge of drafting the programme (the min- ed by the Slovenian government in 2009, although it was not provided with a legal istry, in collaboration with youth sector organisations), the various responsibilities grounding for its work until the adoption of the Public Interest in the Youth Sector involved, and the method employed to monitor delivery of the programme. There Act (on which the Government Council supplied its opinion at the time). Following was also a wide-ranging public discussion that accompanied the adoption of the its establishment, a number of different ideas were put forward by representatives National Youth Programme and took place at the Government Council for Youth, at of youth sector organisations ― specifically, that since the Government Council for regional presentations across Slovenia, at the National Assembly, and at the public Youth was the representative body for young people generally, in contrast to the Gov- presentation of opinions involving representatives of youth sector organisations. ernment Council for Student Affairs (Svet Vlade RS za študentska vprašanja), it would The public interest act provides that the government is to present an interim report be worth considering making the latter a working group within the former. However, on the delivery of the National Youth Programme to the National Assembly every this idea did not meet with support. The law and the founding decision established three years, to give youth organisations the opportunity to express their opinion on the Government Council for Youth as a government advisory body comprising gov- how well it has been implemented. The drafting of this opinion is to be coordinated ernment representatives and representatives of youth sector organisations in equal by the National Youth Council; contributions to that process have, in the past, come numbers. These representatives were nominated by the organisations themselves, from a range of organisations, including the Slovenian Student Union (Študentska and appointed during proceedings conducted by the National Youth Council and the organizicija Slovenije), the MaMa Youth Network, Nefiks, the Slovenian Rural Youth MaMa Youth Network. Ministry representatives originally came from the ministries Association (Zveza slovenske podeželske mladine) and others. The drafting of the of agriculture, the interior and education, but this gradually widened to include rep- national programme significantly reinforced the desire to raise the profile of youth resentatives of the areas of public administration, labour and the family, culture, the work and youth organisations, and to increase the visibility of investment in young environment and spatial planning, health and cohesion policy, as well as from the people by various stakeholders, where this visibility was lacking before. prime minister’s office and the Office for Youth. This enabled a broad range of areas The Social Protection Institute (Inštitut RS za socialno varstvo) was enlisted to relevant to young people to be covered. assist in the monitoring of the National Youth Programme, which was regarded as a Over the course of its existence, the Government Council for Youth has set up er Tiger key task. The Office for Youth took this decision because it felt that the Institute had, (as well as abolished) several working groups, including groups for traineeships, ap- Pap through its various projects, demonstrated considerable knowledge of the youth field prenticeships, the monitoring of the National Youth Programme, quality assurance in and a desire to expand its area of work to include it; it also expected synergies to be youth work, youth policies and digital transformation. It has also provided a forum for achieved in this field, as the Institute had already set up the Children’s Observatory several interesting ideas ― for example, the introduction of a ‘youth euro’ along the following the adoption of the Programme for Children and Young People (Program lines of the ‘bencinski tolar’,2 the establishment of a youth foundation and a ministry za otroke in mladino). This was not, however, a youth programme per se, as its upper of youth affairs ― but has also encountered challenges along the way. Tea Jarc has age limit was 18 years, in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The criticised its work mainly in terms of the fact that it ‘instrumentalises’ the role of young Office therefore saw an opportunity to create a ‘youth observatory’ to monitor the people within the organisation (interview, 20 April 2021): position of young people, a process that was not yet on a systematic footing but had This is precisely an example of this tokenism that we see. The Government Council been addressed in research studies or through the general monitoring of the youth for Youth could work to ensure that young people are included in all decision-mak- field. It attempted to bring this idea to fruition in other ways as well, for example by ing processes. But again, we see that they do not [...] Decisions are taken as ends in amending the founding act of the Educational Research Institute (Pedagoški inštitut) themselves and then not even implemented [...] Again, it’s some kind of empty struc- and including these tasks in the annual work plan. However, this objective has not ture that seems to exist for itself rather than attempting to make a real contribution yet been achieved. to change in the field. The youth policy audit conducted by the Slovenian Court of Audit in 2016 was Main topics and events addressed by the Office another important milestone in the Office’s history, and signalled the relevance of for youth policy to central government’s other fields of public policy. However, despite Youth the Office’s best efforts, the outcomes of the audit were not implemented fully or in With its comprehensive regulation of youth policy and the youth sector, the Public accordance with the expectations of sectoral stakeholders, as there was a perception Interest in the Youth Sector Act represented something of a turning point when it that the auditors had failed to properly understand the specific role of the Office and that did not take the necessary steps towards achieving the objectives). Similarly, their basic starting points. This area has also gained in importance in recent years, some of the expectations, such as the financial evaluation of funds intended for the as studies of the position of young people in Slovenia (e.g. Mladina 2010 [Youth 2010] youth population, were discriminatory in comparison with the treat- and Mladina 2020 [Youth 2020]) show. ment given to some other policies or population groups (no The fact that non-formal education does not lead to a publicly recognised certifi- such financial processes were required for the elderly, cate is a problem that organisations have acknowledged for some time, their argument for example). being that young people need to be provided with a proper record of the non-formal Non-formal education has been one of education they have undertaken. One advocate of this initiative is the Nefiks non-gov- the Office for Youth’s core fields of operation ernmental organisation, which has been financially supported by the Office for Youth since the beginning. Its importance can be since fairly early on. Other initiatives arose subsequently in Slovenia and Europe that traced through the various initiatives and coincided with the adoption of the National Vocational Qualifications Act (Zakon o documents produced by the Office over nacionalnih poklicnih kvalifikacijah), which brought formal and non-formal education the years, such as the public call for the together and enabled individuals to obtain a public national vocational qualification co-financing of youth programmes, (NVQ) certificate for the profession they performed but for which they did not have where youth sector organisations the necessary publicly accredited public education. This was made possible by a are steered towards preparing youth vocational standard that was the same for programmes of vocational and profes- work programmes that include sional education and for NVQs. For the Office, individuals performing youth work non-formal education as one of that was not properly valued or recognised were being placed at a disadvantage. The National Youth Programme therefore prioritised ‘the establishment of a national education and training system for youth workers and youth leaders’ (Resolution on the National Youth Programme 2013–2022, 2013) by inserting it in priority sub-area 1 in the field of education. In 2016 an initiative was drawn up in collaboration with representatives of the Institute for Vocational Education and Training (Center RS za poklicno izobraževanje) to create a vocational standard for youth workers. The initiative proceeded from the fact that profession of youth worker did actually er Tiger exist on the labour market (indeed, at that time the Office received a letter from around Pap 30 municipalities in support of the introduction of a vocational qualification for youth workers) and that it was not possible to obtain a vocational qualification in any other way. Steps also had to be taken to resolve the dilemma of whether the introduction of an NVQ would also entail regulation of the profession, i.e. every individual who wished to pursue this profession would have to obtain the prescribed education for it. This was never the Office’s intention; instead, it wished to see preparation of the vocational standard and the introduction of checks to ensure that the requirements for obtaining the qualification remained within the domain of representatives of the sector. In concrete terms, this meant that the youth sector would prepare the voca- tional standard as the basis for obtaining the qualification, while checks to ensure that the requirements for awarding qualifications were met would be performed by licensed and experienced youth workers. Since the introduction of this system, the number of recipients of youth worker training certificates has grown. The NVQ for youth workers is also an important element in the set of formalised tools for developing high-quality youth work, not only within the context of identifying and recognising non-formal knowledge and building an identity for or affiliation to the youth sector, but also in terms of setting quality standards. The qualification is a result of cooperation between a broad circle of youth sector stakeholders who came together in response to the need for greater recognition for youth work and, at the Reflections and opportunities for future development stresses that ‘it’s not so important where an institution is; I think it’s more important what role it is granted, how much funding is earmarked for it, how many employees it As we have seen, monitoring youth populations, youth work, the youth sector and has, i.e. how much power it has, how much is invested in it’ (interview, 15 April 2021). youth sector organisations, and addressing issues relating to them, have been impor- Tine Radinja agrees, and highlights the importance of providing sufficient funding to tant elements of the Office’s work. The Office should also be viewed as an entity that the Office (interview, 9 April 2021), while Peter Debeljak is convinced that, in principle, opens space for cooperation within the youth field and with other sectoral policies, institutional engineering makes no difference. ‘You could be the super-ministry in leads structured dialogue (‘a key project and one through which the Office has opened charge of galactic affairs […] but if you don’t have the potentials, i.e. the human and quite a few doors’ according to Barbara Zupan, interview, 21 April 2021), and fosters financial resources and the political support, and if there’s no momentum to help you activism on the part of youth organisations, particularly the umbrella organisations, open a window of opportunity, then it’s not going to help’ (interview, 10 May 2021). which then allows them to place the challenges facing the young onto the public These resources can also be obtained by carrying out additional tasks, for example policy agenda or exert additional pressure on certain bodies and authorities (Dolores by managing public programmes, that in some other systems are performed either by Kores, interview, 18 May 2021). public agencies or organisations with government office status (this is true of national Although the Office’s institutional position has not changed a great deal in its 30- and international programmes alike). This arrangement would help programmes to year history (it remains an administrative authority within the Ministry of Education), retain their identity and their sensitivity to the specifics of the youth sector. the idea of placing it directly under the prime minister has led to lively debate. This The Office’s political reality is that it is, to a degree, subject to the whims of politi- could improve the Office’s position in terms of the performance of horizontal youth cians and the level of interest they have in addressing the challenges faced by young policy tasks, as it would ‘make it quite a bit easier for it to achieve the impact it should people and the youth sector — an honest assessment would be that it suits some be achieving as the coordinator of youth policy at national level’ (Tadej Beočanin, actors within and outside the sector to have a weak Office for Youth. This, and the fact interview, 15 April 2021), something that Uroš Skrinar also points out when says that that the impacts of a high-quality youth policy tend to appear mainly over the long ‘social changes and the specifics of young people have made [the current position of term, i.e. beyond the bounds of a single parliamentary term, calls for well-considered the Office] out of date’ (interview, 7 May 2021). Although a similar discussion of the and strategic management from the Office capable of addressing the agenda of every Office’s position did not take place to the same extent before the Bratušek government, context as it arises, at the same time retaining the core areas of strategic focus. The and has not done so since, reservations about the suitability of its current position steps set out below are an attempt to show how this might be possible. remain. In the opinion of some, ‘the Office for Youth is a paper tiger within the edu- cation ministry and is absolutely not structured in a way that would allow it to foster Looking towards the future the development of youth work and youth policy’ (Tea Jarc, interview, 20 April 2021). er Tiger If that claim is perhaps too harsh, many people are agreed that the Office for Youth To optimise the work of the Office for Youth, an evaluation should be made of its highlighted stagnation at the Office, which finds it difficult to oversee such a wide field Youth’s financial and human resources must be properly strengthened; this will have a beneficial impact on the planning and delivery of the national youth programme as youth and perform the role of generator of development in the field because of the and other key tasks. This might also be done by assigning to the Office some of the limited financial and human resources available to it. Beočanin points out that ‘the tasks that are currently performed by public agencies. Office for Youth needs to be empowered and given extra staff who have daily contact To make youth policy more relevant, the Office for Youth must, in addition to the with [key] ministries in line with its coordinating function’ (interview, 15 April 2021). changes in its powers and responsibilities outlined above, acquire greater recognition Financing, staffing and intellectual capacity are therefore among the Office’s most as the central Slovenian government authority in this field. This could consolidate its pressing issues, and it is currently unable to develop youth policy with any consistency, role as inter-sectoral coordinator and as a link between national and local levels. This despite its role as inter-departmental coordinator. ‘We can’t do much more because could also be achieved by increasing its capacity to carry out analyses either on its we simply don’t have the capacity, or else we actually don’t have the power to begin young people themselves. This leads us to the question of whether it is still capable and with its basic mission as the national authority in the youth field, the Office’s pow- ers in both vertical and horizontal youth policy should be clearly and expertly defined. of discharging its role to a sufficient level of quality, or whether solutions for the youth If the complexity of youth policy is to be adequately addressed, the Office for sector should be sought elsewhere or in another way. Some of our interviewees have is currently too weak to confront the challenges faced by the youth sector and by current position and powers; then, in accordance with the findings of the evaluation Pap developing it at this stage’ (Dolores Kores, interview, 18 May 2021). One of the main own or in partnership with research institutions. The Office for Youth should formulate a clear operating strategy, in collaboration problems that arises here concerns other actors in the sector with considerably more with the youth sector, and pursue it through successive government terms. It should human resource capacities and the power to allocate funds to organisations, which provide a link between the national public policy agenda and European and local indirectly gives them the role of policymakers in the public youth field. This can lead agendas in a proactive and structured way. This will reduce its tendency to ‘react’ to to a lack of any kind of democratic or administrative accountability in the case of ideas introduced into the youth field ― a tendency that, despite the best intentions, private legal entities, which generally pursue the interests of their founders and are only adds to the entropy. not obliged to take the public interest into account. References Criminal Code (Kazenski zakonik, KZ-1 – NPB11) (2008). Adopted by the National Assembly, effective from 1 November. http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO5050# Decree on Administrative Authorities within Ministries (Uredba o organih v sestavi ministrstev) (2003). Adopted by the Slovenian government, effective from 3 July. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis. web/pregledPredpisa?id=URED2949 Decree on Administrative Authorities within Ministries (Uredba o organih v sestavi ministrstev) (2015). Adopted by the Slovenian government, effective from 6 June. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis. web/pregledPredpisa?id=URED6985 Employment Relationships Act (Zakon o delovnih razmerjih, ZDR-1) (2013). Adopted by the National Assembly, effective from 12 April. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPred- pisa?id=ZAKO5944 Lavrič, M. and Deželan, T. (eds.) (2021). Mladina 2020 : položaj mladih v Sloveniji (Youth 2020: Position of Young People in Slovenia), 1st edition. Maribor: Univerza v Mariboru, Univerzitetna založba; Založba Univerze v Ljubljani, 2021. Marriage and Family Relations Act (Zakon o zakonski zvezi in družinskih razmerjih, ZZZDR) (1977). Adopted by the Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, effective from 1 January. http:// pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO40 Organisation and Area of Work of the Republic Administration Act (Zakon o organizaciji in delovnem področju republiške uprave, ZODP) (1991). Adopted by the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, effective from 28 June. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPred- pisa?id=ZAKO195 Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act (Zakon o javnem interesu v mladinskem sektorju, ZJIMS) (2010). Adopted by the National Assembly, effective from 12 June. http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/ pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO5834 Resolution on the National Youth Programme 2013–2022 (Resolucija o Nacionalnem programu za mladino 2013–2022, ReNPM13–22) (2013). Adopted by the National Assembly, effective from 24 October. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=RESO93 State Administration Act (Zakon o državni upravi, ZDU-1) (2002). Adopted by the National er Tiger Assembly, effective from 29 June. http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO3225 Pap A Bit of Chapter 3 a Mix The Youth Sector in Slovenia Tin Kampl Tomaž Deželan of the youth Key milestones in the development What is the youth sector? The Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act (Zakon o javnem interesu v mladinskem sector in Slovenia sektorju, Article 3) defines the youth sector as the field in which the process of formu- lating and implementing youth policies and youth work takes place. It then details, in 1990: National Youth the article following, the areas with which the youth sector is specifically concerned: Council of Slovenia founded the autonomy of young people, non-formal education and training, measures to in- 1991: Office for Youth crease young people’s skills, access to the labour market and the development of founded enterprise, provisions for young people with fewer opportunities in society, voluntary work, solidarity and intergenerational cooperation, mobility and international integra- 1997: Zavod MOVIT founded tion, healthy lifestyles and the prevention of various types of dependency among the 2000: young, access to cultural assets, the promotion of creativity and innovation, and the Youth Councils Act participation of young people in the governance of public affairs in society (Public 2005: Interest in the Youth Sector Act, Article 4). This law, adopted in 2010, gave the youth MaMa Youth Network founded sector in Slovenia legal status and recognised it as an area of public interest. This 2010: did two things: conferred general social visibility and validity, and provided a basis Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act for support from public authorities. 2013: The definition adopted in Slovenia is therefore somewhat wide, and follows the Resolution on the National Youth Programme 2013–2022 internationally established understanding of the youth sector: that it ‘refers to the areas in which youth activities are performed, usually specified in the general goals of the national youth strategy or other strategic document in the youth field’.1 In Slo- venia’s case, these areas are defined within the legislative framework itself, although they are, of course, complemented and set forth in more detail in the National Youth Programme (Nacionalni program za mladino, NPM). As the definition of the youth sector in the Glossary on Youth goes on to state: ‘Youth sector activity is organised by young people or youth policy actors, undertaken with the aim of improving the A Bit of a Mix position of young people and their empowerment for active participation for their own and for the benefit of the society. The youth sector is comprised of a diverse range of government institutions, non-government organisations, agencies, private practitioners, volunteers, programmes, services and other actors that work with young people or have been established to benefit young people.’ While the term ‘youth sector’ was in use internationally before it became estab- lished in Slovenia, it was known and used in practice here. Prior to its definition in law, it was deployed in a similar way to the term ‘non-governmental sector’, and referred mainly to organisations active in the youth field. Most of these organisations were linked, in terms of the substance of their work and via calls for tenders and applica- tions, to the operation of the Slovenian Office for Youth (Urad Republike Slovenije za mladino, URSM; see Baumkirher et al., 2012). The youth sector as we know it today was established and finally regulated with the adoption of the public interest act in 2010. This law clearly defined the terms, entities and responsibilities that had been, up to that point, more or less the product of established practice. Normative and substantive framework of the youth sector The Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act adopted a comprehensive definition it does address vertical youth policy (policy relating to the regulation of the youth which is the central information point for all young people and those who work with sector itself) more directly than it does horizontal youth policy. It defines the public young people in Slovenia. (3) The main achievement in the creation of capacities for interest of the state within the context of the provision of normative and other condi- high-quality youth work in recent years has been the adoption of the national vocation- tions for the development of fields of youth work, the inclusion of the youth aspect in al qualification for youth workers. In 2018 the Office began drawing up a framework strategies, policies and measures that have an impact on young people, and financial for this by establishing a special working group, holding consultations on the topic of support for youth programmes and programmes for young people, including support high-quality youth work and commencing the preparation of specialist background for youth infrastructure (Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act, Article 5).2 The role of documents; there are also regular annual youth sector consultations organised by the state in vertical youth policy is therefore more directly expressed, since the state the Office in collaboration with the National Youth Council, and other topic-specific is tasked with developing the youth sector and youth work by putting normative and consultations organised in collaboration with other youth sector organisations, such other conditions in place, particularly financial support and support for youth infra- as Zavod MOVIT. structure. In view of this, the state’s primary responsibility lies in securing sustainable The Office for Youth regularly monitors the development of youth sector infrastruc- support for youth work. ture and promotes it via a range of mechanisms. The most important measure in this The state also plays an important role in determining the actual boundaries of area was the 2008 public call for applications issued by the Ministry of Education, the youth sector through the Office for Youth. In addition to the provision of finan- Science and Sport (via the Office) to select operations for the co-financing of invest- cial support to youth programmes and programmes for young people, the activities ments in youth tourist infrastructure/youth centres, which supported investment directly deriving from the public interest act and imposed on the state also include projects in public youth infrastructure. Funds from the call were used to co-finance the granting of the status of organisation operating in the public interest in the youth the construction and extension of accommodation capacities at ten youth centres. sector and the awarding of prizes for achievements in the youth sector. The status of The Office carries out, participates in or supports various programmes and projects organisation operating in the public interest in the youth sector can be acquired by for ensuring the geographically balanced development of the youth sector and the those organisations that deliver youth programmes or programmes for young people development of youth policies at local level. The ‘Rastimo skupaj’ (Growing Together) on a regular basis, demonstrate significant achievements in the development and project, which it operates in collaboration with the National Youth Council, is another integration of youth work, and have the appropriate material and human resources for important contribution to efforts to promote the development of local youth policy. operation (Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act, Article 11), where the law differen- The Office also helps to strengthen the operations and network of youth councils tiates between youth organisations that meet the condition of having a predominant and centres through the activities it carries out itself and in cooperation with youth share of its membership and leadership made up of people aged 29 and under, and sector organisations. organisations for young people. The public interest act tasks the state with adopting The Office for Youth treats the promotion of youth participation and efforts to A Bit of a Mix the National Youth Programme as the central mechanism for realising the public in- strengthen permanent youth consultation mechanisms as priorities within the finan- terest in the youth sector, with the role of that programme being to define the priority cial mechanisms available to it, with a view to encouraging organisations to address tasks and measures in detail. The National Youth Programme 2013–2022 regulates adopt a systematic approach to this area. It also supports and actively participates the youth sector in detail in Area 5 (‘Young people, society and the importance of the in the implementation of Youth Dialogue in Slovenia, mechanism between young youth sector’), which also sets out the objectives by sub-area for the realisation of people and decision makers, and provides support to the National Youth Council, as the public interest in the youth sector. This area/section of the programme refers to the main entity responsible for the process in Slovenia, in addressing proposals put vertical youth policy and is not isolated from other areas, since, despite this, organi- forward by young people to political decision-makers in the course of consultations. sations in the youth sector carry out programmes in a number of different areas that Mobility in the youth sector is another important field of operation; in addition to have an impact on the lives of young people and are spread ‘horizontally’. facilitating the delivery of EU youth-related programmes in Slovenia via the national The state ensures that the objectives of the youth sector are realised through agency, the Office actively encourages youth organisations to apply for and carry the various mechanisms and activities of the Office for Youth: (1) The Office secures out projects within both programmes. It also promotes mobility via the European financial support by funding youth programmes and programmes for young people Youth Card, made possible by the signing of the Partial Agreement on Youth Mobility via public calls and invitations, and by obtaining resources from European structural Through the Youth Card at the Council of Europe. Operation of the card is managed funds. Of particular importance are the funding of the programme and operations by a non-governmental partner, the SLOAM Youth Agency. operations of the national agency (Zavod MOVIT) for the EU’s Erasmus+ and Euro- Youth sector as a space for supporting young people of the National Youth Council (Mladinski svet Slovenije, MSS) and support for the pean Solidarity Corps youth programmes, through which a large portion of the fund- and learning about democracy ing for youth-related projects is provided. (2) The Office operates the mlad.si portal, Being primarily aimed at young people, a special social group situated in the period and acquires the new knowledge, skills and experiences necessary for successful Within the wider democratic environment, the youth sector creates an important integration into society. The youth sector is also the space in which youth work is set of civic spaces, physical, virtual and legal, where people exercise their rights developed. The youth sector and youth work are mutually intertwined and comple- to free association, expression and peaceful assembly in order to solve problems mentary, which makes it difficult to imagine one without the other. and improve lives (Deželan et al., 2020). As a collection of youth organisations and To illustrate the position and importance of the youth sector for the individual and organisations for young people, the youth sector is particularly important in this for society as a whole, we can apply the concept of the ‘welfare triangle’, which clas- context, as it comprises organisations through which young people become in- sifies the youth sector as a sphere of civil society and places it within a social space volved in public life. Youth sector organisations are of special importance in and for located between the spheres of the state, the community and private life (Evers and the lives of young people because they are directed towards youth-focused topics. Laville, 2004; Pestoff, 1992). The sphere of civil society is characterised by the fact These organisations also place these topics on the public policy agenda and seek that, in some way, it contains the characteristics of all three spheres between which out innovative public policy solutions for them (ibid.). By employing a set of instru- it stands, and can be defined using the dimensions of non-profit (the organisation ments that enable young people to become involved in the public policy arena, youth does not divide the profit between its founders but returns it to the activity), private life sector organisations make a vital contribution to overcoming the hurdles to youth (separation from the state) and formality (separation from the informal community). representation in democratic life. The ‘legislative deficit’ (i.e. the problem of the It is in this position between the different spheres that the youth sector occupies absence of youth representation in law) is an important factor here, as the right to that we can also find links with young people or their position within everyday life vote, which is limited to those aged 18 and over and does not cover the entire youth (which also extends within all three spheres of society) and with the challenges that population, meaning that a portion of that population is ipso facto excluded from originate from them and that can be successfully addressed precisely within the the processes of democratic representation (Rakar et al., 2011). While some of the youth sector or the context of youth work. Within the welfare state, the youth sector is advocacy is assumed by parents, it is not possible to bring the specific aspirations responsible for various tasks that give added value to formal education, make it easier and needs of this generation into the public policy arena by that route. Organisations for young people to be integrated into society, help to strengthen active citizenship in the youth sector play a key role in ensuring that these obstacles are overcome among young people, and provide support to young people in their efforts to enter (ibid.). However, if this role is to be played successfully and the widest possible circle employment. The youth sector therefore constitutes an intermediate space of sorts of young people included (those who are involved in youth organisations as well in which the young person finds support and a space in which to bring their ideas as those who are not), youth sector organisations need broader recognition and into practice and become involved in society. The non-formal and informal education support from the community. The youth sector also makes an important contribu- and learning that take place within youth sector organisations and help young people tion to promoting democratic participation among young people who are already to find independence should not be overlooked. By becoming involved in non-formal entitled to vote and able to express their interests via the conventional channels of A Bit of a Mix education within youth organisations, young people can acquire five of the six skills representative democracy. However, it does not seem to view this path as one that most highly sought-after by employers (communication skills, decision-making skills, meets the interests of young people. Youth sector organisations have a key part to team-working skills, self-confidence and organisational skills, Souto-Otero et al., play here as well, as they are an instrument that provides an alternative to existing 2012), which complement formal education in important ways and help young people forms of youth representation, and one that overcomes the challenges of involving integrate into the jobs market more successfully. young people who are not attached in any formal way to the youth sector. Through its In addition to understanding the youth sector and youth work as providing an working methods and its established activities,3 the youth sector promotes various appropriate environment in which young people can develop (and lessening the chal- aspects of social activity (formal voluntary work, informal networks within the com- lenges that young people face as a result of being caught between the three spheres munity, informal political action, altruism, various forms of community engagement, of society), we should also see it as a field in which democracy is learned. Youth sector etc.), thereby cultivating youth participation as a process of integration into society organisations proceed from foundations that help create an environment in which via the internalisation of democratic norms (ibid.). youth sector, youth participation is not understood merely as a goal that needs to be Diversity of youth sector entities young people are able to turn themselves into active and responsible citizens. In the achieved, but at the same time and above all as a method for meeting a wider range The youth sector is characterised by a highly diverse set of entities that can be of objectives linked to the achievement of autonomy. Raising responsible citizens and distinguished from each other according to different criteria. Some of the key players encouraging young people to develop autonomy through the acquisition of the skills in the Slovenian youth sector as identified by the normative framework as well as that enable them to live independently is the primary responsibility of the state, while established practice are highlighted below. We have focused on the youth sector youth sector organisations can enable young people to have an impact on society and in the ‘narrower’ sense – that is, that part of the sector in which processes of direct help them along the path of economic and social independence. This, in turn, helps work with young people take place within youth organisations and organisations for bodies) or civil society (youth councils, youth organisations, organisations for young Council, 2010). Young people comprise the bulk of the membership and leadership people, youth centres). of youth organisations, of course: according to the public interest act, at least 90% As a space in which youth policy is formulated and put into practice at national of the membership must be aged up to 29 and 70% of the leading positions must be level, the youth sector is strongly influenced by the state and its institutions, with the occupied by people aged between 15 and 29 (Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act, most prominent role being played by those government institutions (ministries and Article 11). According to the definition set out in the law, as well as definitions given government authorities) responsible for creating and delivering youth policy. The elsewhere, the four basic characteristics that youth organisations are required to have Office for Youth should obviously be highlighted here as the body within the executive relate to: voluntary membership, age of membership and of those in leading positions branch of authority responsible for the youth field, and the main coordinator of all (the large majority must be young people), democracy of operation, and operation activities that address the position of young people in Slovenia (Office for Youth, n.d.). to the benefit of young people. In terms of level of operation, youth organisations At local level, the role of representative of government power is assumed by munici- can be divided into national and local. To obtain national youth organisation status, palities; in some cases and depending on their size, they have dedicated offices that the organisation must have at least 300 members, and operate or have units in most deal with youth-related matters. Zavod MOVIT, which performs the role of national statistical regions in Slovenia, although these conditions do not need to be met by agency for EU youth programmes (and also finances various other activities) is an- organisations made up of members of the Italian or Hungarian national communities other important factor, and there is a wide variety of civil society organisations active or the Roma community (Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act, Article 12). in the youth sector, each with their own role and level of importance in relation to the Baumkirher et al. (2012) point out that national youth organisations in the youth development of youth policies and youth work. They can be divided into four main sector have a special role because of the size of their membership, their bridging groups: youth organisations (including national ones), youth councils, youth centres role and, above all, their involvement in democratic processes at national level (which and other non-governmental organisations. This division is based on the Public In- introduces their members to active and responsible citizenship). From the way their terest in the Youth Sector Act and on the main Office for Youth financial mechanism status is regulated in the public interest act and the fact that they are treated sepa- used to co-fund youth work programmes (i.e. public calls for applications). The public rately in the public calls for the co-funding of youth work programmes organised by interest act divides organisations into three types: youth organisations, organisations the Office for Youth, it is clear that national youth organisations are recognised as for young people and youth councils. It also defines the activities of youth centres, being among the most important elements of the youth sector in Slovenia. This is which have, from the beginning, been a constant participant in the Office’s calls for partly due to the way Slovenian youth organisations have developed through history applications and are divided in turn into three main groups of eligible organisation: and the impact they have had on the youth sector. They are the youth sector enti- national youth organisations, youth centres and other youth-related NGOs. Until 2015, ties with the longest tradition, and are responsible for numerous achievements that local youth councils were also part of this group, but were subsequently excluded have had a significant effect not just on the development of the youth sector and A Bit of a Mix from public calls on account of their specific characteristics. They are now addressed youth policy, but also on society as a whole. With respect to their legal status, youth by other financing instruments. organisations in Slovenia are organised as independent youth organisations in the Youth organisations form of societies or associations of societies, although they can also be organised as youth organisations within existing member organisations, which themselves can Young people within the youth sector come together and are active within a range take the form of a society, association of societies, political party or trade union. For of different forms of organisation. Roughly speaking, these organisations can be di- a youth wing of a trade union to be recognised as a youth organisation, the parent vided into youth organisations and organisations for young people. The latter carry organisation’s founding instrument must guarantee it autonomy of operation within out programmes for young people and have workers qualified to do that work, but the youth sector (Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act, Article 11). they are not regarded as ‘youth organisations’; this does not mean, however, that The Political Parties Act also makes reference to youth wings and youth organisa- young people are not involved in devising and delivering programmes in these or- tions in political parties, and specifically the membership options for minors: a minor ganisations. According to Article 3 of the Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act, a who is at least 15 years old may join a political party’s youth organisation, but requires youth organisation is: the consent of their parents if they wish to join the political party itself (Political Parties … an autonomous, democratic, voluntary and independent association of young Act, 1994, Article 6). That law also refers to youth organisations in the section deal- people whose operations enable young people to acquire the planned learning ex- ing with the funding of political parties – specifically, that a youth organisation with periences, formulate and express their views, and carry out activities in accordance the status of an organisation operating in the public interest in the youth sector may with their interests, cultural interests, opinions or political convictions, and that is receive public funds for the co-financing of youth sector programmes in accordance organised as an independent legal entity, specifically as a society, association of with the regulations governing the public interest in the youth sector (ibid., Article 21). societies or an integral part of another legal entity, specifically a society, association There are two types of membership of youth organisations: individual and collec- of societies and whose local units are organised as societies, and organisations National Youth Council of Slovenia and local youth whose local units are not independent legal entities. Organisations are, in principle, councils built from the bottom up, which means that individuals come together in local-level Youth councils are civil society organisations that play a significant role in repre- organisations that are, in turn, part of national and (hypothetically also) international/ senting the interests of young people and those of youth organisations generally. As European organisations. However, other ways of building organisations have emerged umbrella associations of youth organisations, they provide a space for youth participa- in practice. Most national youth organisations are involved in international cooperation tion and the joint delivery of activities. Youth councils operate at national level (National and are members of international youth organisations. Youth Council of Slovenia) or within local communities (local youth councils). Youth There are currently 14 organisations in Slovenia that have national youth organ- councils are founded and operate in accordance with the Youth Councils Act (Zakon isation status: the Youth Council of the Firefighting Association of Slovenia; the o mladinskih svetih), which defines them as voluntary associations of youth organi- Slovenian Catholic Girl Guides and Boy Scouts Association; Slovenian Democratic sations. In the case of the National Youth Council, member organisations must have Youth (Slovenska demokratska mladina), which is the youth wing of the Slovenian acquired national youth organisation status in accordance with the Public Interest in Democratic Party (SDS); Društvo mladinski ceh; the Association of Student Clubs the Youth Sector Act, while local youth councils bring together youth organisations of Slovenia; Mlada Slovenija (Young Slovenia); the Slovenian Scouts Association; headquartered in the same local self-government unit or municipality (Youth Coun- Mladi forum SD, the youth wing of the Social Democrats; the Alpine Association of cils Act, 2000, Article 2). Membership of the National Youth Council and local youth Slovenia; Nova generacija SLS, the youth wing of the Slovenian People’s Party; the councils is based on the principles of free association, equality and mutual respect Slovenian Rural Youth Association; the Trade Union of Students, Pupils and Young for the autonomy of each organisation. The national and local councils represent Unemployed; the Youth Network No Excuse Slovenia (Mladinska zveza brez izgov- the interests of their member youth organisations. The Youth Councils Act provides ora Slovenija); and the Pomurje Hungary Youth Society (Muravidéki Magyar Ifjúsági that youth councils shall operate under the provisions of the public interest act when Szervezet). Six of these 14 organisations are organised within larger organisations, performing (or participating in the performance) of youth work and other youth sec- and include four political party youth organisations; the remainder are organised as tor activities, securing the proper conditions for the operation and development of societies or associations of societies. One organisation has acquired national youth interest-based forms of youth association, enabling organisation status as an organisation that brings together representatives of the young people to take part in the adoption of legal Hungarian national community. and other provisions that affect the life and work Most of the national member organisations of the National Youth Council began of young people, and carrying out other tasks to be systematically founded at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, and were heavily influenced by the transition to the new, more pluralistic social and politi- A Bit of a Mix cal system. The abolition of the Socialist Youth League of Slovenia (Zveza socialistične mladine Slovenije, ZSMS), which took the decision in October 1989 to turn itself into a political party, also led to a significant rise in the number of youth organisations. The transition processes subsequently paved the way for the creation of new political parties and youth wings. In the transition period, these youth wings also occupied an important position in youth organisation and the youth sector, and have retained that role to the present day. Their influence on the sector has changed over the years, although they have had an impact on the development of the youth sector and youth policy in Slovenia throughout, mainly through the National Youth Council. The wave of new youth organisations included, in addition to political party youth wings, a large number of inde- pendent lay organisations covering the activities formerly conducted under the auspices of the Roman Catholic church (Škulj, 2016). They have also played an important role in the youth sector. that promote the interests of the young laid down in their founding act (Youth Coun- kind of adults that society needs in the future and, along with this, to attempt to en- cils Act, Article 5). sure that young people are autonomous, solidarity-minded, responsible and engaged Article 6 of the Youth Councils Act, which is a key article for youth councils, gives (National Youth Council of Slovenia, 2018, Article 7). The main tasks laid down in the an indication of the importance of the position they hold, and in some sense also of statutes are extensive: to enable young people to take part in the adoption of legal their involvement in the public policy process when decisions are being made on and other regulations that affect their lives; put in place conditions that facilitate the youth-related matters. According to that article, the government, ministries and other operation and development of interest-based forms of youth association; advocate central government and local authorities are required to notify the National Youth for young people and youth organisations; carry out and help develop youth work; Council or local youth councils before drafting laws and other regulations that have a foster the development of youth organisations as an instrument for young people in direct impact on the life and work of young people (Youth Councils Act, Article 6). One society and their active participation in public life; promote the development of vol- of the indicators of good youth policy is how secure and well-defined the position of untary forms of youth organisation; coordinate and support the operations of local youth councils is, with the participation of young people in the creation and delivery youth organisations; work with other youth sector organisations and non-govern- of youth policies being regarded as one of the key elements. As representatives of mental organisations; and represent young people and youth organisations at home the interests of youth organisations and young people, youth councils are meant to and abroad (National Youth Council of Slovenia, 2018, Article 8). The National Youth occupy a central position in relations between decision-makers and young people, Council is recognised as the central civil society player in the youth policy field. This and to have a privileged role as a partner to political decision-makers in developing role is also acknowledged by other stakeholders in the youth sector and more widely, and delivering youth policies. and has been officially granted to the National Youth Council, as the umbrella youth The development of youth councils in Slovenia began in April 1990, when the organisation in Slovenia, by the relevant legislative framework. National Youth Council of Slovenia, which took as its basis the practices of similar The National Youth Council is one of the main instigators of and key players in structures in other Western European countries, was founded in response to the the development of youth policy and the youth sector in Slovenia. Since the outset, void that had been created in the organised youth field following the dissolution/ its international connections have enabled it to gain an insight into how the youth transformation of the Socialist Youth League of Slovenia. By signing the founding sector is regulated in other countries, and provided the impetus for the transfer of document, the National Youth Council established 17 organisations active in the good practice to Slovenia. International involvement has also raised its credibility with youth field with the aim of representing and promoting the common interests of young the profession and the public; and by working with international youth organisations people and youth organisations in their relations with social institutions, particularly as well as with Council of Europe and European Union institutions, it has been able state authorities. However, in the 1990s local youth councils were unable to establish to raise awareness of the importance of youth structures and youth policy, thereby themselves in a formal sense as there was no legal basis that would allow them to raising its credibility still further. It has used and popularised terms such as ‘youth A Bit of a Mix do so. Ljubljana Youth Council, for example, began operating in 1996, but was not policy’ and ‘youth work’, taken from practices abroad, which has allowed them, over registered until 2001, when the required legal basis was obtained with the adoption time, to gain a clear meaning in Slovenia as well. Youth policy has therefore been of the Youth Councils Act (Baumkirher et al., 2012). This lack of a legal basis also understood to be policy in the field of young people and youth organisations created affected the operations of the National Youth Council, which at one point at the end jointly by the public and youth sectors, while youth work is taken to mean specific of the 1990s was even removed from the register and had its company registration work with young people or the voluntary involvement of young people within the number deleted. This was followed by the closure of its bank account in 2000 (ibid.). youth sector, covers various interest-based fields and helps to improve the position The legislation in force at the time did not give the National Youth Council the option of young people (Baumkirher et al., 2012). In the 1990s the National Youth Council of acquiring legal personality, mainly because of the links between member organ- also began laying legislative groundwork for the youth sector, but these efforts were isations organised under the provisions of the Societies Act (Zakon o društvih) and unsuccessful. However, it did assume an important role as youth sector partner after those governed by the Political Parties Act (Zakon o političnih strankah), as it also 2003, during the process that eventually led to the formulation and adoption of the included the youth wings of political parties (Škulj, 2016). Efforts to overcome this Public Interest in the Youth Sector, as well as in the intervening period in which the situation began with preparations for the drafting of the Youth Councils Act, which adoption process was stalled, when it drew up its own draft youth work and youth was adopted in 2000. This provided the necessary legal basis for the existence and policy law. This helped to ensure that discussions around the public interest act did operation of youth councils by establishing them as legal entities sui generis. Under not die away and that the adoption process did not come to a complete halt. that law and the Rules on Registration and the Maintenance of the Youth Councils Alongside its active involvement in drafting legislation, the National Youth Coun- Register (Pravilnik o registraciji in vodenju registra mladinskih svetov), the National cil’s regular engagement with public policies affecting the young is also reflected Youth Council was officially registered in 2002, although the first youth council to in its other areas of work. Of particular importance is its involvement as a partner register was Ljubljana Youth Council. in the formulation of the National Youth Programme, the text of which it drafted in advocacy work are the basis for its work in this area. The programming documents, member, becoming a full member two years later. In that same year it became an which were drawn up over an intensive period between 2009 and 2011 (some were associate member of the Youth Forum of the European Communities (YFEC) and a later updated), cover the areas of youth organisation, employment, education, housing, full member of the World Assembly of Youth (WAY) (Škulj, 2016). In 1996 it helped information provision, participation, health, mobility and youth volunteering. set up the Youth Forum Jeunesse/European Youth Forum (YFJ), which replaced three Over the years the National Youth Council’s advocacy work has also been comple- previous youth platforms in Europe, and became a full member upon its establish- mented by other documents produced in the course of projects and collaborations ment. Slovenian representatives have always been very active in European youth with other organisations. These include the Resolution on the Recognition of Non-For- organisations and the European Youth Forum, serving three terms as president of the mal Education in Slovenia (Resolucija o priznavanju neformalnega izobraževanja v YFJ, for example: Tine Radinja in 2009–10 and Peter Matjašič in 2011–14 (two terms). the Resolution on the Development of the Youth Sector and Youth Policy 2014 (Res- Local youth councils Sloveniji), the Young People’s Say on the Environment (Deklaracija mladi o okolju), olucija o razvoju mladinskega sektorja in mladinske politike 2014), the Agreement on Local youth councils perform the role and activities of umbrella youth organisations Intergenerational Cooperation (Dogovor o medgeneracijskem sodelovanju), and the at local level, i.e. within the local community in which they are registered, in the Commitment of the Slovenian Youth Sector and the Office for Youth for the Health of same way as the National Youth Council does at national level. However, Young People in Slovenia (Zaveza slovenskega mladinskega sektorja in Urada RS za this analogy, where the national is simply mirrored by the local, mladino za zdravje mladih v Sloveniji). The National Youth Council is involved in every does not mean that the national council is the umbrella as-aspect of advocacy through a variety of different activities, from direct collaboration sociation of local youth councils: there is no such formal with institutions and the representatives of the executive and legislative branches of connection between them, nor is there any formal power, particularly the Office for Youth, to individual advocacy campaigns designed connection between local youth councils them-to raise general public awareness of certain issues. selves. The only connection, at an informal lev- Membership of the National Youth Council has fluctuated considerably over the el, exists within the national council, which last three decades. A total of 38 youth organisations have joined it at some point, coordinates and supports the opera-from the original 17 founding organisations in 1990 (Baumkirher et al., 2012). Today tions of local youth councils. As part it comprises 11 full members (Društvo Mladinski ceh, Mlada Slovenija, Mladi forum of its annual programme or indi-socialnih demokratov, the Alpine Association of Slovenia Youth Committee, the Youth vidual activities, the National the Slovenian Catholic Girl Guides and Boy Scouts Association, the Slovenian Rural monitors local youth A Bit of a Mix councils, provides Youth Association, the Association of Student Clubs of Slovenia, Zveza ŠKIS and the Network No Excuse Slovenia, Nova generacija SLS, Slovenian Democratic Youth, Youth Council therefore Slovenian Scouts Association) and two associate members (the Youth Unit of Društvo them with infor-ŠKUC/Slovenian Student Cultural Centre and Popotniško združenje Slovenije, which mation and as-is part of the Hostelling International federation). The Youth Councils Act has had the sistance in greatest impact on national council membership, as it stipulates that membership is only open to organisations with official national youth organisation status. Accord- ing to its rules of operation, the National Youth Council accepts organisations with national youth organisation status as full members and other youth organisations as associate members, with the statutes requiring associate members to operate in the youth sector, have at least 50 members and be active in at least three statisti- cal regions. Two events in particular have had a strong impact on membership: the entry into force of the current membership requirements in 2013 (official national youth organisation status) and the departure of youth organisations within larger non-governmental organisations as a result of the legal requirements stipulated by the Youth Councils Act in 2000 (which provided that, with respect to youth organisations that were part of other, larger organisations, membership should be restricted to the youth sections of political parties). In addition to a failure to meet the status-related requirements, organisations have also left the national council as a result of being coordination, carries out education and training (which it incorporates into its own and did so fairly widely: a youth centre should be provided by the local community or activities) and works with them on Structured Dialogue and other projects. There are another legal entity governed by private law or by a natural person (Public Interest in currently 42 local youth councils, although this number is not necessarily indicative the Youth Sector Act, Article 28). However, while the inclusive definition contained of how active they are ― for example, three municipalities have two registered youth in the law prioritises regulation by the local community, historical development and councils and, in the case of ten local youth councils, their last status-related change various local contexts mean that the door is left open to everyone. A glance at the in the register was ten or more years ago. applications to the Office for Youth’s public call reveals the same, with an ever-in- A more indicative figure on the actual level of local youth council activity would be creasing number of public institutes applying; this reflects a gradual strengthening the number of activities registered in the public call for applications for the co-funding of awareness of the importance of youth work at local level. Alongside an increase of local youth council activities in 2018 and 2019, published by the Office for Youth, in the number of registered public institutes, there is an upward trend in the number to which only nine local youth councils applied. The number of registered local youth of funding beneficiaries among youth centres, including other organisations. councils is therefore low (given that Slovenia has 212 municipalities) and their level of Although youth centres began to appear in Slovenia in the 1990s, with that early de- activity is even lower. The National Youth Council attributes this passivity to a lack of velopment conditional upon the level of social responsibility of individuals locally and understanding of the role and importance of youth councils on the part of municipal how active they were in working with young activists (who generally came from youth authorities, the departure of young people from provincial areas to university centres, organisations, Murn et al., 2011), they began to develop mainly in the second half of and the absence of an orderly funding system (Baumkirher et al., 2012). To this we that decade as institutions that provided infrastructure and support to youth activities, might add the size of municipalities (or rather, their diminutive size in many cases) and as organisations in which young people gathered. The Office for Youth has, over and the fact that the youth sector is poorly developed in some local environments the years, made a number of important strides forward, managing to motivate some (they simply have too few youth organisations). There is also a lack of capacity on the local communities to set up youth centres and providing them with direct financial part of local communities and young people themselves to enable these structures support. European programmes have also played a part by financing projects in the to operate in the first place. absence of other systemic sources of funds, while local community support through Youth centres public institutions has been focused on providing infrastructure and maintaining at least minimum staff coverage. Programme funding has generally not been available, Youth centres, which focus on the socialisation of young people and involve them which means that work has proceeded in line with the capacities for funding individual in prevention, non-formal education, voluntary work, cultural, leisure and other ani- projects, through voluntary work and with the adoption of ‘innovative’ approaches legal definition, youth centres are organised functional centres for young people that forward in the development of youth centres in Slovenia came with their inclusion in A Bit of a Mix carry out youth sector programmes and youth work at local level (Public Interest in the Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act. mation programmes, are crucial to the delivery of youth work (Murn et al., 2011). By to project delivery on the part of young people themselves (ibid.). An important step the Youth Sector Act, Article 8). Their tasks are diverse, and largely conditioned by the More systematic connections between youth centres were formed in response environment in which they are located. This means that they are dependent, among to the needs of young people and as youth centres themselves gradually began to other things, on the needs of young people, the level of development of the youth see the benefits that could be gained from networking. This culminated in the estab- sector and civil society organisation, and the structure of opportunities for young lishment, for the first time, of an informal network of 13 youth centres in 2001. Four people. Generally speaking, youth centres’ tasks range from creating and securing years later, this network outgrew its informal framework with the establishment of conditions or environments in which young people can work, get together and pursue the MaMa Youth Network. MaMa’s main purpose is to connect youth centres and their interests, to carrying out their own programmes for young people. Youth centres represent their interests vis-à-vis the government sector, decision-makers and other also and at the same time provide a space in which the necessary infrastructure for stakeholders. Today it comprises 50 organisations that perform youth centre activities the performance of youth work is made available to young people, and where qualified throughout Slovenia (MaMa Youth Network, n.d). MaMa’s activities include bringing staff are on hand to provide support for youth work. together youth centres and other organisations active in youth work, defending the Youth centres carry out tasks and operations designed to create the conditions interests of its member organisations in relation to other stakeholders, providing its for the development of creative young people who think critically. Their objectives member organisations with information and expert assistance, conducting non-formal are to promote youth participation, foster active citizenship, support multi-cultural education programmes for young people and youth workers, and carrying out various education and, in particular, integrate young people through a better understanding national and international projects. It is also involved in strengthening the capacities of their position and role in society (Murn et al., 2011). They achieve this with the help of youth centres and youth work at local level, and promoting creativity and active of a wide range of programmes and activities that provide advisory, technical, organ- participation on the part of young people (ibid.). The Ustanova nevladnih mladinskega isational, financial, technical and other forms of support to voluntary associations, polja Pohorski bataljon, founded in 2010, is another NGO that collects organisations (Boljka et al., 2011). The Office for Youth addressed the importance of well-developed Youth-Friendly Municipality Certificate; the SLOAM Youth Agency, founded in 1999, youth infrastructure to the performance and development of youth work in its analysis which administers the European Youth Card programme in Slovenia and is a full mem- of 2019, which looked at the effects of investments in the development of a public ber of the European Youth Card Association (EYCA); and Zavod MISSS (Mladinsko network of multi-purpose youth centres from ERDF 2007–2013 funds.4 It concluded informativno svetovalno središče Slovenije), which is a national youth information that the effects of the co-financing of investments in youth centres’ youth tourism and advisory centre that conducts social security and youth work programmes and infrastructure were extremely positive in terms of business, finance and content. Youth is a member of the European Youth Information and Counselling Agency (ERYICA). successful in obtaining funds earmarked for youth work (Office for Youth, 2019).5 In Dimensions of the youth sector in Slovenia centres with a well-developed infrastructure have also shown themselves to be more addition to increasing the scope of their programmes and as a result of an expansion of Although the shortcomings of any quantitative approach to measuring the size of their spatial capacities, youth centres have also become providers of support activities, the youth sector are well known, we can learn a good deal by looking at some basic as they are able to provide space to other youth sector organisations. Youth centres statistics. There are 106 organisations that have acquired the status of organisation with strong infrastructure have modern premises and accommodation capacities at operating in the public interest in the youth sector in Slovenia; they include youth their disposal for the performance of youth-related activities; at the same time, they councils and public institutes active in the youth field. This number rises to 185 if we are able to provide young people with the opportunity to make use of infrastructure add youth councils and public institutions. for multi-day non-formal youth education and mobility programmes (Fujan, 2019). To finance youth programmes and programmes for young people, the Office for Youth regularly makes funds available through its public call, which is aimed at the Other non-governmental organisations in the youth field three groups of eligible youth sector organisations mentioned earlier in this chapter: There is another group of non-governmental organisations that, unlike national national youth organisations, youth centres and other non-governmental organisations youth organisations, youth centres and youth councils, are fairly undefined ― indeed, (youth councils are not eligible for funding through these public calls). they go unmentioned in the Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act. Nevertheless, they A total of EUR 3.5 million was earmarked for the last public call (EUR 1.45 million have been present in the youth sector for quite some time and are defined as ‘other for 2020 and the same amount for 2021). Since 2014, when there was a significant organisations’ mainly in public calls for the co-funding of youth work programmes. reduction, the funds available through the public call have gradually risen to the level This group comprises youth organisations and organisations for young people that seen prior to the financial and economic crisis. They have remained steady at that provide youth programmes and programmes for young people at national level; it level since 2018 (see Figure 1). That said, the money available does not reflect the also contains organisations that the Office for Youth recognises as providing support needs of youth sector organisations, whose numbers have increased over time ― as programmes and services for young people, i.e. programmes designed to improve the is also evident by the increasing number of organisations responding to the public A Bit of a Mix quality of youth work, youth policy or the position of young people in Slovenia. While call. It is also worth noting that the stagnation in the level of funding reserved for the they are occasionally referred to as ‘network organisations’ in certain contexts, this public call constitutes a de facto cut, as applicant organisations are being compelled, has not become an established term because the way they are organised does not to quite a considerable extent, to address challenges (in public health and finance) correspond to the concept of a network. that not central to their concerns. In the most recent period of youth sector development, this group of other NGOs has been joined by new (private) institutions whose activities cover specific thematic niches within the youth sector, contribute to the development of the youth sector as a whole and provide support to other organisations in the field. They include the MaMa Youth Network, which, as we have seen, brings together and represents organisations that perform youth centre activities in Slovenia; Zavod Nefiks, which has developed a system that enables young people to systematically collect all the knowledge and skills acquired through non-formal education in Slovenia and certified by organisa- tions; the Institute for Youth Policy (Inštitut za mladinsko politiko), which promotes the development of local youth policy, provides local communities with expert support in the systemic regulation of the youth field, and also administers and awards the 4 Ten youth centres with accommodation capacities were set up across the country using ERDF funds in the 2007–2013 programming period, in the following statistical Figure 1: Office for Youth funds made available through the public call for the funding of youth work programmes. Source: Office for Youth (2021) The Office for Youth also funds the work and programmes of the National Youth Council and the national agency for European youth programmes (Zavod MOVIT) Figure 2: Structure of funds available for the youth sector 2014–2020. Source: Own calculation based through the central government budget, to which can be added the funds that the on financial data received. Office for Youth draws from the European Social Fund (ESF) and the funds available to the youth sector via the Erasmus+: Youth in Action and European Solidarity Corps In terms of source, Office for Youth funds can be divided into those allocated to the programmes. Figure 2 shows the structure of funds available to youth sector organ- youth sector from the central government budget and those allocated from the ESF. EU Financial Perspective 2014–2020. The total funding available over that period active citizenship, the aim being to secure involvement in one of the central themes A Bit of a Mix therefore amounted to EUR 44,060,064.95 – a not inconsiderable sum for the sector isations between 2014 and 2020, where the ESF funds only include funds from the The Office deploys ESF funds for youth employment, specifically within the context of of youth work: encouraging young people to become active citizens. In this period, (it should be noted that funds allocated to the sector by local communities are not the Office published three public calls for applications using funds from the Financial covered here if they do not come from the programmes referred to above, nor do they Perspective 2014–2020: two for projects carried out by youth sector organisations include funds provided through other international programmes). and one for the co-funding of the employment of youth workers in youth sector or- ganisations. The structure of the Office’s funds therefore shows that two thirds of the money received from the central government budget were allocated to the public call and one third to the MSS and Zavod MOVIT (see Figure 3). Figure 3: Structure of funds available to the Office for Youth 2014–2020. Source: Own calculation based on data received from the Office for Youth. Funds from the Erasmus+: Youth in Action and European Solidarity Corps pro- Figure 4: Structure of funds allocated under Erasmus+: Youth in Action and the European Solidarity grammes should be understood as complementing those allocated to the youth Corps, 2014–2020. Source: Own calculation based on data received from Zavod MOVIT. sector by the Office for Youth. They make an important additional contribution to the development of organisations and youth work not only in Slovenia but elsewhere in Unlike the public calls and tenders issued by the Office for Youth, Erasmus+: Youth Europe (see Figure 4). As the funds made available by these two programmes in- in Action and European Solidarity Corps funds are not allocated exclusively to youth allocated to the youth sector by Slovenia; this has had a significant impact on the put forward a total of 715 projects for funding in the 2014–2020 period: 371 were A Bit of a Mix focus of development of youth work in the country. The funds allocated from the accepted (both programmes together) and grant funding totalling EUR 9,290,182 was crease year by year, they have already exceeded, as a percentage, the budget funds sector organisations. Organisations with public interest in the youth sector status 22,797,965 in the 2014–2020 period: EUR 19,167,134 for Youth in Action (84.1%) and grants of EUR 7,387,912 allocated) and 140 projects under the European Solidarity 6 EUR 3,630,831 for the European Solidarity Corps (15.9%). Erasmus+: Youth in Action and European Solidarity Corps programmes totalled EUR allocated. This included 575 projects in the Erasmus+ programme (296 accepted, Corps (2018–2020 only; 75 projects accepted and grants of EUR 1,902,270 allocated). Alongside the funds allocated by Zavod MOVIT are those provided to various pro- opportunities, employment and enterprise; these cover a wide range of challenges jects by the national agencies of other countries in which organisations from Slovenia faced by young people and are closely linked to their independence and transition act as project partners. In the 2014–2020 period, the Erasmus+ programme accepted into adulthood. In these areas, activities can be divided into those that consolidate 2,572 projects from other national agencies; Slovenian organisations were involved young people’s competencies and knowledge through education and training, and in 2,626 of these projects. Between 2018 and 2020, 109 projects from other national those that raise young people’s awareness and the awareness of wider society of the agencies were accepted by the European Solidarity Corps programme, with 109 issues young people face. Culture and creativity also occupy an important place in Slovenian partner organisations involved in these applications. This shows the strong the youth sector, with young people engaged as consumers as well as creators. The involvement of Slovenian organisations in the international environment, as well as youth sector offers young people a space in which youth culture can develop; in the their success in competing for co-funding ― which provides a considerable boost social sense, this provides an alternative to the prevailing culture and, at the same to youth sector organisations and youth workers in Slovenia, and to some extent an time, an important means of emancipation. additional inflow of funds for youth-centred activities within the country. The youth sector is also to some extent marked by the crises that bring the most pressing (social) issues to the surface. The economic and financial crisis that began Diversity of the youth sector: strength or weakness? in 2008 highlighted the problem of youth unemployment, which then migrated to The youth sector is a specific part of civil society, with a mosaic of different organi- other areas of the youth sector. This led to the provision of dedicated funds by the sations that differ from each other in terms of organisational type (youth organisations EU to tackle the issue via a variety of programmes. Similar trends can also be seen and organisations for young people) as well as organisational form: from societies, in the case of the environmental crisis and the public health crisis occasioned by the associations of societies, and the youth wings of political parties and trade unions Covid-19 pandemic, which brought to the fore (once again) the issue of young people’s on the one hand, to private and public institutions and even social companies on the physical and mental health, human rights, participation, access to education, and (not other. This diversity of organisation brings specific features to the operation of the least) the digital transformation of the sector and its activities. youth sector that other fields or sectors do not possess to the same extent. To this we Partly in response to the needs of young people and partly in order to take full can add the diversity of the types of area in which youth sector organisations operate. advantage of the financial opportunities on offer, organisations have adapted their This makes the search for common denominators (beyond those of delivering and projects and programmes to these recent events, seeking ways of surviving, growing caring for young people, of course) a major challenge. An awareness of this puts the and linking their organisational mission with the public policy objectives in place existence of an umbrella law in an entirely new light and, at the same time, goes some at any one time. Some have been successful in this, others less so; but it does way to explaining the challenges that accompanied the adoption of the law and that seem that organisations for young people have found it easier to adapt to these remain relevant to its implementation. disruptions, while youth organisations have found the changes in circumstances, A Bit of a Mix The breadth of the areas in which the youth sector operates is already clear from the requirement to change their ways of working and the emergence of topics ‘from the legal definitions that are applied to it, which continue to expand and evolve. This outside’ much more of a challenge. One of the reasons for this could also lie in the diversity of content very clearly reflects the diversity of young people’s interests; and professionalisation of youth organisations, this being one of the important elements if these interests were to be reduced to a ‘select few’, young people would be forced in an organisation’s ability to handle the financing methods usually introduced by into universal models. This would not be beneficial to their overall development or programmes that come from fields outside youth and do not have the integrated address the very different contexts in which they live. Youth sector organisations try logic of the youth field (the European Social Fund, for example). However, these to respond to these needs and interests as far as possible by working with young external factors, which have had an impact on the development of the sector, have people to develop projects and programmes suitable for them. Far from simply being also led the sector to shift increasingly towards the provision of services, which is a a ‘topic’ within the youth sector, participation is the most prominent of the concerns departure from the traditional understanding of how youth work is organised. Many with which organisations engage in practice; it is also and above all a focal point are critical of this shift, among them Uroš Skrinar, director of Zavod MOVIT, who adds of the methodology that organisations incorporate into their activities as a central that financing is not adequately regulated because it fails to take a development-ori- attribute. This is also how Katarina Nučič, a youth worker of many years’ standing, ented approach and, at the same time, compels far too many organisations to settle understands it. ‘Active participation,’ she points out, ‘is the ultimate thing on which for project funding because they believe that this is their only option (interview, 7 we should build. Content is then already brought into line with needs. Participation May 2021) — and perhaps it is. as methodology will have impacts’ (interview, 15 April 2021).7 It is diversity that enriches the youth sector and makes it more interesting to the We should also mention the areas related to inclusion, engagement and coop- public and to young people themselves. It means that young people are able to find eration within the community that are enhanced by participation, such as voluntary something, within the wide range of fields and activities, that responds to their needs work, human rights and intercultural dialogue. The activities grouped within this and interests. On the other hand, the diversity of youth sector actors and their interests Youth Sector Act showed the considerable power of the youth sector at the level of With the aim of strengthening youth policy and youth organisation, the network process, it also demonstrated the influence that some organisations or groups of or- and position of youth centres within local communities should be consolidated so ganisations had on the public policy process. This balance of power is most evident in that their work can have a stronger impact within the local youth policy context. the composition of the Government Council for Youth (Svet vlade za mladino), where Contact between national and local youth sector organisations should be strength- national actors, in combination with the National Youth Council and national youth ened in relation to the transfer of knowledge and experience; this will help them to organisations, have been handed the most power. At the same time, the Slovenian tackle the challenges faced by young people jointly. To this end, permanent mecha- Student Union (Študentska organizicija Slovenije) demonstrated its considerable nisms should be established to foster the development of the youth sector and youth power when the Council for Youth was being set up, as the latter did not take over work at local level. the role of the Government Council for Student Affairs (Svet študentska vprašanja). More attention and funding needs to be given to youth infrastructure as the basis There have been recent indications that those disagreements that used to exist be- for the delivery of high-quality youth work. It would also be beneficial for the sector tween actors in the youth sector have to some extent been overcome, as suggested to establish a structure to facilitate a comprehensive and professional approach to by the large number of collaborations between the umbrella organisations in the developing and improving youth work. been marked above all the adoption of the umbrella law and the legislative arrange-The development of the youth sector in Slovenia over the last three decades has Baumkirher, T., Džidić, S. and Murn, K. (2012). Analiza nacionalnih mladinskih organizacij (Analysis of national youth organisations). National Youth Council of Slovenia. Beočanin, T. (2011). ‘Mladinsko delo’ (Youth work). In Pucelj Lukan, P. (ed.), Mladinsko delo v ments it has brought in its wake. That moment should be regarded as a turning point teoriji in praksi (pp. 49–68). National Youth Council of Slovenia. for vertical youth policy in particular, and one that introduced a systemic approach upgrades to the public interest act. References field of advocacy. This could point the way forward to possible future refinements or Boljka, U., Deželan, T., Filipovič Hrast, M., Marčič, R., Maksuti, A., Narat, T., Novoselc, M. (2011). of development, but also as one of the pillars providing appropriate support to the Deželan, T., Laker, J. and Sardoč, M. (2020). Safeguarding Civic Space for Young People in Europe. youth sector and as a starting point for action in other areas relevant to young people European Youth Forum. https://www.youthforum.org/sites/default/files/publication-pdfs/ (Nučič, interview, 15 April 2021). This is particularly important given the cross-sectoral SAFEGUARDING%20CIVIC%20SPACE%20FOR%20YOUNG%20PEOPLE%20IN%20 character of youth policy and the operation of the youth sector. Within this regulated the Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act not merely as a turning point in the process Authorities in Youth Policy). Ministry of Education, Science and Sport, Office for Youth, Social Protection Institute. into the youth sector (Tadej Beočanin, interview, 15 April 2021). We might also see Matrika ukrepov državnih organov na področju mladinske politike (Matrix of Measures of State EUROPE%202020_v4.0%20%281%29.pdf level, who are responsible for drafting, adopting and delivering youth policy, also have Fujan, Z. (2019). Evropski strukturni in investicijski skladi – primer razvoja mladinskih centrov v A Bit of a Mix Slovenij (European Structural and Investment Funds – The Example of the Development of legislative framework, representatives of public authorities at both national and local Evers A. & Laville J.-L. (2004). The Third Sector in Europe. Edward Elgar. an important part to play. Youth Centres in Slovenia) (Master’s thesis). School of Advanced Social Studies Nova Gorica. As a national authority that youth sector actors recognise as needing to be given MaMa Youth Network (n.d.). O zavodu (About the Institute). https://www.mreza-mama. greater powers, in terms of status as well as those of financing and staffing, the Office si/o-zavodu/ for Youth provides an important substantive framework for the functioning and reg- Murn, K., Lebič, T. and Skrinar, U. (2011). Mladinski centri v Sloveniji (Youth Centres in Slovenia). for Youth in an important way by carrying out European programmes and securing National Youth Council of Slovenia (2010). Programski dokument Mladinskega sveta Slovenije ‘Mladinsko organiziranje (National Youth Council Programming Document ‘Youth funds for youth work projects, it needs to further extend that complementary role by ulation of the youth sector. While Zavod MOVIT complements the work of the Office MaMa Youth Network. Organising’). http://mss.si/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/organiziranje_web.pdf working with the Office to unify the direction of travel of the youth sector — something National Youth Council of Slovenia (2018). Statutes of the National Youth Council. http://mss.si/ that is perhaps less visible under the current arrangements because of the absence wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/MSS-075-18_statut_MSS.pdf national agency is regulated. Organisations themselves, such as national organisa- Office for Youth (2019). Analiza o stanju mladinske infrastrukture v Sloveniji in predlog za uvrstitev projekta sofinanciranja mladinske infrastrukture v operativni program Republike Slovenije of a clear policy and strategy on the part of the Office and the way the status of the Office for Youth (n.d.). https://www.gov.si/drzavni-organi/organi-v-sestavi/urad-za-mladino tions, the National Youth Council, local youth councils and youth centres, are key to za izvajanje evropske kohezijske politike v obdobju 2021–2027 (Analysis of the state of the operation of the sector. It is from these organisations that most youth work and youth infrastructure in Slovenia and a proposal to place a youth infrastructure co-financing youth policy originates, in response to the needs that they encounter (Tine Radinja, project into the Operational Programme of the Republic of Slovenia for the Implementation of interview, 9 April 2021; Beočanin, interview 15 April 2021). European Cohesion Policy 2021–2027). Privatization’. Journal of Consumer Policy: Consumer Issues in Law Economics and work and professionalise youth sector organisations. Financing should be oriented Uninterrupted and long-term funding must be provided to improve the quality of Behavioural Sciences 21–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01016352 Political Parties Act (Zakon o političnih strankah, ZPolS) (1994). Adopted by the Slovenian National Assembly, effective from 8 October. http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO359 towards development and to encouraging organisations to realise their strategic Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act (Zakon o javnem interesu v mladinskem sektorju, ZJIMS) Looking towards the future Pestoff V. A. (1992). ‘Third Sector and Co-operative Services — An Alternative to Rakar, T., Deželan, T., Vrbica, S. Š., Kolarič, Z., Črnak Meglič, A. and Nagode, M. (2011). Civilna družba v Sloveniji (Civil Society in Slovenia). Uradni list Republike Slovenije. Resolution on the National Youth Programme 2013–2022 (Resolucija o Nacionalnem programu za mladino 2013–2022, ReNPM13–22) (2013). Adopted by the National Assembly, effective from 24 October. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=RESO93# Sklep o izboru izvajalcev na Javnem pozivu za sofinanciranje aktivnosti mladinskih svetov lokalnih skupnosti v letu 2018 in 2019) (Decision on the Selection of Providers at the Public Call for the Co-Financing of the Activities of Local Community Councils in 2028 and 2019) (2018). Office for Youth. http://ursm.arhiv-spletisc.gov.si/fileadmin/ursm.gov.si/pageuploads/doc/MSLS_-_ evidenca/SKLEP-o-izboru-MSLS-1819-koncna_P.pdf Souto-Otero, M., Ulicna, D., Schaepkens, L. and Bognar, V. (2012). Study on the Impact of Non-Formal Education in Youth Organisations on Young People’s Employability. European Youth Forum. http://euroscoutinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ReportNFE_PRINT.pdf Škulj, J. (2016). Prispevki k zgodovini razvoja mladinskega sektorja (Contributions to the History of the Development of the Youth Sector). MOVIT. Ustanova nevladnih mladinskega polja Pohorski bataljon (n.d.). O UPB in samoniklih prizoriščih (About the UPB and Self-Governing Venues). http://upb.si Youth Councils Act (Zakon o mladinskih svetih, ZMS) (2000). Adopted by the Slovenian National Assembly, effective from 16 August. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPred- pisa?id=ZAKO2614 Youth Partnership, Partnership between the European Commission and the Council of Europe in the field of youth (n.d.). Glossary on Youth. https://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/youth-partnership/ glossary A Bit of a Mix No Chapter 4 Youth Europe The Impact Without of European Slovenian Youth Programmes on Maja Drobne Tomaž Deželan Karolina Babič European programmes: European programmes and the youth field In common with many fields of work in Slovenia, the youth field is the beneficiary Key milestones of European funding, which means that it receives funds from European programmes for its operations and development, in addition to those awarded from central gov- 1987–1989: Youth ernment and municipal budgets. The current EU funding programmes, framed by the for Europe I Multiannual Financial Framework 2021–2027 and the NextGenerationEU recovery 1990–1994: Youth facility, address the funding of the youth field under Heading 2 (‘Cohesion and values’, for Europe II subheading ‘Investing in people, social cohesion and values’), with the Erasmus+ 1995–1999: Youth and European Solidarity Corps (ESC) programmes acting as the vehicles of delivery. for Europe III Under that subheading, the youth field is also partly addressed through the European 1997–1999: Social Fund+ (ESF+), but this is mainly in relation to those elements relevant to the European Voluntary Service (pilot) strengthening of employment opportunities for young people. Erasmus+ is chiefly de- 2000–2006: signed to provide support to the educational, professional and personal development Youth Community Action Programme of individuals in education, training, youth and sport, while the ESC is aimed at young 2001: people wishing to volunteer to help the disadvantaged, provide humanitarian aid, and Eurodesk (free European Commission information service) contribute to health and environmental action (European Commission, n.d.). Prior to the 2021–2027 period, these elements were covered by other (similar) programmes. 2002–: This chapter offers a series of reflections on the key European programmes that SALTO South East Europe Resource Centre have supported (and continue to support) the youth sector in Slovenia. We also assess 2007–2013: the consequences that such extensive funding has in comparison with the central Youth in Action Programme e government funds available to the sector. 2013–2021: op Erasmus+: Youth in Action ur Genealogy of European youth programmes in Slovenia 2018–2021, 2021–2027: European Solidarity Corps1 Slovenia was relatively late in becoming involved in the EU’s Youth for Europe III programme (1995–1999). Preparations had been under way since 1997, but were held 2021–2027: up by Italy’s refusal to ratify Slovenia’s Association Agreement. It eventually joined on Erasmus+: Youth outh Without E 1 May 1999 — the last of the 2004 intake to do so. In 2000 Slovenia joined the Youth No Y Community Action Programme (2000–2006), which merged the Youth for Europe and European Voluntary Service (EVS) programmes. The Youth in Action programme was then introduced in 2007. In that year, MOVIT, the Institute for the Development of Youth Mobility and Slovenia’s national agency, allocated funds of EUR 2,744,000 to the delivery of (mainly) international projects. These funds represented the largest single source of public support for the operation and development of youth work in Slovenia (Škulj, 2016). Discussing the differences between programmes (interview, 16 April 2021),2 Škulj highlighted the fact that ‘the Youth for Europe programme gave much greater support to the idea of European integration’ and that ‘the programmes focused on multilateral projects that had to have four or more partners’. The Youth for Europe programme was, in Škulj’s words (ibid.), ‘an instrument for achieving the Maastricht Treaty, as the European political arena was aware that it needed people’s support — that it was vital to bring the younger generations of France and Germany closer together in order to unite Europe in an emotional sense.’ Slovenia took part in the Youth Community Action Programme between 2000 and 2006, a period marked by the country’s entry into the EU. Full membership led to a significant increase in the funds available to it through the programme — indeed, they Škulj, head of MOVIT at the time, argued that the developments of 2007 to 2013 were tolerance, active citizenship and mutual understanding between people by involving a natural continuation of the events that had taken place since the founding of MOVIT young people volunteers in non-profit, unpaid activities that benefited the wider com- in 1997 (Škulj, 2014): munity in which they lived; the Youth in the World action, which enabled cooperation Perhaps the best way to describe the beginnings [of MOVIT] is that we with neighbouring (partner) countries of the EU and the rest of the world; the Youth were going around in 1999 asking organisations to meet the challenge Support Systems action, which fostered cooperation between youth organisations of taking part in youth exchanges. Fifteen years on we get so many youth at European level, the European Youth Forum and other organisations to in order to exchange project applications that we are unable to accept more than half stimulate quality and innovation, promote information activities and incorporate re- of them. International youth work and learning mobility in youth work have gional and local partners, etc.; and the Support for European Cooperation in the Youth now finally acquired a recognised position among those active in the youth Field action, which supported European cooperation in youth policy and activities to work field in Slovenia. bring about better knowledge of the youth field by encouraging the sharing of good practices at all levels and the participation of policymakers, officials and youth organ- The Youth in Action programme (2007–2013) continued and built upon previous isations, all with the aim of getting to know and understand young people better and European Commission youth programmes, with a particular emphasis on encouraging based on a Structured Dialogue between policymakers and young people (European opportunities came to the fore for the first time. To be a young person with fewer Erasmus+: Youth in Action was the youth-centred part of the Erasmus+ programme. opportunities is the answer to the question of who, within a specific local environ- Covering education, training, youth and sport for the period between 2014 and 2020, young people to take part in democratic life. Initiatives for young people with fewer Commission, 2017). ment, has the fewest employment opportunities, who has the fewest opportunities it was designed to strengthened young people’s competencies and employability, and for (political) participation in their communities, and who has the fewest opportuni- modernise and develop education, training and youth work. The Erasmus+ programme understanding that the youth population had expanded over the previous ten years, people aged between 13 and 30 that offered opportunities for non-formal education which necessitated a broadening of the range of ages eligible to join the programme e ties to acquire experiences elsewhere in Europe. The programme was based on an encouraged the youth sector to organise international learning mobility for young (15–28 or, in some cases, 13–30). Based on new findings, the programme planned op that would better equip them to organise non-formal learning in youth work activities, ur within the youth work context. It also sought to provide youth workers with the skills new actions and expanded those already in place. The clear expectation was that and to include young people in dialogue with those responsible for youth policy at objectives. These were defined in a narrower sense than had been the case up to mus+: Youth in Action programme were: to improve the level of key competencies and then. The programme sought to increase the effectiveness of projects, which had skills of young people, including those with fewer opportunities, as well as to promote projects that wished to obtain funding had to pursue and meet the programme’s local, national, European or international level. The specific objectives of the Eras- sion wished to achieve in other areas, particularly education, knowledge, vocational organisations and youth leaders, and through strengthened links between the youth training, lifelong learning, culture and sport. The general objectives were: to promote field and the labour market; to foster quality improvements in youth work, in particular young people’s active citizenship in general and their European citizenship in particu- through enhanced cooperation between organisations in the youth field and/or other lar; to develop solidarity and promote tolerance among young people, with a focus on stakeholders; to complement policy reforms at local, regional and national level and fostering social cohesion in the European Union; to nurture mutual understanding support the development of knowledge and evidence-based youth policy as well as between young people in different countries; to help develop the quality of support raise the number of young people active within the programme (Pečjak, 2006). The No Y intercultural dialogue, social inclusion and solidarity, in particular through increased programme’s aims complemented the purpose and aims that the European Commis-learning mobility opportunities for young people, those active in youth work or youth to be relevant to the environment and capable of being disseminated widely, and outh Without E participation in democratic life in Europe and the labour market, active citizenship, systems for youth activities and the capabilities of civil society organisations in the policy cooperation, better use of EU transparency and recognition tools and the dis- the recognition of non-formal and informal learning, in particular through enhanced youth field; and to promote European cooperation in the youth field. These general semination of good practices; and to enhance the international dimension of youth objectives were implemented at project level, with due consideration given, as the activities and the capacity of youth workers and organisations in their support for citizenship, participation of young people, cultural diversity and the inclusion of young the promotion of mobility and cooperation between stakeholders from Programme people with fewer opportunities (European Commission, 2008). and Partner Countries and international organisations (European Commission, 2020). Youth in Action Programme Guide sets out, to the continuing priorities of European young people in complementarity with the EU’s external action, in particular through The Youth in Action programme took a new approach based on simplicity, clarity, The programme was divided into three key actions: the learning mobility of indi- openness, cohesion and flexibility. It enabled the results of the programme to be viduals (Youth Exchanges and Mobility of Youth Workers); cooperation for innovation Commission (in collaboration with Member States). It contained five actions: the Youth and support for policy reform (Youth Dialogue). The more prominent features of the for Europe action, which was aimed at developing youth mobility, exchanges and ini- programme included the promotion of international cooperation and the learning integrated and monitored in a more user-friendly and efficient way by the European and the exchange of good practices (Strategic Partnerships in the field of youth); fields through exchange of the good practices, learning materials and methods pro- duced by the projects. EVS volunteering projects were included in this action until 2018 and are now part of the European Solidarity Corps programme (European Commission, 2020). Both programmes together received a total of 2,442 project applications requesting grants totalling EUR 67,393,275 in 2014–2020. In that period, grants of EUR 22,797,965 were awarded to 1,006 projects (both programmes) via MOVIT. A total of 2,124 projects applied to the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme, with a total grant request of EUR 61,792,480. Forty-three per cent of projects were successful (912 projects, 264 different organisations, 36,913 participants, grants totalling EUR 19,167,134 awarded), 29% of participants (10,830) were young people with fewer opportunities and 3% (930) were young people with special needs. The ESC programme saw 318 applica- tions in 2018–2020 (grants totalling EUR 5,600,795 requested). MOVIT approved 180 projects and awarded them grants totalling EUR 3,630,831 — a success rate of 57%. Funds were received by 94 different organisations and 1,179 participants, 38% (449) of whom were young people with fewer opportunities and 2% (24) young people with special needs (MOVIT, 2021). Erasmus+: Youth is the most recent programme. As it is still in its early stages, an evaluation has so far been carried out for 2021–2023 only. It shows that KA152 (Youth Exchanges) has received the highest level of interest: 246 applications, 120 approved e (49%), which was the highest number of approvals of all actions in this period. The op fewest number of applications in this period was received for KA155 (DiscoverEU ur Inclusion): three applications received and approved, all in 2023. No applications were received in 2022, and the action was not offered in 2021. Forty-six per cent of all applications (305 of 666) were approved in 2020–2023. The lowest success rate, 21%, was in KA210 (Small-Scale Partnerships). Overall, the success rate for appli- outh Without E cations to KA2 is low, at around a quarter. There was a significant increase in the No Y level of funding in 2021–2023, with the highest amount made available in 2023 (EUR 5,293,205). Lump sums have been introduced into KA2 in the most recent period: EUR 30,000 or 60,000 per small-scale project, and EUR 120,000, 250,000 or 400,000 per large project. A total of 305 projects were approved in 2021–2023 (255 KA1 and 50 KA2), to a total value of EUR 14,516,118 (Deželan, Babič and Vombergar, 2024). Replacing the EVS programme, the ESC has been in place for the two most recent periods. A total of 361 ESC projects were carried out in Slovenia between 2018 and 2023; funds totalling EUR 470,000 were awarded in the first year of the programme (2018) and EUR 1.68 million in 2023. Competition for funds from this programme has increased sharply as time has gone on. In 2022, for example, even highly rated projects saw a significant reduction in the funds available, which forced them to cut back on project content (Deželan, 2023). Alongside the Erasmus and ESC programmes, the European Social Fund (ESF) is another mechanism that has created a large number of opportunities and challenges for the youth sector. Where it was more focused on developing human resources and building capacity in the first Financial Perspective 2007–2013, in the second (2014–2020) it steered the sector towards resolving the issue of unemployment – Actions common to all programmes to others, and to present their youth exchange achievements, experiences and sto- Youth exchanges and youth worker mobility, as well as support for policy reform, ries to their local environment and beyond. This also helps to raise the profile of the are the main actions common to all programmes. All actions have sought to give effect learning outcomes of the activities, highlight the importance of non-formal learning in to the Council Resolution on a Renewed Framework for European Cooperation in the youth work in society at large, and increase the visibility of the Erasmus+ programme Youth Field (2010–2018) (Council of the European Union, 2009) and its previous instru- (Zavod MOVIT, n.d.). ments, such as the European Commission White Paper A New Impetus for European The Mobility of Youth Workers action is aimed at fostering the professional devel- Youth (European Commission, 2001) and the European Youth Pact (2005). All of these opment and consolidating the competencies of youth workers, and at strengthening are focused on achieving the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs the capacity of participating organisations to deliver youth work of a high standard. (Zavod MOVIT, 2019; Cink, 2019, 18–22), one of the tools for which is the Erasmus+: The activities of youth worker mobility projects can take several forms: study visits, Youth in Action programme. Structured Dialogue has become a recognised instru- on-site educational visits (job-shadowing) at organisations, professional seminars, ment of consultation with young people, and has also fed into the EU Youth Strategy training courses and so on. Projects should have a clear and demonstrable impact (2019–2027), which continues to seek to meet youth policy objectives at Union and on the participating youth workers’ day-to-day work with young people. Activities of Member State level through the new Erasmus+ programme. The only action to have this kind enable youth sector entities to create projects, in collaboration with inter- been added to the programme since 2013 is Strategic Partnerships, which sets out to national partners, that employ a range of activities aimed at addressing needs relat- systematically develop and strengthen the competencies of the sector and improve ing to the professional development of the participating organisations’ staff. Those its quality (Zavod MOVIT, 2019). organisations are required to further disseminate the learning outcomes, including Youth exchanges are a tool of non-formal learning in youth work that enables any materials and innovative methods and tools, in order to improve the quality of groups of young people from different countries to spend between five and 21 days youth work and/or foster youth policy development and cooperation in the youth together exploring topics of mutual interest, develop their skills, become aware of field. Activities must last between two days and two months, and the whole project socially relevant topics/thematic areas, discover new cultures, habits and lifestyles between three and 24 months. A distinction is made between group activities (e.g. through peer-learning, and strengthen values such as solidarity, democracy and e professional seminars on topics connected with youth work or youth policy, youth friendship. Each group of participants has a group/youth leader who provides assis- op work training, seminars designed to find partners for project development, study vis-ur tance and support in project planning and implementation. As these projects require its), which usually feature a larger number of partners and participants, and individual a large number of decisions to be taken, youth exchanges activities (e.g. job-shadowing at a partner organisation), which are an opportunity to learn about democratic coop- generally involve two partners and one or two participants eration and decision-making in society. Because (European Commission, 2020). of their relatively short duration, they are highly outh Without E Depending on the project objectives and com- suitable for young people with fewer oppor- No Y position, cooperation for innovation and the ex- tunities. At the end of the project and af- change of good practices can take the form ter the results have been disseminated, of strategic partnerships for innovation or young people are encouraged to talk for the exchange of good practices. The first are aimed at developing innovations; the applicant therefore requests dedicat- region. However, they can also be expanded to national or international level in the ed funds for the creation of intellectual outcomes and multiplier events at which case of Transnational Cooperation Activities (TCAs). Depending on the needs and the project outcomes are presented to the wider public. The second are aimed at planned objectives of the project, projects can last between two and 12 months Their the exchange and transfer of existing practices. The results of partner cooperation basic aim is to provide young people with the chance to express solidarity by taking should make an important contribution to strengthening the competencies of youth responsibility and committing themselves to bringing positive change in their local sector actors, improving the quality of youth work, increasing the participation and community through the creation of new solutions and approaches to the challenges active citizenship of young people, and promoting social enterprise among the young. faced by the society and environment in which they live. A project should involve all Transnational Youth Initiatives also play an important role in this action. These are members of the group, and address a clearly identified topic translated into concrete projects involving groups of young people that aim to foster and strengthen active citi- activities. Participation in a solidarity project is an important non-formal learning ex- zenship and entrepreneurial spirit, including through social enterprise. One important perience through which young people can boost their personal, educational, social component of Transnational Youth Initiatives is the pronounced learning dimension and civic development, and improve their employment outcomes. Assistance may be of projects involving young people, since they are the main driving force of projects. provided by an instructor, chiefly in the learning support and mentoring processes, They achieve the stated learning objectives by following the learning pathways and and is treated as an eligible cost (European Commission, 2021). performing practical tasks within project activities. Organisations may plan different In addition to funds for allocation to approved projects (for which applicants run- national and international activities within the projects, which may last between six ning the types of projects listed above may apply), funds are made available to all and 36 months (European Commission, 2014). national agencies to enable them to organise their own support activities: training Support for Policy Reform is an action that promotes the active participation of courses, seminars, study visits, conferences, etc. These are predominantly interna- young people in democratic life, and fosters debate around topics centred on the tional (TCAs), aimed at applicants and beneficiaries, and designed to enhance the themes and priorities set by the EU Youth Strategy and its mechanisms of dialogue.3 quality of programme implementation and enable the priorities and objectives of the These events promote the active participation of young people in democratic life in programme to be achieved. TCAs in the youth field provide support for the high-quality Europe and their interaction with decision-makers, enabling them to obtain support e delivery of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme and the mobilisation of as many for the organisation of national and international meetings, consultations, confer- op target organisations and individuals as possible. They provide strategic support to the ur ences and dialogues between young people and decision-makers locally, nationally development of youth work in accordance with the specific youth-centred objectives and internationally. A concrete result of these events is that young people are able of Erasmus+, and encourage organisations active in the youth field to work together to make their voice heard (through the formulation of positions, proposals and rec- at international level. As co-organisers, national agencies host or send interested ommendations) on how youth policies should be delivered in their local areas, their participants to these activities (European Commission, 2020). ticipants must be actively involved in all the stages of the project, from preparation to How have European funding mechanisms changed country and across Europe. The activities are led by young people themselves. Par- outh Without E follow-up, while project implementation is based on non-formal learning principles and organisations? No Y practices throughout. Projects may last between three and 24 months, and include European programmes have had a considerable impact on organisations by provid- several different national and international activities (European Commission, 2020). ing funds and strengthening human resources. This is also evident from the develop- Volunteering projects used to be part of the Erasmus programmes, but were later ment of the sector, the increase in the number of youth centres, youth organisations taken over by their own separate programme: the European Solidarity Corps (ESC). and other organisations for young people, the greater support for the youth sector They offer young people the chance to take part in solidarity activities, which must at local level, the rise in quality, and the increase in the monitoring of the impact of help strengthen community by addressing important societal needs and challenges activities, such as the introduction of the Logbook system, the Mladim website and on the ground. This enables volunteers to acquire skills and competencies for their other similar mechanisms. personal, educational, social, cultural, civic and professional development. Projects Katarina Nučič, former director of Trbovlje youth centre, believes that the pro- may be transnational or national in nature. The latter are aimed primarily at young grammes have: people with fewer opportunities and must have a clear European dimension. Organ- [moved] towards professionalism, strategic thinking and a development-fo- isations may also carry out group volunteering projects; these cover a wide range cused mindset. These programmes are what they are and, to be competitive of areas, such as environmental protection, climate change mitigation and greater in these things, you have to take a very close look at where you are in the social inclusion (European Commission, 2021). local environment, what your organisation needs in that environment, the Solidarity projects have returned to the programme after a period in which the target groups, and where you want to be heading in the future. The definite ‘youth initiatives’ familiar from the Youth in Action programme had been abolished. upside to all this is that you are no longer doing things in a totally ad hoc She recalls how things were at the very beginning: The evaluation of the 2017–2023 period conducted by Deželan, Babič and Vomb- Everything was very different in 2005, when we had our first European ex- ergar (2024) also highlights the impact on organisations, chiefly those relating to pro- perience. Looking back, when we were doing one exchange a year, our cess (networking, strengthening of staff competencies, links with other organisations, approach was different to what it was subsequently, when we were doing exchange of practices and tools, etc.). ed to have that many exchanges but because word of these opportunities Impact of programmes on the Slovenian youth sector five a year. We did not get to those numbers because the organisation want- spread so quickly among young people that they wanted to get involved, and the local (national) reality not only as participants in specific activities but in the whole process. After The impacts of European programmes on the youth sector in Slovenia are many that, it became possible to do it. Our team of three was unable to manage and varied, as Uroš Skrinar, current MOVIT director, confirmed in an interview on 7 that many exchanges alongside the other programmes. This means that you May 2021: have to do things by the book: young people come with an idea, you offer The [impacts] that we noted in the RAY network and that have occurred with them support to realise that idea and write an application, which again has the help of the University of Ljubljana are now proven – for the individual. a particular impact. With support they can grasp these things and argue for Mainly from the aspect of interculturality, teamwork skills and an awareness them. We perhaps did not properly grasp the concept of active participation of the importance of non-formal education, right up to the organisational as well at the beginning as we did subsequently. Other organisations prob- development of organisations. Because they have had to establish systems ably went through the same. Things change when you are in that environ- and structures in response to project implementation requirements, these ment, working with other organisations and starting to understand things organisations have set up internal systems and structures. There are a lot differently. The change came about mainly in terms of active participation of them. I believe that the impact on the individual is clear. on the part of young people. Barbara Zupan (interview, 21 April 2021) believes that: Janez Škulj, founder of MOVIT, believes that: ... the most obvious impacts are produced by international youth work. e European programmes have done most to change the sector. From the op Programmes have resulted in new opportunities, with youth exchanges ur outset, one of the important elements was the programme guide, where and voluntary work having the greatest effect. That is where the impact on individuals and organisations is more evident, and it has been really consid- the methods, approaches and the things that every youth exchange was expected to achieve were written in Slovenian for the first time. It was very erable on organisations. I see the second major impact on the development important at the beginning to develop a terminology. I see the biggest of non-formal education in Slovenia. In local communities, non-formal edu- international cooperation into all their operations, not just the occasional nities a little less so. Strong players logically means greater development. No Y activity. This has transformed how their organisations work (interview, 16 achievement as being that some youth work entities have incorporated outh Without E cation has been equated almost entirely with youth work, in other commu- April 2021). However, in the same interview she concludes that: The impact is weakest at the Office for Youth [...]. Organisations have not Sašo Kronegger refers to the environments and regions in which he sees most developed to the extent that we would wish for. This is probably also due progress having been made (interview, 15 April 2021): to a lack of funding aimed directly at supporting youth work. Funds (mainly Zasavje, Krško and Brežice have developed the most. The establishment cohesion funds) have also been allocated indirectly to the development of of youth centres has meant that a certain group have remained there and youth work, but in the first instance to increasing young people’s ability to found their first jobs. The peers of those who found work and who worked enhance their employment prospects. Consequently, you then also see on programmes have also stayed. how youth work has managed to develop, as this issue is being addressed using youth work methods. The sector also often addresses other areas Uroš Skrinar adds the aspect of professionalisation (interview, 7 May 2021): and numerous other topics using those methods. The sector is very often Regardless of everything [...], a partial professionalisation of the youth sector the first to address some of the broader problems facing society. With the has also taken place. Whatever form this takes, there are quite a few actors in methods employed, you can address a great many problems and reach the sector, organisations as well as individuals, who we know to be actors in other age groups more easily. the youth sector. These actors have also acquired the knowledge they have through investment, for example, in the pool of trainers that has developed The interim evaluation of the Erasmus+ programme drawn up by Tomaž Deželan in the last few years. These trainers are highly regarded and very welcome in 2017 also contains a wealth of interesting data at several levels. Of the topics ad- (6.7%), EU policies or structures (11.1%) and youth policy (11.7%). The topic most organisations, when such work experience was a mandatory part of a professional commonly addressed in Youth Exchange (Key Action 1) projects in 2016 was creativity qualification. The operations also fostered the development of active citizenship and culture (68%), followed by participation of young people and youth work (49%), among young people through the delivery of innovative projects that enhanced their inclusion and equity (45%) and EU citizenship (39%). Participation, youth work, and employment prospects and helped them develop the appropriate skills (target group: creativity and culture were also the most common topics addressed in EVS (Key Action young first-time jobseekers and young unemployed people aged between 15 and 29). 1) projects, while participation and youth work (16%) and international cooperation, In addition to increasing employment opportunities for young people, the measure international relations and development cooperation (8%) were the two most popular also aimed to introduce a more varied set of approaches to youth employment via topics in Mobility of Youth Workers (Key Action 1) projects (Deželan, 2017). youth work, and to strengthen the youth sector generally by training organisations to Just under three-quarters (74.7%) of organisations believe that Erasmus+: Youth address and resolve the issue of youth unemployment. The young people involved in Action and its predecessor programmes have made a considerable or very consid- also had the opportunity to obtain the experience necessary for obtaining the youth erable contribution to improving the quality of youth work (31.5% very considerable, worker national vocational qualification, and to acquire civic and life skills. 43.2 considerable); only 0.5% felt that Erasmus+: Youth in Action and its predecessor Among other things, participation in the action has enabled organisations to em- programmes had made only a very limited contribution (Deželan, 2017). The evalua- ploy people who were previously involved as volunteers. There are positive effects tion of the Erasmus+: Youth 2017–2023 programme (Deželan, Babič and Vombergar, as well in the reduction in other employees’ workload and better organisation of 2024) also looks at the parameters of the impact of the programme on individuals, work. Beneficiary organisations have, in the main, promoted innovative forms of youth organisations and the community, and finds that the impact on project participants is work mainly by employing innovative approaches to young people, innovative con- greatest when participants are actively involved in all phases of a project and a project tent and new methods of work. Organisations have identified the swifter and easier employs non-formal methods of work tailored to young people. The evaluation also employment of young people as the main impact of innovative forms of youth work. shows that young people gain lifelong learning skills during projects, while the effects Participants have increased their on organisations are predominantly process-related (networking, strengthening of staff self-confidence and communica- competencies, links with other organisations, exchange of practices, etc.). Indeed, e tional skills, and are engaging in it is more difficult to secure a concrete, long-term impact on organisations, as this op more direct and personal contact ur would require a higher level of permanent resources to ensure that the project results with employers. Organisations are sustained over the longer term. As far as community impact is concerned, local have developed a large number of communities welcome projects and their international dimensions, and are interested innovative products, such as new in similar projects in the future. The evaluation of the ESC 2018–2023 (Deželan, 2023) training models at youth centres, identifies similar effects on the part of the solidarity and volunteering programme, outh Without E handbooks for young jobseekers finding that the programme has a tangible impact at the individual, organisational and No Y and enterprise promotion. Forty community levels, and is a manifestation of the European Youth Goals. The programme per cent of organisations in the has had a major impact on organisational changes and on the entire ecosystem in study believed that participation the fields of youth, volunteering, welfare and education. The impacts can also be felt in the project had enabled them to locally, particularly in smaller and more remote communities. gain the necessary knowledge and Impact of projects financed by the European Social Fund experience to address and resolve the issue of youth unemployment, The final report evaluating the success of measures for the permanent inclusion highlighting a better understanding of young people in the labour market (Deloitte Slovenija, 2019) also addresses the of young people and their position impact on the youth sector of the Operational Programme for the Implementation of on the labour market and the use of European Cohesion Policy 2014–2020. With the aim of reducing youth unemployment, new forms of knowledge transfer, Slovenia allocated a portion of ESF resources within the Operational Programme to which include innovative approach- operations under Priority Axis 8 (Promoting employment and supporting transnational es and intergenerational coopera- labour mobility), Priority Investment 8.2 (Sustainable integration of young people into tion (Deloitte Slovenija, 2019). the labour market, especially those who are not employed and are not educated or However, it is important to note trained, including young people exposed to social exclusion and young people from that the situation is not without its marginalised communities, including through the implementation of the Youth Guar- drawbacks. Maja Hostnik, director European programmes are very bureaucratic and restrictive. This means that pro- the emphases and priorities introduced by Erasmus youth programmes and the ESF ject managers and assistants are hampered when trying to deal with the content they have changed over the years. The Slovenian youth sector has been obliged to follow should be dealing with because there’s so much administration behind it. So I believe these changes even when the national and/or local needs have differed, as has been that things are not moving in the right direction and that there is a lack of coherence the case at certain times. An example of this is the 2014–2020 financing period, which overall. Yes, it’s nice to hear that 350 young people were involved in a project and was planned in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and encouraged the youth sector 5,000 across the youth sector as a whole. But the problem with European projects, to focus on youth employment. This distracted many youth organisations from their as well as with the organisations that take part in them, is that they are forced into primary missions, transforming them into a sort of employment support service for new topics and do not actually address young people who are in the youth sector and young people. have an affinity with it but, rather, young people who are unfamiliar with the sector. In the initial period there was a requirement to pursue the priorities of the Youth The problem arises because European Social Fund programmes have changed their for Europe programme, which focused chiefly on European integration and the crea- focus significantly. It’s no longer about developing the youth sector but merely about tion of an emotional community built on the idea of EU identity. The programme that finding young people and chasing numbers. followed, Erasmus+: Youth in Action, was already more focused, in operational terms, Developmental opportunities of programmes and their on project effectiveness and on more specific objectives in the fields of education, vo- future impact cational training, lifelong learning, and efforts to promote active citizenship in general (and European citizenship in particular) among the young. Since the elements of the The Erasmus+ programme has more or less retained its previous structure in the 2014–2020 programme were planned in response to the financial crisis, they focused new financial perspective, with the exception of the shifting of Key Action 3 to Key on strengthening young people’s competencies and employment prospects, and on Action 1 and the renaming of the action, from Support for Policy Reform to Youth modernising and developing education, training and youth work. Similarly, the ESF Participation Activities.4 Some new elements have been introduced into the Eras- priorities in 2014–2020 and 2021–2017 focused on strengthening skills to improve mus+ priorities. Inclusion and diversity remains the most important one, followed by employment outcomes and help young people develop an entrepreneurial mindset. digital transition (a particular consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic), while active e Strategic Partnerships, which set out to systematically develop and strengthen the participation and participation in democratic life also retain their importance. The op competencies of the sector and improve its quality, are perhaps the most important ur environment and the fight against climate change have been added as an important new component to have been added to the programme since 2013. The current Euro-horizontal priority (Zavod MOVIT, 2021). In the national context, MOVIT prioritises pean framework is heavily invested in the priorities of the green and digital transitions. social inclusion and active European citizenship, with a particular focus on the ac- The Slovenian youth sector has therefore had the opportunity to access consid- tive participation of young people. It also focuses on those policy priorities that link erable funds for development, but in the context of changing priorities, which shifted the implementation of EU programmes with the EU Youth Strategy (EUYS) and the outh Without E from European cohesion and the consolidation of young people’s civic and life skills European Youth Work Agenda (EYWA). The quality of youth work remains a priority No Y to youth employment outcomes and enterprise, before finally coming to rest on the and an objective pursued by the national agency in projects. current focus on digital transformation and sustainable development. While these In the last 30 years or so, youth programmes have significantly changed the arena common European priorities present a reasonable set of strategic starting points, in which young people are able to acquire skills and experience. However, it remains they can also be a limiting factor, mainly because of an absence of clear national and the case that the amount of funding available for the youth field in the overall central local priorities. They compel the Slovenian youth sector to move hither and thither in government budget is not sufficient to support the programmes that young people response to new European priorities and funding conditions as they arise. need for their development, particularly when it comes to youth organisations and or- The evaluation of the Erasmus+ programme carried out by Deželan, Babič and ganisations for young people. Slovenia’s membership of the EU has led to considerable Vombergar in 2024 points out that the success in addressing the horizontal priorities changes to the opportunities enjoyed by the youth sector. It has created a space not has been higher in relation to inclusion and diversity and participation in democratic just for greater funding opportunities, but also and above all for capacity-building and life than in priorities linked to the green and digital transitions. It also highlights the fact new methodologies. This expansion of opportunity has enhanced the quality of youth that the programme is achieving high participation rates among young people with work. Young people have been able to gain experience abroad and acquire skills that fewer opportunities, although the definition of that group in the programme depends are difficult to acquire solely in the local and national context, particularly linguistic very much on context. It shows that the distribution of funds changes significantly and intercultural competencies, and the ability to work in groups and think critically. from action to action over time, but that these changes are not steered by strategy While the youth sector has developed predominantly with the help of European (and especially not when it comes to national priorities), and that while total funding funds, the disproportionately strong financing of the youth sector by the EU compared has grown since 2020, it is difficult to assess whether this has had a correspondingly to the financing available from domestic sources means a greater emphasis on EU significant impact. Along with this, there are too few funds for and an insufficient focus too low. There is a disproportionate ratio between the funds managed by the Office programmes to understand and adequately address this national gap. for Youth and Erasmus+ funds managed by the national agency; as a result, Erasmus+ All the positive and negative effects of European programmes on the youth field explicitly determines public policy in the youth field instead of complementing it, while need to be monitored, independently and at a healthy distance. Only in this way, national priorities are not adequately inserted into the project application conditions, without excessive cheerleading or criticism, can we properly identify and build upon even though the Erasmus+ programme allows them to be so. This means that a all the positive achievements of programmes – and remove the weaknesses, which certain set of new organisations (‘newcomers’) are lost to the application process, certainly do exist, effectively and transparently. as is content specifically relevant to local and national contexts. As a consequence, the national agency’s impact on public youth policy exceeds that of its powers – it is, after all, a private implementing organisation and not a central government authority with powers to develop youth policy. Another of the evaluation’s more significant findings is that organisations frequent- ly create a core activity via Erasmus+ projects alone. Seldom are they sufficiently independent, in terms of funding from other sources, to use Erasmus+ to upgrade that core activity. Tomaž Deželan’s evaluation of the ESC programme (2023) also finds that while the ESC has led to positive changes at organisational, personal and local community levels, it has an insufficiently strong connection with national volunteering and youth priorities, and the funds available for organisations and participants are so low as to jeopardise project delivery. Looking towards the future In line with the key findings of the evaluations of the Erasmus+, European Solidarity e Corps and European Social Fund programmes, we give a few recommendations and op guidelines aimed at enhancing the deployment of European funds for the development ur of the youth sector in Slovenia. The use of European funds must be aligned in a more logical and comprehensive way with the national priorities set out in the national youth strategy. New youth-cen- tred strategies and programmes should set out national priorities, dictated by the outh Without E needs of end-users, that adequately complement European programmes. In the ab- No Y sence of this, European horizontal priorities can act as a disincentive. The term ‘innovation’, which frequently appears as a precondition in project ap- plication calls, must be defined more clearly so as to cover not merely new content, but the upgrading (in quality terms) and/or ongoing delivery of successful older pro- grammes. This will prevent applicants from abandoning their strategic focus in favour of meeting the requirements of project calls. Attention and resources must be focused on systematic, high-quality mentoring and expert advice to the young people involved, particularly those suffering from mental health difficulties or personal and psychological distress. As far as the impact of European funds on organisations themselves is concerned, there needs to be a better understanding of the links between the areas of opera- tion of organisations based on the needs of direct users and the broader horizontal priorities of the programmes. The programmes themselves also need to be steered in this direction. It is vitally important that the volume and continuity of funding of the day-to-day operations of youth organisations be increased and stabilised so that those organ- References Zavod MOVIT (2021). Statistika programov (Programme Statistics). https://www.movit.si/erasmus- mladi-v-akciji/arhiv-2021-2027/statistika-programa-2021-2027/ Cink, B. (ed.) (2019). Mladje št. 40 (Youth, No 40). MOVIT. http://www.movit.si/fileadmin/ Zavod MOVIT (n.d.) Splošne informacije o programu Erasmus+ 2021–2027 (General information movit/0ZAVOD/Publikacije/Mladje/Mladje%2040%20web.pdf on the Erasmus+ 2021–2027 programme). https://www.movit.si/erasmus-mladi-v-akciji/ Council of the European Union (2009). Council Resolution of 27 November 2009 on a Renewed splosno-o-programu/ Framework for European Cooperation in the Youth Field (2010–2018) (2009/C 311/01). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32009G1219%2801%29 Deloitte Slovenija (2019). Vrednotenje uspešnosti ukrepov za trajnostno vključevanje mladih na trg dela (Evaluation of the Success of Measures for the Permanent Inclusion of Young People in the Labour Market). Final report. https://www.eu-skladi.si/sl/dokumenti/studije-in-vred- notenja/20190719_svrk_koncno_porocilo_final-clean.pdf Deželan, T. (2017). Nacionalno poročilo o implementaciji in učinkih programa Erasmus+ na področju mladine v Sloveniji, Priloga k nacionalnemu poročilu (National Report on the Implementation and Impact of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action Programme in Slovenia – Annex to the National Report). Office for Youth. http://www.movit.si/fileadmin/movit/0ZAVOD/ Publikacije/Raziskave/E__nacionalo_porocilo_mladina_-_priloga.pdf Deželan, T. (2023). Evalvacija Nacionalnega programa za mladino (Evaluation of the National Youth Programme). Office for Youth. Deželan, T., Babič, K. and Vombergar, N. (2024). Nacionalno poročilo o implementaciji in učinkih programa Erasmus + na področju mladine v Sloveniji (National Report on the Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme and its Impact on the Youth Field in Slovenia) Office for Youth. Drobne, M. (2017). Mednarodne podporne aktivnosti Nacionalne agencije programa Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji v letu 2017 (International Support Activities of the National Agency for the Erasmus+: Youth in Action Programme in 2017). Zavod MOVIT. http://www.movit.si/fileadmin/ European Commission (2001). European Commission White Paper – A New Impetus for European movit/0ZAVOD/Publikacije/Podporne_aktivnosti/tca_brosure_2017.pdf e op Youth. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52001DC0681ur European Commission (2008). Youth in Action Programme Guide. https://ec.europa.eu/assets/ eac/youth/tools/documents/programme-guide-2008_en.pdf European Commission (2014). Erasmus+ Programme Guide. https://wayback.archive-it. org/12090/20211006034030/https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/sites/default/ files/files/resources/2014-erasmus-plus-programme-guide_en.pdf outh Without E European Commission (2017). Erasmus+ Programme Guide. https://wayback.archive-it. org/12090/20210927201120/https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/sites/default/ No Y files/2017-erasmus-plus-programme-guide-v1_en.pdf European Commission (2019). Youth Strategy 2019–2027. https://youth.europa.eu/strategy_en European Commission (2020). Erasmus+ Programme Guide. https://wayback.archive-it. org/12090/20210927200955/https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/sites/default/ files/erasmus-plus-programme-guide-2020_en.pdf European Commission (2021). European Solidarity Corps Guide (2021). https://youth.europa.eu/ solidarity/organisations/reference-documents-resources_en European Commission (n.d.). EU Funding Programmes. https://commission.europa.eu/funding- tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes_en European Youth Portal (EYP) (n.d.). https://youth.europa.eu/home_en Kambič, M. and Rajgelj, S. (2014). Sedem let programa Mladi v akciji (Seven Years of the Youth in Action Programme). MOVIT. http://www.movit.si/fileadmin/movit/0ZAVOD/Publikacije/Odtisi/ Odtisi_mladih_2013_zbornik.pdf Pečjak. P. (ed.) (2006). Mladje (Youth). Zavod MOVIT. https://www.movit.si/fileadmin/ movit/0ZAVOD/Publikacije/Mladje/Mladje_14_2006.pdf Škulj, J. (2014). ‘Sedem let programa Mladi v akciji’ (Seven Years of the Youth in Action Programme). In: ‘Sedem let programa Mladi v akciji’ 2007–2013. Zavod MOVIT. Škulj, J. (2016). Prispevki k zgodovini mladinskega dela (Contributions to the History of the Development of the Youth Sector). Zavod MOVIT. The Central Chapter 5 Importance of the Series Researching Mladina Tomaž Deželan Katja Nacevski Marko Majce Youth and Young People in Slovenia Key milestones in the development Young people are defined as a social group in a range of different ways, but the starting point for many of the definitions is what they are not. Comparisons are drawn with other groups, such as children and adults, with the aim of drawing out the dif- of youth research in Slovenia: ferences between them. According to Mirjana Ule and Vlado Miheljak, young people are ‘a generational group situated between childhood and adulthood, characterised 1986: by the creation of their own world, one that adults are unable to steer and control in Mladina ‘85 their own way’ (Ule and Miheljak, 1995), while the Council of Europe’s framework 1995: definition refers to young people as individuals aged between 15 and 29 — which Mladina ‘93 means that there have been two full generations of young people in the three and a 2000: Mladina ‘98 half decades since Slovenia became an independent country. The Slovenian Office for Youth (Urad RS za mladino) and the other institutions that have developed since 2002: Mladina 2000 independence monitor this age group and the population changes within it, usually 2011: in the form of studies supported by research organisations at home and abroad. Mladina 2010 Numerous studies have set out to describe Slovenian youth, with the earliest of 2014: them being produced when the country was still part of Yugoslavia. The research Slovenska Mladina 2013 originally took the form of monographs, most notably Mladina in ideologija (Youth 2021: and Ideology, Ule (1988)),1 Prihodnost mladine (The Future of Young People, Ule Mladina 2020 s and Miheljak (1995)), Predah za študentsko mladino (Breathing Space for Slovenian Youth, ed. Ule (1996)), Mladina v devetdesetih: Analiza stanja v Sloveniji (Young People in the 1990s: An Analysis of the Situation in Slovenia, Ule (1996)), Prosti čas mladih v Ljubljani (Young People’s Leisure Time in Ljubljana, Ule and Rener (1998)) and Socialna ranljivost mladih (The Social Vulnerability of Young People, ed. Ule (2000)). These have since been followed by systematic research studies of young people e of the Mladina Serie mainly centred around the ‘Mladina’ (Youth) series: Mladina 2000 (Miheljak, 2002), Mladina 2010 (Lavrič et al., 2011), Slovenska Mladina 2013 (Flere et al., 2014) and tanc Mladina 2020 (Lavrič and Deželan, 2021). or al Imp Slovenian youth research in the last century tr An extensive research study, Položaj, svest i ponašanje mlade generacije Jugoslavi- je (Vrcan, 1986), was produced by CIDID Beograd and IDIS Zagreb in the 1980s.2 Of The Cen the approximately 6,500 young people included in the standardised sample, just over 500 were from Slovenia (Ule and Vrcan, 1986). This prompted Slovenian researchers to produce their own separate study, which focused exclusively on young people in Slovenia and had its own national funding sources. The research was conducted in 1985 and 1986 at the Institute of Criminology the Ljubljana Faculty of Law (Ule, 1988) and produced two studies: a quantitative study of the values and lifestyles of young people in Slovenia, and a qualitative study that examined the discussions around youth that had been published in the Mladina and Tribuna journals between 1944 and 1985. In-depth interviews were also held with representatives of the social movements of the time. In the literature, the title ‘Mladina ‘85’ is used to refer to both studies. In her Mladina in ideologija (Youth and Ideology, 1988), Mirjana Ule drew on their findings, focus- ing on topics such as the concept of youth through history, youth as an ideological construct, youth and discipline, images of contemporary Slovenian youth and their authoritarianism, traditionalism and nationalism, values and interests, social changes, values, young people’s approaches to and attitudes towards politics, and the ‘modern- and the problems they faced, particularly in relation to employment. In post-Second isation’ of youth. She also touched on the themes of youth subcultures, individualism World War Yugoslav society, the role of young people was integrative and oriented among the young and attitudes towards the Relay of Youth,3 all of which served to towards productivity; in Slovenia as well, the image of young people was a positive point up the differences between young people in Slovenia and the rest of Yugoslavia. one in the years following the war. From the end of the 1970s, however, research The Slovenian respondents showed less desire to be involved in official social and indicated that a more ‘individualistic’ path towards adulthood, i.e. one that was not political organisations than their Yugoslav peers, and indeed were less active within essentially connected to affiliation with youth or other groups, was gaining ground them. The more critical attitude towards the system displayed by Slovenian youth (Ule and Miheljak, 1995: 76). The role of young people was also changing at this time. became known as ‘alternativism’; this was the overarching term for a range of social In the 1990s, Slovenian youth regarded moral virtue and personal characteristics as practices that took place outside the scope of official politics. It was also evident in two of the values most important to them. Social characteristics, such as education the differences in the way Slovenian young people and their peers from the other and nationality, were seen as less important, and religious faith and political conviction Yugoslav republics perceived social and youth-related problems. Slovenian youth even less so (Ule and Miheljak, 1995). In the third section, Vlado Miheljak focused on were not so acutely affected by economic problems or by issues like unemployment; young people’s attitudes towards politics and (the new) political practices, mainly at instead they focused on other problems of a more ‘systemic’ nature. the level of opinions and values. When Slovenia became independent in 1991, young people accounted for 22.47% The Mladina ‘85 and Mladina ‘93 studies both showed that two-thirds of young of the population, down from 24.2% a decade earlier. This fall continued, to 22.24% in people wanted to remain young for a while longer, or for as long as possible. In 1993 1994. Mladina ‘93 (Ule, 1993), the first extensive post-independence study of young a relatively large proportion of young people were unable to determine how they people in Slovenia, was related in concept to Mladina ‘85 (Ule and Vrcan, 1986) and s felt about youth and adulthood, with around 10% still feeling that youth was merely the Shell Youth Study.4 It was conducted by the youth studies section of the Centre the period of transition to adulthood, and one through which they wished to pass as for Social Psychology, which was based at the Social Sciences Research Institute at quickly as possible (Ule and Miheljak, 1995). the Faculty of Social Sciences (FDV) in Ljubljana. The researchers focused on young Mladina v devetdesetih: Analiza stanja v Sloveniji (Young People in the 1990s: An people in secondary education in all 12 school regions. Three groups of four-year Analysis of the Situation in Slovenia, Ule (1996)) was drafted for the Office for Youth programmes and three groups of three-year programmes were included in the repre- and served as a national report on young people in Slovenia. Taking the form of a sentative sample on a region-by-region basis, along with two groups of two-year pro- collection of papers by experts in the field, it arose as a response to the Council of e of the Mladina Serie grammes in each region. Only those areas that had all the courses and programmes Europe’s work in the youth field; as such, it was the first to deal with young people tanc specified in the sample were selected for the study. Owing to the special research as a single group of individuals aged between 15 and 29. Eleven papers discussed or interests that were also incorporated into the study, the sample was expanded to in- topics such as education and employment, values, political culture, health, lifestyles, clude Hungarian- and Italian-language schools, and schools in the Ljubljana region. standards and family status, and criminal activity. al Imp tr The average age of the respondents was 17.7 years, with 70% identifying as being of The generation characterised as ‘young’ in the 1990s experienced its childhood Slovenian nationality. The survey was conducted at an inopportune time, coinciding and part of its adolescence at a time when socialism was collapsing. Although they as it did with the final days of the academic year and the school strike that took place The Cen had inherited constant economic growth and a rise in living standards from the older in the last week of May and the first week of June 1993. For the purpose of the study, generations, they subsequently encountered unemployment, pressing environmental and because the level of response was less than ideal, two-year programmes were problems and the information revolution — something their parents had not known. merged with three-year programmes. The sample sizes were nevertheless regarded In the first post-independence decade, young people mainly experienced a period of as solid. multiple transitions; this was in stark contrast to the decade before that, when they The authors (Ule and Miheljak, 1995) expressed the hope that this would signal had fought for change and tried to prepare themselves for it. The study was carried the start of a systematic engagement with youth research of the kind seen in devel- out by researchers at the youth studies department of the Centre for Social Psychol- oped European countries (and indeed in other parts of the former Yugoslavia). In the ogy at FDV. They relied on official statistical data, complemented by various public first section, Mirjana Ule discussed concepts relating to youth and young people, opinion surveys and studies previously carried out by the Institute for Social Sciences placing them within a theoretical context; in the second, she reviewed and interpret- at FDV. The illustrative graphical presentations and tables of data, with accompanying ed the results of the study, which she categorised into individual sets of concerns. analyses, were the first in a series of projects that the authors hoped would establish She was interested in young people’s attitudes towards growing up and adulthood, a consistent and growing structure of information on young people in Slovenia. Predah za študentsko mladino (Breathing Space for Slovenian Youth, Ule et al. 3 (1996)) referred to this study as Mladina ‘95. To some degree it complemented Mlad- The Relay of Youth (štafeta mladosti) was a relay race held every year in socialist as prolonging youth, identity in post-adolescence, the status of students as a youth people were opting to remain in education for longer in order to gain more advanced elite, cultural modernisation, social circumstances, youth-related problems such as educational qualifications, improve their employment prospects and/or delay their unemployment, attitudes towards adulthood, shifts in values, the triumvirate of au- entry into an uncertain jobs market (Miheljak and Ule, 2001: 51). In the world of work thoritarianism, traditionalism and national affiliation, interest in religion, and interests and employment, new links were arising between education, employment (and unem- in general. The second part looked at the family and young people’s attitudes towards ployment) and lifelong learning. There had also been an increase in the importance it, with a focus on topics such as the breakthroughs made in socialisation theory in of individual self-realisation through the practice of a profession. the 1960s, citizenship post Marshall, ‘Living Apart Together’, generational and in- Averaged across their responses, young people believed that 22.3 years was an ter-generational peace, and family support, while the third part dealt with students’ appropriate age for first full-time employment, 23.79 years for leaving the parental political potential through topics such as immanent radicalism, egalitarianism, trust, home, 27.01 years for becoming a parent for the first time and 27.18 years for getting heritage, values, self-identification as left or right, positive or negative preferences, married. The study showed that some transitions had stopped following the traditional the values of the past, and public issues. The fourth and final part briefly examined pattern — for example, marriage was increasingly coming after parenthood. The re- discrimination based on sexual preference. The monograph compared the Mladina searchers found that the ‘grand narratives’ presented by ideological and faith systems ‘95 data with the data from Mladina ‘93, from Slovenian public opinion surveys and (e.g. religion) appeared to be dead and that young people no longer built their values from several international studies. around them (Miheljak and Ule, 2001: 53). For them, health, true friendship, family Young people in the new millennium life and global values (world peace, freedom of action and thought, environmental protection) were more important. At the same time, the survey indicated that levels Mladina 2000 of participation in conventional electoral politics were lower than before, and that s young people were less inclined to trust political parties and leading politicians. They The research of the 1990s continued into the new placed their greatest trust in parents, followed by siblings and friends. In everyday life, millennium with the Mladina 2000 study (Miheljak, fashion, sex and communication, the behavioural patterns presented by the media 2002), which aimed to provide a general overview of the and then introduced by peer groups tended to dominate young people’s lives. The particular experience in conducting research surveys. al Imp A total of 1,262 interviews took place.tr The next important systematic research study of Slovenian youth appeared ten The study focused on political beliefs and on atti-years later. Conducted by the Maribor Faculty of Arts in collaboration with the Interstat tudes towards politics and democracy after ten years company, it expanded the age range slightly, to young people aged between 15 and The Cen of transition. The researchers were also interested in 29 (previously 16 to 29), and was a conceptual and methodological continuation of young people’s shopping habits, social contacts, gen-the tradition of youth research in Slovenia. The main issues tackled by the study were: eral habits, activities and leisure, values, and attitudes demographic changes and intergenerational cooperation; education and training; towards school and parents, as well as their own as-creativity; culture; leisure; the ‘virtualisation’ of daily life; employment and enterprise; a sessments of the problems they faced. The findings sustainable society; living and housing conditions; health and well-being; participation were divided into the categories of family, education, and social inclusion; voluntary activities; mobility; and globalisation. The sample was work, politics and everyday life. In the family category, selected on the basis of data from the Slovenian central population register, and the the research showed a decline in parental authority research was conducted by the Centre for Social Psy- Field no longer ‘Who am I?’ but ‘How should I appear to others?’ The results of the study e of the Mladina Serie confirmed the basic hypothesis: that young people were changing their identity and chology at FDV in the form of face-to-face interviews in tanc assuming other social roles. or the respondent’s home, mainly by FDV students with no Mladina 2010 ple who had permanent residence in Slovenia and were ginning to play an important roles in young people’s lives. Their central problem was 5 aged between 16 and 29 on 20 October 2000. younger generation in Slovenia. It targeted young peo- media revolution and new technologies were bringing about global changes and be- target population was stratified into 12 statistical regions and six types of settlement. and, at the same time, a strengthening of the position A total of 1,257 young people were surveyed (the sample had originally been set at of young people within the family. The average age at 2,000, with a 60% response rate expected). Data was collected at face-to-face field marriage had risen, as had the number of young people interviews carried out between 27 June and 24 September 2010. The researchers living alone or opting for cohabitation without marriage. also sought to draw longitudinal and international comparisons, particularly with Education had gained in importance, primarily as a other EU Member States (EU-27). with the EU-27, a higher proportion of young people in Slovenia were in education, Post-Yugoslav Societies at the University of Maribor and the Friedrich Ebert Foun- although they tended to express dissatisfaction with the fact that the education system dation (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, FES). The main areas of focus were determined by did not seem to be aligned with the needs of the labour market. The proportion of the FES research committee, which commissioned the study. They included: young young people in full-time permanent employment had declined: in 2000 it was around people’s living conditions and socio-economic situation; employment and mobility; 60% of 29-year-olds, but was down to 48% by 2010 (cf. Figure 1, Lavrič et al., 2011: 17). education; leisure and lifestyle; media use; health, health-risk behaviours and lifestyle; The position of young people at the time of the study was defined by a combination family; anxieties and aspirations; trust and belonging; politics and democracy; and of strong family support, prolonged participation in the education system and uncer- governance and development. tainty on the jobs market. Other data sources showed that young people in Slovenia The target population was young people aged between 16 and 27 in 2012 (accord- were among the last to leave the parental home compared to other EU-27 countries. ing to the national statistical office, this population numbered 282,194 at that time). Independence also had an impact on fertility, as a larger proportion of young people Nine hundred young people were included in the study, and face-to-face interviews who lived away from the parental home had already had at least one child by age 29 were conducted between 29 May and 20 July 2013. The questionnaire comprised compared to those who still lived with their parents. Opinions of political elites had oral and written sections. deteriorated significantly, and young people had less of a sense of their own political At the time the study was conducted, Slovenia was undergoing a deep economic influence. In fact, in comparison with the average for the EU-27, young people in Slo- crisis; this could not help but have an impact on the final findings. This crisis and venia were significantly less interested in politics and political activism. That said, it the recession it caused affected young people mainly by limiting their employment is possible to see the period in which the study was produced as a time in which the opportunities. This should be understood as the basic feature of social and economic potential for protest had strengthened, with greater engagement in individualised conditions at the time of the study, with Slovenian young people suffering precarity in forms of political participation. As in the Mladina 2000 study, young people displayed s living conditions as well as employment. The proportion of young people in full-time or a low level of trust in political structures, although they had become more active in permanent employment had been falling since 1991, but the trend sharpened at this voluntary work, mainly in the form of campaigns aimed at improving the position of time. The impact was felt more keenly by women, and included those with postgrad- young people. uate degrees — a group that had seldom previously been faced with unemployment. The Mladina 2010 study identified an increase in computer use among young Young people’s earnings originated from permanent employment to a diminishing people, with 82% reporting that they used the internet (almost) every day. This was degree, unemployment rose and wages stagnated. The effect of education on em- higher than the figure for both the EU-15 and the EU-27. However, young people were ployment prospects became less positive and the Slovenian jobs market remained e of the Mladina Serie also devoting more time to sport and to cultural and artistic creation than they had heavily segmented. Despite all this, the social position of young people could not be tanc been in 2000. Another interesting key finding was that young people remained as characterised across the board as poor or in decline. While some aspects of their or optimistic about their future as they had been 15 years earlier, and had not become social lives had deteriorated, others had improved. more pessimistic (or less optimistic) about the future of society. It is not surprising that Young people in Slovenia were gradually becoming more and more involved in al Imp tr there was a heightened degree of dissatisfaction given the period in which the study education, particularly at postgraduate level, with Slovenia even reaching the top was conducted: money was scarce, housing problems acute employment uncertain. of several of the relevant EU rankings. Their private lives were generally free of any Young people in the last 15 years The Cen particular burdens or obstacles; the majority of families offered understanding and support, in housing and other areas. Although Slovenia was in recession, this family The Slovenian research community has continued to produce insights into the support was aided by a decade of progressive family home construction. Relation- status and position of Slovenian youth over the last decade. Two larger studies worthy ships with parents were not placed under strain by old-fashioned restrictions, which of mention here are Slovenska Mladina 2013: Življenje v času deziluzij, tveganja in (generally) helps to create the conditions for freer relations with peers and partners. prekarnosti (Slovenian Youth 2013: Living in Times of Disillusionment, Risk and Precar- However, young people displayed significant levels of political dissatisfaction and ity, Flere et al., 2014) and the Youth Study Southeast Europe 2018/2019 (Jusić, Lavrič pessimism about the future of society at the time of the study. This negative assess- and Tomanović, 2019). The most recent study, Mladina 2020 (Lavrič and Deželan, ment of politics and democracy was part of the general picture across Slovenia in a 2021), addressed young people as independent Slovenia moved into its fourth decade. period marked by the protest movements of 2012 and 2013, which argued strongly Slovenska Mladina 2013 that the political system had lost its legitimacy. In defending their social position, tween 16 and 27, basing its methodology on the Mladina 2010 study. It sought to of their interests. Young people remained largely satisfied with their conditions of obtain a comprehensive picture of how young people in Slovenia lived, but also to offer life and were, in the main, looked after by the social security system, the education insights into the lives of young people in Croatia (IDIZ-FES Croatian 2012 Youth Study) system and their families. One of the conclusions reached by the research team was The Slovenska Mladina 2013 research study focused on young people aged be- Student Union (Slovenska študentska organizacija), which was an active advocate young people in Slovenia were not without political power, as shown by the Slovenian This was also part of the drive towards individualism detected in previous research, with the highest value being placed on ‘career’ and ‘independence’ (cf. Mladina ‘85 and Mladina 2010). Slovenian young people opted for less binding forms of relation- ship than their peers in Croatia, although the institution of marriage was still felt to be the priority. In general, inequality had increased in Slovenia while remaining at a relatively low level; social inequality within the Slovenian youth population was to some extent hidden by the expansion and promotion of higher education and by the social support measures available to young people. In contrast to the relatively good position enjoyed by Slovenian youth, there had been a deterioration in the process of transition to adulthood as a result of the difficulty in finding (stable) employment. As one of the main forms of youth employment, precarity was already affecting a solid portion of the adult population at the time the study was conducted; and if young people accepted this situation at their time of life, this would mean changes to their adult lives as well. The proportion of young adults (aged between 24 and 27) almost halved in comparison with 2000 (71.4% vs 40.6% in 2013). At the same time, more young people were staying on in education, and supplementing their income with temporary employment and student work. Youth Study Southeast Europe 2018/2019 s More than 10,000 young people aged between 14 and 29 took part in this study of ten South-East European countries,6 which was commissioned by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. It was the second major study of young people in the region after the FES Youth Studies SEE 2011–15. This new study enabled comparisons to be drawn between changes across the region. Young people responded to survey questions on education, employment, political participation, the family, leisure and ICT use, and e of the Mladina Serie values, attitudes and worldviews. tancor Young people in South-East Europe continued to face high levels of unemployment and precarious working conditions, with a high proportion of NEETs (individuals not al Imptr in employment, education or training). These figures were particularly high in the countries of the Western Balkans (the Western Balkan Six or WB6), and young people were also faced with anxieties relating to unemployment. Those living in the WB6 The Cen reported that they prized public sector employment highly, where membership of a political party was an important precondition for securing a job. Young people from less privileged social backgrounds found it harder to access higher levels of educa- tion, take part in social or political activities, become involved in activities in aid of their personal growth and development, use ICT for their educational and information needs, and find suitable employment. Corruption in the education system had always been a feature of all countries of South-East Europe, but had risen in the five years leading up to the study. Tolerance of informal practices, such as use of connections, bribery or tax fraud, was relatively high among young people in the region, and had increased considerably since 2008. A large majority of young people supported the welfare state, particularly those from more deprived socio-economic backgrounds, and there were fairly high levels of support among young people in South-Eastern Europe for ‘political leaders who govern the country with a strong hand for the public Young people from EU Member States emigrated from their countries of origin As far as research is concerned, we invest a great deal of hope in the Mladina re- less than those whose countries had not yet joined the EU. Young people in the re- search studies, which are financed by the Office for Youth. Until this most recent one, gion were generally pro-European, but the majority felt poorly represented by their there was not much collaboration between the researchers and youth organisations. national politicians; at the same time, they had little experience of political and social This time, for Mladina 2020, we were invited to take part, and they sent us questions participation, aside from voting in elections. Most young people in South-Eastern in advance and asked for our opinions. This is progress. Europe believed that their political knowledge was poor, and claimed that they were Mladina 2020 focused on similar thematic groupings to those set out in the Mlad- not interested in politics. However, longer periods of living abroad did appear to lead ina 2010 research plan: demographics, education, employment, living and housing to a greater interest in civic and political participation and to a reduction in nationalist conditions, health and well-being, political participation, creativity and culture, mo- ways of thinking. It should also be noted that most young people in South-Eastern bility, use of ICT, consumption, sustainable behaviour and values, and interests. Europe had not had any experience of international learning mobility at the time the The study targeted inhabitants of Slovenia who were aged from 15 to 29 on 5 study was carried out. August 2019. The field interviews took place between August and October 2020, and Owing to high levels of unemployment and insufficient support from the state, then via the Zoom video-conferencing tool from mid-October because of the Covid-19 the majority of the region’s young people relied on other financial, housing and edu- pandemic. Owing to the low number of publicly available telephone numbers and the cational support. This prolonged the transition to adulthood for many young people. poor response to the written request to supply contact details, just over a third of the Research showed that 36% of Slovenian respondents were in school, 36% were in surveys were carried out with the help of an online panel. All 1,200 of the planned post-secondary education, 5% were in some other form of education and 23% were surveys had been conducted by November 2020, and an important portion of the not in any form of education at all (this last figure was the lowest of all the countries data came from interviews with youth sector representatives. surveyed). Of all the countries of South-Eastern Europe, Slovenia was the only one s to have achieved the goal set out in the Europe 2020 strategy of having 40% of the population aged between 30 and 34 reaching tertiary education level. None of the Slovenian respondents had dropped out of primary education, only 2.7% had dropped out of secondary education and 16.4% had abandoned their tertiary education stud- ies. Slovenia had the lowest unemployment levels between 2010 and 2016, and was not one of the countries with a higher proportion of young people employed under e of the Mladina Serie contract (for full- or part-time work). tancor Mladina 2020 Mladina 2020 continued the tradition, by now well-established, of producing com-al Imptr prehensive research into Slovenian youth. It was the result of a collaboration between the Maribor Faculty of Arts and the Ljubljana Faculty of Social Sciences — the two institutions that have been almost exclusively responsible for this type of research The Cen since independence — and involved around 1,200 young people aged between 15 and 29.7 Since Slovenia does not have a system for monitoring the social position of young people, the Mladina 2000 and Mladina 2010 studies were used as the refer- ence framework for the Mladina 2020 study. However, the research team introduced a number of concepts and methodologies that led to the introduction of new topics within the study (e.g. civic spaces for young people) and research into new approaches to existing topics (e.g. participation). The study was commissioned by the Office for Youth, which needs data for policy- making; the research team therefore focused on ensuring that the study, like Mladina 2010, had an informative value. Evidence-based policymaking and delivery helps political decision-makers make informed decisions on policies, programmes and projects. Youth sector organisations were also invited to help formulate the research plan and identify the specific needs of the sector and of young people themselves The Covid-19 pandemic had an inevitable impact on the results of the study, with respondents being asked to consider how things had been prior to the pandemic ; it also had clearly had an impact on the respondents’ values, viewpoints, feelings and political behaviour. As the survey was conducted before the autumn school closures, researchers carried out a statistical assessment of the impact on the 15–29 age group; they found that while there were correlations, they tended to be weak. Their conclusion was therefore that the pandemic was having an impact, albeit a small one. They illustrated this with the example of the problem of loneliness —namely, that the pandemic was simply exacerbating a trend that had been present already. With regard to demographic indicators, the study notes the end of the period of rapid decline in the number of young people, which is having an impact on the degree to which young people are represented in the unemployment figures, as well as on their importance as an electoral base (and, consequently, their political power). It also complements the upward trend in the size of the older population. In the Mladina 2020 study, almost three-quarters of young people reported that they saw this as a big or very big problem; at the same time, the proportion of young people who got along with their parents very well had risen since Mladina 2010, although their expectations of parental assistance in key areas of life had fallen significantly. s From young people’s point of view, intergenerational cooperation was good. Young Figure 1: If it offered you better creative and general living opportunities, would you be prepared to people tended not to mention intergenerational conflict, but were strongly aware of move for a longer period or permanently? Sources: Mladina 2000, Mladina 2010 and Mladina 2020. the disadvantages faced by older people when it came to social welfare. More than 60% partly or completely agreed with the statement that young and older people Young people were making greater use of non-formal and informal education requirements of the current generations had to be weighed against those to come. workshops and training programmes covering foreign languages, culture and art, e of the Mladina Serie According to Mladina 2020, young people were leaving home earlier than they had were equally disadvantaged. A similar percentage agreed with the statement that the tools than before. Outside their regular school education, they took part in courses, been at the time Mladina 2010 was conducted, bringing them closer to the EU aver- tanc tional knowledge. The numbers were up considerably on a decade earlier, by eight or age: it fell from 29.7 years to 27.7 years between 2010 and 2019. While this was still undertook preparations for their driving test, and acquired various forms of voca- above the EU average, as well as the average for neighbouring Austria and Hungary, al Imp For informal learning, young people made considerable use of the online tools tr none of Slovenia’s neighbours had experienced a drop of that size. Young people’s percentage points (13 percentage points in case of the driving test). and new educational opportunities that had not been as available to the generations transition to adulthood was changing and could no longer be regarded as a linear before them, although the internet was increasingly being used to a significant de- process. Young people were active, responsible and autonomous in a variety of fields The Cen gree for online shopping. Slovenian young people were in the bottom half of the EU of action, many of them linked to issues of mental health, housing and youth employ- ranking when it came to the proportion of young people with knowledge of computer ment, which they felt were working against them. programming, and their use of ICT tools was generally restricted to basic tasks — all Young people were leaving the formal education system more quickly than was of which suggests that education policy should prioritise this area in the future. formerly the case; on the other hand, the proportion of young people with experience Despite the fact that youth unemployment had fallen as a result of demographic of learning mobility had risen. While it was still only 23%, this was nine percentage changes, Slovenia still had a higher number of precariously employed young people points higher than the figure for 2010. More than half the young people surveyed than the European average. The Mladina 2020 study revealed that young people’s (54.1%) were planning to undertake educational activities abroad in the future, a rise position on the jobs market was relatively unfavourable, with two-thirds prepared to of 7.3% on 2010. Mobility generally has an important positive impact on development, take up self-employment in order to stave off unemployment. The notion of enter- with a rise in readiness to move elsewhere in Slovenia, to another European country prise had gained currency among the young, with the researchers noting a decline or even to another continent (see Figure 1). The biggest rise, of just over 17 percent- in enthusiasm for employment in the public sector (cf. the section on the Youth Study age points, was in the readiness to move to another European country, which was Southeast Europe 2018/2019, p. 11). Employment security remained important, but to some extent the result of the fact that Slovenia had been an EU member for some less so than the requirement for work to be interesting, provide a high degree of years by that point. The desire to move away from Slovenia for more than six months autonomy and have a clear objective. The percentage of young people who said that This fear had been higher two years previously (YSEE 2018), when it stood at 43%, improvement in young people’s psycho-but was still very high compared to a decade or two previously (27% and 21.8%, see physical health. Indeed, the indicators Mladina 2020, p. 365). There had been a concomitant decline in the popularity of of stress and problems maintaining a self-employment, down from 43% of those in favour of it in Mladina 2010 to 32.1% in healthy weight suggest the opposite: a Mladina 2020. To a large extent, the readiness to move away for better living conditions general deterioration in young people’s was connected with employment. health. Mental health problems were also One worrying finding in relation to health and well-being was that the proportion highlighted by the strategies used to deal of young people who felt lonely had increased. Mladina 2020 found a significant in- with them. Just over 14% of young peo-crease in feelings of stress or loneliness from Mladina 2010 (for stress from 17% to ple, for example, used alcohol and drugs 36% and for loneliness from 9% to over 30%), although this comes with a caveat: the to ease their problems. later study was conducted after the Covid-19 pandemic and the earlier one ten years The study also focused on exposure before it (see Figure 2). In response to the high levels of worry and stress among the to hate speech resulting from increased young, Mladina 2020 emphasises the responsibility the current holders of political use of ICT tools. More than 80% of young and social power have in helping them realise their visions and meet the challenges people witnessed hate speech on mul-of the future. tiple occasions every month, and 70% believed that there was too much hate speech in Slovenian society. As far as the s impact on the public sphere and political activism was concerned, Mladina 2020 found that young people were more in- volved in asserting their civic rights than they had been a decade earlier. There appeared to be little interest in politics, e of the Mladina Serie reflecting the low levels of trust in politi- cians. This was having a negative impact tanc on electoral participation, which also re-or mained low. While there was less focus al Imp on institutional politics, young people’s tr levels of social engagement were high, with the personal aspects of political en- The Cen gagement being regarded as important. They used conventional and unconventional forms of political participation, such as political consumerism, rejecting (boycotting) certain products, making purchases for political, ethical and environmental reasons, and signing petitions. It appears that environmentally responsible consumer behaviour and consumer activism are becom- Figure 2: Feelings of stress and loneliness among young people in 2010 and 2020. Sources: Mladina ing increasingly common modes of political expression among young people, who 2010 and Mladina 2020. also reported that they were more inclined to communicate with politicians directly. pessimistic about the future, i.e. a significant fall in young people’s satisfaction with Mladina 2020 found that housing issues were directly affecting an increasing life. Generally speaking, young people were increasingly less satisfied with their percentage of young people. This was partly the result of the earlier departure from health, but also devoted more attention to it, which may reflect the negative impact the parental home noted above; it is when they leave home that young people feel There had also been a perceptible rise in the number of young people who were violence was legitimate if carried out in pursuit of higher ends. However, there were also concerns about radicalisation, with a quarter believing that of wider social conditions. Mladina 2020 highlighted mental health as one of the key dissatisfied with a policy that seems oblivious to the housing pressures they are challenges of youth policy, both now and in the future. There were noticeably higher experiencing (see Figure 3). The study revealed that, regardless of the Living Apart levels of abstinence from alcohol, a noticeably lower percentage of young smokers, Together (LAT) phenomenon, young people’s values were changing in Slovenia, point- and a clear increase in the number of young people involved in sport and exercise ing to a gradual transition to other forms of independence linked to global trends (Mladina 2020, p. 201). However, these positive trends, as well as objective living and greater internationalisation. If we compare the 2010 and 2020 studies, there has factors such as lower unemployment and higher income, do not signal a general been a sharp rise in the percentage of young people who have personal experience of housing problems, particularly the financial aspect of purchasing or renting an intergenerational relations, earlier departure from the parental home, the opportunities apartment. Young people’s satisfaction with their living conditions is limited, matching offered by the internet, flexibility in attitudes to the jobs market, care for one’s own their limited opportunities to buy their own home. Home ownership remains a strong health, the adoption of liberal values, artistic creation, and unconventional forms of aspiration and is linked to the longstanding housing pattern in Slovenia, where levels activism and political participation, for example. All of this points to an open society of home ownership are high and rental apartments hard to come by. However, this with considerable personal autonomy, but also one that demands a great deal of has not stopped the rise in the number of young people looking to rent. responsibility from its members. ence earlier. Fewer of them live with their parents and fewer expect parental help to Needs and future of research Young people from larger cities such as Ljubljana and Maribor gain their independ-resolve their housing issues. Young people’s attachment to their home environment Youth research has a rich tradition in Slovenia — one that has, to a considerable and unwillingness to ‘fly the nest’ persist (this is particularly the case among older extent, been fostered by the Ljubljana Faculty of Social Science and the Department young people), although their living preferences are gradually changing. Housing of Sociology at the Faculty of Arts in Maribor. There are also other research organisa- pressures are linked to temporary employment and associated forms of precarity, tions and institutes in Slovenia that provide those tasked with formulating public and as they adversely affect young people’s creditworthiness — something the financial youth policy with a clear overview of the needs of Slovenian youth. Current mayor of sector continues to ignore. Young people tend to continue to depend on parental Ajdovščina and former deputy chair of the National Youth Council Tadej Beočanin support. According to some indicators, there has been a fall in precarity (by almost is concise in arguing for research into young people and their needs (interview, 15 13 percentage points), but it remains very high and affects more than 60% of young April 2021): people in work. Research organisations, faculties, universities and various youth policy-centred s institutions around the country can help to ensure that youth policy is truly based on research, thereby enabling it to respond to the most pressing needs. The need has also emerged to strengthen youth research in Slovenia. As the research team responsible for producing the Mladina 2020 study pointed out, ‘[T]he partnership between the two universities [...] can be understood as the basis for the development of a research and analytical structure that will meet this need, which is also set out in the National Youth Programme 2013–2022’ (Lavrič and Deželan, 2021). e of the Mladina Serie The current director of the Office for Youth Dolores Kores has also pointed out that, tanc for them, research is of key importance to the formulation of youth policies. However, or there are also concerns that there will soon be no money for this, as some in the youth al Imp sector believe that it is research that will bear the brunt of cuts in the next few years tr (Uroš Skrinar, interview, 6 May 2021). Evidence-based policymaking has long been a feature of European documents The Cen and organisations. Back in 2009, when the first EU Youth Strategy was published, the European Commission stressed the importance of evidence-based policymaking: ‘Better knowledge is a must for sound policy. Current tools (e.g. Eurostat data, national reports, European Knowledge Centre for Youth Policy (EKCYP), EU Research Frame- work Programme) are a first step, as well as the triennial report on Youth in Europe. There is an equal need to share research results and for networking of researchers Figure 3: To what extent do the following problems faced by young people apply to you? HOUSING throughout Europe.’ Several European observatories, such as the European Observato- (apply or very much apply)? Sources: Mladina 2010 and Mladina 2020. ry on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights, embed within their operations the provision of evidence-based papers and data that enable policymakers to formulate Mladina 2020 is different in many ways from the research conducted in the 1990s. effective policies for enforcing intellectual property rights and support innovation Slovenia has undergone major social change, a new European context has emerged and creativity (Cink, 2016). and the research teams are also different. It revealed a great many advantages to being In May 2017 the Council of Europe recommended that Member States’ govern- young in Slovenia, but perhaps just as many disadvantages. The relatively small size ments ‘foster national and European research on the different forms of youth work of the youth population is a concern, as are its lower degree of political influence, and their value, impact and merit.’ They also suggested that they ‘encourage the use important that ‘in the end, we are able to compare ourselves with other countries in Looking towards the future which there is some sort of unified system’ (interview, 18 May 2021). • Regular and comprehensive youth research is required if we are to gain an insight In the EU Youth Strategy 2019–2027, the Commission, in the section on evi-into and monitor trends in the field of youth and in the values and beliefs of young dence-based youth policy-making and knowledge-building, argued that ‘EU Youth people. Policy should be evidence-based and anchored in the real needs and situations of • To gain an adequate insight into the lives of young people and monitor the achieve-young people. That requires continuous research, knowledge development and out-ment of the objectives set out in the National Youth Programme, a mechanism reach to young people and youth organisations. The collection of disaggregated data should be established to enable indicators relating to young people and the youth on young people is of particular importance to foster understanding of the needs of sector to be monitored continuously (such as a youth observatory and youth index). different groups of young people, particularly those with fewer opportunities. Evidence • To guarantee synergies in the research field, a range of incentives must be created based policy-making should be carried out with the support of the Youth Wiki, youth to strengthen cooperation and connections between researchers and research research networks, cooperation with international organisations such as the Council institutions in youth research and youth work, and to encourage cooperation with of Europe, the OECD and other bodies, including youth organisations’ (Council of the youth sector organisations and policymakers. European Union, 2018). • To make it easier to compare the data and findings contained in other countries’ ‘Evidence-based policymaking’ is also mentioned in the Resolution on the National research studies, international cooperation between researchers and research Youth Programme 2013–2022 (ReNPM 2013–22). Section 1.4, which deals with the organisations should be encouraged, particularly at European level (EU, Council monitoring of the National Youth Programme, envisages the ‘use of a combination of Europe). of three types of indicator based on the previously mentioned formulation of ev-idence-based public policies, with the monitoring and evaluation of the National s • To maintain and strengthen the quality of youth research and research into young Youth Programme at the core of the system.’ The Resolution also provides for the people, the established quality assurance standards applicable in Slovenia and establishment of a youth research unit within existing research organisations; this set out in the Scientific Research and Innovation Activities Act (2021) and the one for reporting purposes. e of the Mladina Serie analyses and statistical monitoring operations, and is accessible to researchers The need for collaboration between youth sector entities was well outlined by one and other interested parties at home and abroad. tanc of our interviewees, Tanja Baumkirher, who argued that ‘the most important thing [in or youth policy] [was] good cooperation between the political sphere (those that make References policy and those that deliver it), youth organisations and researchers. They must al Imp Cink, B. (2016). Mladinska politika v Sloveniji (Youth Policy in Slovenia, undergraduate thesis). tr also work with each other on a “one-to-one” basis’ (interview, 15 April 2021). She Office for Youth, Slovenia does not have in place a comprehensive system for moni- • Support must be given to the establishment of a joint repository of data on youth toring the position of young people, even though the European Commission requires and young people that contains information from all the relevant research studies, is a response to its finding that, despite the intensity of the research financed by the regulation of the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency must be adhered to. http://dk.fdv.uni-lj.si/diplomska/pdfs/cink-borut.pdf suitable basis for policymaking’ (ibid.). 2019–2027. 2018/C 456/01. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=O- The lives of young people have been heavily marked in the last few years by the J:C:2018:456:FULL&from=EN Covid-19 pandemic. A strong need has emerged for a long-term analysis of its conse- European Commission (2009). An EU Strategy for Youth: Investing and Empowering – A Renewed quences, for young people and for youth as a sector. We will only be able to identify youth population and ascertain where it stood at any one time. Research provides a Member States on youth work. https://rm.coe.int/1680717e78 The Cen Council of the European Union (2018). Council Resolution: European Union Youth Strategy also stressed that ‘researchers [were] necessary mainly in order to cover the wider Council of Europe (2017). Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)4 of the Committee of Ministers to Open Method of Coordination to Address Youth Challenges and Opportunities (2009). https:// that, mainly with the help of comprehensive research into young people, their lives Flere, S., Klanjšek, R., Lavrič, M., Kirbiš, A., Tavčar Kranjc, M., Divjak, M., Boroja, T., Zagorc, B., Naterer, A. (2014). Slovenska Mladina 2013: Življenje v času deziluzij, tveganja in prekarnosti the permanent impacts of the pandemic in a few years’ time and for a few years after eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0200 and their position within society. It makes sense, therefore, to finish with the words (Slovenian Youth 2013: Living in Times of Disillusionment, Risk and Precarity) [Data file]. of Dr Peter Debeljak, former director of the Office for Youth, and his vision for youth University of Ljubljana, Archive of Social Science Data. ADP – IDNo: MLA13. https://doi. research in the future (interview, 7 May 2021): ‘Evidence-based! Why? Not because org/10.17898/ADP_MLA13_V1 this is something we should do anyway, but because it can be the anchor point from Flere, S., Klanjšek, R., Lavrič, M., Kirbiš, A., Tavčar Kranjc, M., Divjak, M., Boroja, T., Zagorc, which we start.’ B., Naterer, A. (2014). Slovenian Youth 2013: Living in Times of Disillusionment, Risk and Precarity: First CEPYUS – Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Youth Survey. http://projects.ff.uni-mb. si/~cepso/web/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Study-final-web.pdf Hertie School (2019). 18th Shell Youth Study: Rising Political engagement Among Young Jusić, M., Lavrič, M. and Tomanović, S. (eds.) (2019). Youth Study Southeast Europe 2018/2019. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id-moe/15274-20190408.pdf Lavrič, M. (ed.) (2011). Mladina 2010: Družbeni profil mladih v Sloveniji (Youth 2010: Social Profile of Young People in Slovenia). Ministry of Education and Sport, Office for Youth, and Založba Aristej. http://arhiv.mlad.si/files/knjiznica/mladina2010-2(1).pdf Lavrič, M. and Deželan, T. (eds.) (2021). Mladina 2020 (Youth 2020). University of Ljubljana Press and University of Maribor Press. https://www.mlad.si/e-katalogi/Mladina_2020/ Miheljak, V. (ed.) (2002). Mladina 2000: Slovenska mladina na prehodu v tretje tisočletje (Youth 2000: Slovenian Youth in the Transition to the Third Millennium). Ministry of Education and Sport, Office for Youth, and Založba Aristej. Miheljak, V. and Ule, M. (2001). Mladina 2000 (Youth 2000) [Data file]. University of Ljubljana, Archive of Social Science Data. ADP – IDNo: MLA00. https://doi.org/10.17898/ADP_MLA00_ V1 Miller, L. (2020). ‘Children of Quarantine: What Does a Year of Isolation and Anxiety Do to a Developing Brain?’ New York Magazine. https://www.thecut.com/2020/11/covid-19-pandem- ic-kids-mental-health.html Resolution on the National Youth Programme 2013–2022 (Resolucija o Nacionalnem programu za mladino 2013–2022, ReNPM13–22) (2013). Adopted by the National Assembly, effective from 24 October. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=RESO93# Scientific Research and Innovation Activities Act (Zakon o znanstvenoraziskovalni in inovacijski dejavnosti, ZZrID) (2021). Adopted by the National Assembly, effective from 15 December. s Vrcan, S. et al. (1986). Položaj, svest i ponašanje mlade generacije Jugoslavije. Preliminarna analiza rezultata istraživanja (Position, Consciousness and Behaviour of the Young Generation in Yugoslavia: A Preliminary Analysis of the Research Results). Zagreb, Beograd: Centar za istraživačku, dokumentacionu i istraživačku delatnost predsedništva konferencije SSOJ ; Institut za društvena istraživanja Cveučilišta u Zagrebu. Ule, M. (1988). Mladina in ideologija (Youth and Ideology). Delavska enotnost. Ule, M. (ed.) (1996). Mladina v devetdesetih. Analiza stanja v Sloveniji (Young People in the 1990s. An Analysis of the Situation in Slovenia). Znanstveno in publicistično središče. e of the Mladina Serie Ule, M. and Miheljak, V. (1995). Prihodnost mladine (The Future of Young People). DZS, Ministry of tanc Education and Sport, Office for Youth.or Ule, M. and Rener, T. (1998). Prosti čas mladih v Ljubljani (Young People’s Leisure Time in Ule, M. and Vrcan, S. (1986). Mladina 1985: Položaj, svest i ponašanje mlade generacije Ljubljana). Centre for Social Psychology (Youth studies department). al Imptr Jugoslavije (Position, Consciousness and Behaviour of the Young Generation in Yugoslavia) [Data file]. Faculty of Sociology, Political Sciences and Journalism, Institute for Social Research [production], University of Ljubljana, Archive of Social Science Data [distribution]. The Cen ADP – IDNo: MLA85. https://doi.org/10.17898/ADP_MLA85_V1 Ule, M., Rener, T., Mencin Čeplak, M., Tivadar, B. (2000). Socialna ranljivost mladih (Social Vulnerability of Young People). Ministry of Education and Sport, Office for Youth, and Založba Aristej. Ule, M., Rener, T., Miheljak, V., Kurdija, S., Mencin Čeplak, M. (1996). Predah za študentsko mladino (Breathing Space for Slovenian Youth). National Education Institute, Ministry of Education and Sport, Office for Youth. The Chapter 6 Transition to Adulthood of Youth Thirty Years Nina Vombergar Tomaž Deželan Work in Slovenia Key milestones in the Connecting young people and wider society: the importance, objectives and impacts of youth work While the term ‘youth work’ (mladinsko delo) has been in common use in Slovenia development of youth work in Slovenia for quite a few years, it took some time to gain wider currency after independence in 1991. This does not mean that youth work did not exist in the 1990s, but simply that it was called something else (Barbara Zupan, interview, 21 April 2021): 1 1990: In the 1990s we did not have a definition of youth work, but examples of National Youth Council of Slovenia founded good practice. However, these examples were voluntary work, youth bri- 2004: gades, youth policy work or social work with young people — that is to say, EU membership (Slovenia now a full beneficiary of European youth programmes) everything but youth work. It was only later that people began to think about what youth work could mean. 2005: Strategy for Youth in the Field of Youth Policy Today the various definitions of youth work tend to settle on the idea that it con- Until 2010 nects young people, the local community and wider society, addresses the needs 2010: Council Resolution on Youth Work with experiences, knowledge and skills. Alongside this, youth work is required to constantly develop and respond to social conditions and changes, with the main of young people, enables young people to have a voice, and equips young people 2010: Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act emphasis on adapting to the needs of young people in a given space at a given time. 2013: Above all, youth work is about encouraging young people to become involved in Resolution on the National Youth Programme society as active citizens. 2013–2022 od The objectives of youth work are connected to the personal development of the 2017: Catalogue of Standards for the Youth Worker dultho involves promoting emancipation, empowerment, the development of responsibility, o A individual and to the establishment of social cohesion and development. The former NVQ published a cooperative spirit and the taking of initiative (Coburn, 2011; Devlin and Gunning, 2019: EU Youth Strategy 2019–2027 participation, inclusion and a deeper understanding of social relations, challenges ransition t 2009; Lee, 1999; YouthLink Scotland, 2017), while the latter relates to fostering active 2020: Council Resolution on the Framework for people with the opportunity to engage in non-formal learning, test their knowledge in The T and problems, and to taking preventive action (ibid.). Youth work provides young Establishing a European Youth Work Agenda practice, and exert an influence on the community and society in which they live and work. In short, youth work encourages young people to form and express their own opinions and become active participants in society. ‘Youth work is hence a process of learning, not only for young people, but also for society as such’ (European Charter on Local Youth Work, 2019). The target group addressed by youth work is, of course, young people. The Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act (Zakon o javnem interesu v mladinskem sektorju) de- fines young people as individuals aged between 15 and 29, and this age definition also forms the basis for measures and for the financing (and co-financing) of programmes and projects for young people at national and European level. As individuals within this age group, young people are a diverse group with different interests and needs. Whether the target group comprises all young people or a specific subset thereof depends on the activity or the youth work organisation involved. Youth organisations’ vision and mission statements often address the challenges faced by specific groups of young people, or the specific challenges highlighted by the funders of youth work. The Resolution on the National Youth Programme 2013–2022 (Resolucija o Nacional- Suitable premises, in all places or environments in which young people live, are means encouraging young people to become actively involved in co-creating their vital for the proper delivery of youth work. Youth work addresses the needs, wishes local and wider environment, where ‘organisations involved in youth work should be and challenges of young people in ways that the formal education system and other treated as partners in a civil dialogue that addresses young people and the commu- organisations are unable to do ― and in many cases do not know how to do. In oth- nity’ (Deželan and Vombergar, 2019). er words, spaces in which youth work can be carried out should be available to all Youth work is an area that has an impact on the young people involved in it, and young people regardless of where they live. However, the way existing infrastructure on the community and society of which those young people are part. The impacts of is distributed around the country means that some young people have many more youth work are varied and diverse, in line with the variety and diversity of the areas opportunities to spend time at youth centres or other youth organisations than others; with which it is involved. It also reaches different target groups, from young people indeed, some have no such opportunities at all because of where they live. Figures generally to specific groups of young people. We can identify the impacts of youth from the Mladina 2020 (Youth 2020) study show that 44.2% of young people never work at the level of the individual (i.e. on their personal characteristics and professional visit youth centres, student clubs or other similar places, and a further 30% visit them development) and at the level of society, which is reflected in the development of the less than once a month. For the purposes of comparison, just over two-thirds (67.2%) community and wider society as well as in economic development (Lee, 1999; Devlin of young people spend free time at shopping centres at least once a month (some and Gunning, 2009; Dunne et al., 2014; Gormally and Coburn, 2014; Williamson, 2017; figures suggest that Slovenia has the highest number of square metres of shopping YouthLink Scotland, 2017; Zubulake, 2017; Lardier et al., 2018). As far as the impacts centre per capita in the world). In answer to the question of how many opportunities on individuals’ personal characteristics are concerned, these can emerge in the form there are for cultural activities in youth centres and similar places where they live, of increased self-confidence, improved self-image and a more optimistic outlook, more just over a third of young people say ‘too few’ (Mladina 2020). These findings suggest successful and satisfying personal (formal and informal) and social relationships, the that accessible local infrastructure is an important factor in dictating where young acquisition of experiences that lead to a more reasonable judgement and assessment people spend their free time. of and greater control over one’s own life, and improved health as a result of being Youth work responds to the needs of individuals and the wider social reality, as better informed about healthy lifestyles and the dangers of substance abuse (ibid.). its practice tends to reflect. Being based on the principles of voluntary participa- od The positive effects on an individual’s professional characteristics come mainly in the tion, and given that it is organised and delivered in collaboration with young people form of the acquisition of knowledge and skills through formal learning processes, (and, on occasions, entirely by young people themselves), youth work contributes dultho the ability to work effectively within groups, improved formal educational outcomes, to young people’s personal and social development, encourages young people to o A and greater employability (ibid.). think critically about and participate actively in the world around them, and is based Youth work also has a direct (positive) impact on the community in the form of on accessibility, equality and empowerment (Lee, 1999; Devlin and Gunning, 2009; more active participation by young people in the community and society generally, Gormally and Coburn, 2014; YouthLink Scotland, 2014; Edinburgh Youth Work Con- ransition t a commitment on the part of young people to solidarity (including inter-generational sortium, 2015; Brady et al., 2016; de St Croix, 2019; European Charter on Local Youth solidarity), an inclusive society and the equality of different social groups, increased The T Work, 2019). Youth work is a set of pre-planned activities with defined educational feelings of security, the strengthening of interpersonal relationships at the personal objectives that are achieved through methods of non-formal and informal learning and community level, and lower rates of substance abuse among young people (Lee, (ibid.), and comprises methodologically and substantively diverse structured and 1999; Strycharczyk et al., 2011; Schwartz et al., 2016; YouthLink Scotland, 2017). unstructured activities (Brady et al., 2016; Brady and Redmond, 2017). At both local With respect to the impacts on the economy, Idecon (2012) and Minton (2017) point and national level, youth work is an important space in which young people receive out that youth work creates new jobs, improves local services, works preventively to information and advice (Devlin and Gunning, 2009), and support in resolving personal reduce legal, healthcare and social security costs, and brings youth organisations, issues (Dunne et al., 2014). schools, local communities and private sector organisations together through various Youth work brings young people and the local community together, has positive programmes. tween young people, educational institutions and the local community, and promotes Institutional framework and the funding of youth work effects on individuals and the community alike (Williamson, 2017), serves as a link be- the development of (young) individuals and of the local community in general (Baiz- in Slovenia erman, 1996; Devlin and Gunning, 2009; YouthLink Scotland, 2017). It also provides Youth work began to develop in conceptual terms in the 1990s. The National Youth a space in which different social groups can meet, as it fosters a plurality of activities Council of Slovenia (Mladinski svet Slovenije, MSS) was set up in 1990, immediately involving young people, other individuals and groups from the local community. These after independence; this was followed a year later by the Office for Youth (Urad RS activities can be connected to culture, sport, personal and/or social development, za mladino, URSM), located within the Ministry of Education and Sport. Initiatives environmental protection, enterprise, social engagement, and take place in spaces to devise a youth programme soon arose at national and European level, while local the Office of a five-year youth policy strategy designed to improve the conditions for • to foster the establishment and development of youth sec- the performance of youth work and raise its profile (Pazlar, 2009, 21–22); prior to that, tor organisations, the development of key youth sector fields youth work had developed through the interaction of practices of youth projects from and the delivery of activities for non-organised youth, with the period prior to independence, adapting to new conditions and the actual needs of the expected development outcome being improvements young people as it went along. It was, in the words of the Office’s Strategy for Youth to youth sector operations and increased participation by in the Field of Youth Policy of 2005, ‘ahead of the theory’, which was still the case in young people in the management of social affairs. The two youth work at the time. In that document, the Office also noted that ‘the Slovenian priority sub-areas linked to youth work are the creation of youth field operates somewhat under the influence of activist enthusiasm, pioneering capacities for high-quality youth work and the establish- work and charismatic figures on the scene’ (Office for Youth, 2005). ment of a national system of education and training for In the 2010 Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Govern- youth workers and youth leaders. The two relevant indi- ments of the Member States, Meeting within the Council, youth work was recognised cators are the number of people gaining youth worker as organised work qualifications under education programmes or parts covering a large scope of activities of a social, cultural, educational or po- of higher education programmes (by gender), and litical nature both by, with and for young people ... [It] takes place in the a national system of training in place for youth extra-curricular area, as well as through specific leisure-time activities, and workers and youth leaders; is based on non-formal and informal learning processes and on voluntary • to encourage and strengthen in-participation. These activities and processes are self-managed, co-man- volvement in international youth work aged or managed under educational or pedagogical guidance by either and learning mobility in youth work, professional or voluntary youth workers and youth leaders [...] (Council of with the expected development the European Union, 2010). outcome being an increase in the basis for the drafting of the Resolution on the National Youth Programme 2013–2022, The Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act from 2010, which provided the legal od mobility of young people within the youth sector. The indicators dultho connected to youth work are: the facilitated the further development of youth work, as well as the expansion of the youth o A number of young people involved sector in Slovenia, while the growth in funds earmarked for youth centres helped to in non-formal education mobility pro- strengthen youth work at national and local level. It provided the first legal definition grammes; the number of national schemes of youth work in Slovenia, referring to it as: ransition t for encouraging international cooperation in the youth an organised and targeted form of activity by and for young people within sector and learning mobility in youth work with individual countries or individual which they contribute, through their own efforts, to their inclusion in so- The T target groups of young people; the number of programmes for encouraging local ciety, bolster their skills and help the community to develop. The delivery units to become involved in international youth work and the delivery of learning of various forms of youth work is based on the voluntary participation of mobility by national youth organisations; the number of international youth work young people regardless of their interests, their cultural affiliations, their training activities taking place in Slovenia; and the number of youth leaders and world view or their politics. workers taking part in such training programmes, whether in Slovenia or abroad, This definition has given rise to a variety of others ― indeed, there are almost as in any given year; many definitions today as there are organisations whose activities touch upon the • to bolster youth research and analysis, with the expected development outcome field of youth work. Nevertheless, these differing interpretations of the term do have being the provision of long-term and stable youth research. Within the priority several points in common: ‘learning experiences’ within non-formal education, a sub-area, which presupposes the establishment of a national youth research ‘planned process’ with expected outcomes, ‘active participation’ that encourages organisation, there is also an indicator relating to the number of analyses and young people to take a more active part in society, and ‘personal and social develop- research studies that examine and evaluate the impact of international youth work ment’ of the young people who are involved in and shaped by the youth work process, and learning mobility in youth work; work being provided by the Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act. As that law sets Slovenia does not have a separate youth work strategy, although the legal frame- easier access to the labour market for young people. One of the priority sub-areas relates to the establishment of comprehensive recognition of non-formal forms for example (Beočanin, 2011, 51–52). • to improve young people’s skillsets, with the expected development outcome being out, the Resolution on the National Youth Programme 2013–2022 is the basic pro- of knowledge and experience, and the integration of formal and non-formal edu- leader status in secondary and higher education (along the lines of the status support for youth work by the private sector. Youth work should be recognised by awarded to athletes and cultural workers in Slovenia); and active participation decision-makers as distinct from other (albeit similar) areas, and efforts should in youth sector organisations as part of compulsory elective subjects at school. be made to empower youth workers and organisations to present the impacts of The draft new Resolution on the National Youth Programme 2023–32 mentions youth work and emphasise the value of the youth work profession. youth work in the ‘Youth and society’ section. Among other things the objectives of The Office for Youth has funded youth work and youth work programmes through youth work reflect the sector’s efforts to develop high-quality youth work within the public co-financing calls since it was founded in 1991. The amounts available have Bonn Process, the aim of which is to implement the European Youth Work Agenda. fluctuated over the years, increasing from EUR 1.36 million in 2007 to EUR 1.42 mil- Those objectives are: lion in 2010, for example, before falling to its lowest level in 15 years in 2014 (when • to promote and develop quality in youth work, with the expected development out- only EUR 1.01 million was allocated to youth work). Since 2015, public calls have come being that young people acquire additional skills by taking part in high-quality been published every two years rather than annually (2016/17, 2018/19, 2020/21, youth work. As part of this objective, research is planned on the impacts of youth 2022/23 and 2024/25), with the funds available once again gradually increasing. The work, the setting of quality standards in youth work, the establishment of a system 2016/17 call allocated EUR 1.2 million to youth work, and the calls for 2018/2019 for drawing up records of activities and the monitoring of the impacts of youth work; and 2020/21 EUR 2.9 million (i.e. EUR 1.45 million for each year). This is compara- • to recognise and acknowledge youth work, with the expected development ble to the annual funds allocated to youth work a decade ago. Funds rose again in outcome being the promotion of the benefits of youth work. The activities and the 2022/23 call, to EUR 1.925 million a year (EUR 3.83 million over two years). The measures envisaged include informing the public about youth work projects and current call (2024/25) proposes to allocate a total of EUR 3.68 million, or EUR 1.84 activities through the media, encouraging local communities to invest in youth million a year, to youth work. work programmes, encouraging youth sector organisations and schools to work Since 2007 the number of applications to public calls by national youth organi- • To aid implementation of the European Youth Work Agenda, a national expert opment outcome being increased investment in those programmes, which will average amount of funding received in this period was EUR 24,167 (2015) and the dultho lowest was EUR 13,846 (2008). The number of applications to calls by youth centres enable more young people to take part in the design, delivery and evaluation of o A has fluctuated between 52 and 70 since 2007. All applicants were successful in youth work. 2010, although selection was at its highest in 2012. The highest average amount of funding received in this period was EUR 11,895 (2007) and the lowest was EUR 9,737 working group was set up and tasked with raising the quality and profile of youth ransition t (2014). In the last five calls, the following totals have been allocated to all youth work • to consolidate the funding of youth work programmes, with the expected devel-more widely; grammes financed; over this period, between 11 and 14 national youth organisations od have applied to the call, with only two of them failing to obtain funds. The highest together, and publicising the national vocational qualification for youth workers sations has, in most cases, matched the number of national youth organisation pro- • to improve and develop quality in youth work, with an eye on ensuring a consistent work (Državna strokovna delovna skupina za dvig kakovosti in prepoznavnosti programmes together: EUR 2.40 million in 2016/17, EUR 2.90 million in 2018/19, EUR The T mladinskega dela). It drafted a strategic plan for 2022–2027/32, and coordinated 2.88 million in 2020/21, EUR 3.79 million in 2022/23 and EUR 3.66 million in 2024/25. it with youth sector organisations. The overall objectives of the strategic plan are: At the end of 2023, the Office for Youth also published a public call, ‘Z mladinskim delom proti prekarnosti mladih’, which focuses on training youth workers to address understanding of quality in youth work based on a community of practice and the issue of precarity, providing young people, youth sector organisations and the the framework set out in the final Declaration of the Third European Youth Work public with information on precarity in the youth population, raising awareness of the Convention. Quality in youth work should also be defined as an objective in the importance of work-related and social rights, and giving advice and support to young National Youth Programme. A further aim is to provide a clear description of the people. The plan involves 400 youth workers and at least 6,630 young people. The impacts of youth work, using that as a basis for establishing criteria and standards call is being held as part of the European Cohesion Policy Programme 2021–2027 for the delivery and monitoring of youth work, and a unified, free-of-charge system in Slovenia. for recording activities and monitoring the impacts of youth work. The objective Other significant opportunities for the funding of youth work are available at Eu- also envisages the organisation of education and training on this topic, and seeks ropean level, for example via Erasmus+: Youth and European Solidarity Corps calls, to secure an environment that supports the delivery of high-quality youth work at the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund. There is national and local level, and to monitor the quality and boost the profile of youth no systematic data available on how much public funding is allocated to youth work work; in local communities, municipalities or nationally. The system of channelling funds • to raise the profile and enhance the identity of youth work through efforts to in- directly to selected organisations via the Office for Youth and allocating European crease the visibility of youth organisations and youth work programmes among funds via national agencies does bring certain risks. Funds are given to organisations entitled, in all local contexts, to become involved in (local) youth work, meaning that a (exclusively) through non-formal education. Youth leaders also generally operate within comparable share of funding must be provided for young people in every municipality. youth organisations, i.e. organisations founded at the initiative of young people them- Youth worker Jurij Šarman believes that municipalities could then allocate funds for selves, while professional youth workers (also) work within organisations for young youth work to local organisations that deliver youth work programmes: ‘The transfer people, i.e. organisations created by adults in response to the needs of young people of European and national funds to the local level is essential. I see a big opportunity within society. Moreover, youth leaders are generally involved in the management of for the state, together with municipalities, to amend the Local Self-Government Act youth projects and young people, while professional youth workers tend to be involved and make youth work a compulsory task of municipalities. Youth work takes place in the coordination of programmes for young people as well (Beočanin, 2011, 66). in the local environment. So money needs to come to that environment’ (interview, High-quality youth work must have a clear and comprehensive system for meas- 14 April 2021). uring impacts and recording results. According to the European Charter on Local This also raises the question of who is entitled to funding via the Office for Youth’s Youth Work of 2019, the ‘quality development of local youth work’ needs ‘regular and public calls. Calls are currently open to youth councils, youth centres, and youth up to date mappings of local realities and needs’, ‘a clear and comprehensive system and other organisations; and this wide range of eligible beneficiaries and the limited for documentation and follow up of outcomes’, ‘clear funding available means that there is a lack of funding for youth work per se. Šarman procedures for continuous updates on new national believes that funding is spread too thinly and, moreover, that the eligibility of youth and international research, trends and methods in the councils presents something of a dilemma (ibid.): field of youth and youth work’ and, not least, ‘continu- Policy in youth councils is mainly led by member organisations that are ous competence development of youth workers based youth wings of political parties. There is an issue here of double funding, on a clear competency framework’ (European Charter as I believe that youth wings should be funded through the Political Parties on Local Youth Work, 2019). Only if youth work is of Act and not through this public call. However, the Youth Councils Act allows high quality can it have a positive impact on the devel-this funding. We have made a basic error here [in Slovenia] by failing to opment of young people and the local communities separate local youth councils and the National Youth Council from other od in which it is carried out (Brady and Redmond, 2017; youth organisations [ibid.]. Brennan et al., 2007; Devlin and Gunning, 2009). The dultho establishment, maintenance and improvement of quali- for the profession of youth worker, although individuals have been able to obtain a young people’s rights and the empowerment of young national vocational qualification (NVQ) for youth workers since 2017. The vocational people; the planning, design, delivery and evaluation standard was adopted by the Expert Council for Vocational and Professional Educa-of activities together with young people; a focus on tion (Strokovni svet RS za poklicno in strokovno izobraževanje) in 2016, thereby rec-non-formal and informal learning; and clear learning objectives that are relevant to ognising youth worker as an official profession. The certificate awarded via the NVQ the young people participating (European Commission, 2015; Agdur, 2017). is recognised at European level, and quite a high number of education and training Slovenia has still not formulated quality standards for youth work, even though this programmes are organised, mainly by national (youth) organisations, to further the de-is one of the objectives of the Strategic Plan for the Implementation of the European velopment of youth workers’ knowledge and skills. While youth workers can, with the Youth Work Agenda in Slovenia up to 2027/2032. Public calls for the co-funding of help of different tools, place the skills and competencies they have acquired through youth work are already designed to secure funding for high-quality programmes, with their youth work ‘on the record’, there is still no national mechanism for recognising a youth organisation being entitled to apply for funding if it has acquired the status of them. As Šarman argues: ‘We have managed to get a national qualification for youth an organisation operating in the public interest in the youth sector. This status requires worker. On the one hand, this is fine, although I don’t see that it brings any added an organisation to reflect on its vision two years in advance, which encourages it to value to the youth sector in this area. It would be better to have a strong, concrete formulate and pursue a mission. programme at faculty level’ [ibid.]. Research on quality youth work and the support environment for its delivery Youth workers in Slovenia can carry out their work either in the form of employment (Deželan and Vombergar, 2023) has shown that representatives of organisations or as volunteers. Volunteers are frequently defined as ‘youth leaders’, and generally that carry out youth work in Slovenia largely understand quality youth work to be that differ from professional youth workers because they have acquired their knowledge the local community, attempting to create opportunities for young people to become ransition t on (European Commission, 2015, 15). The principles of (quality) youth work include: inclusivity and responsive-joint decision-makers within their community, and encouraging young people to take a The T ness to the needs, interests and experiences of young proactive approach to their community and to society as a whole. Youth workers have people; voluntary and active participation, engagement a variety of profiles that correspond to the various forms that youth work can take. and responsibility; a holistic understanding of young Slovenia still does not have publicly accredited education or training programmes people as capable individuals; the enhancement of institutions (Baldridge, 2018), promoting and amplifying the voices of young people in Youth workers bring together young people, the local community and educational all relevant stakeholders: national governments, youth work providers, research institutions, educators and so Professional youth work and the quality of youth work o A ty in youth work is only possible with the involvement of which establishes a support environment to aid the empowerment and development centres from different parts of the country that provides mutual support and a space of young people. At the same time, it must, in those authors’ opinion, address young in which knowledge and experience in addressing the needs of young people can be people directly and respond to their needs, wishes and problems, employ tools to shared. Its mission is twofold: to place young people to the fore by promoting their record the impacts, respond to the social reality, and follow the principle of ‘working active participation in society, and to improve the quality of youth work (MaMa Youth with young people for young people’. They also stress that, if quality youth work is to Network, n.d.). Maja Hostnik identifies human capital as the most important element be secured, youth workers must be provided with non-precarious or less precarious of quality in youth work, but believes that the state is still not investing enough in it forms of employment, undergo continuous training, and have adequate spatial and (interview, 19 May 2021): infrastructural opportunities in which to carry out their work. The process of com- There is no concerted effort at national level to improve the quality and modification, at play in this field as in others, is also having an impact on quality in development of youth work. The biggest capacities in the sector are hu- youth work. Tin Kampl points out that many people are convinced that ‘some [organi- man capital, and nothing has been done on this for the last 15 years, or sations] are increasingly providing youth work as a service with a corresponding less even more. You need to invest in and train staff. We have a lot of Erasmus+ process-based approach’ (interview, 19 May 2021). However, the purpose of a youth trainings, but that’s training for international youth work. What about the organisation should not be to provide ad hoc services or products, but to attempt national, the micro environment? to realise a long-term vision. This is easier to achieve for organisations that have a specific mission and a regular funding stream (e.g. the membership fees received by Overview of the main themes relating to youth work users who wish to use the education and training on offer to acquire specific youth quality youth work, exchange information about activities and experiences at local, work-related knowledge or skills, but who have no serious desire to remain involved od sectoral, national and transnational level, primarily inform, stimulate and support in the organisation over the longer term. young people, and evaluate and ensure the visibility of outcomes (European Charter The quality of youth work therefore depends considerably on the level of engage- dultho on Local Youth Work, 2019). The Office for Youth is the most prominent national body ment of individual organisations, and on the integration and exchange of knowledge o A involved in planning, organising and carrying out measures in the field of youth work and experience between them. An important role is played here by the National Youth in Slovenia; it also supports these measures financially through public calls for the Council and the MaMa Youth Network (Mladinska mreža MaMa), which work to co-financing of youth work programmes. An analysis of the priorities and areas of secure the ongoing development of youth work by organising events, education ransition t focus of the public calls published by the Office (initially every year, but more recently they are obliged to adapt to the areas of focus of each individual call for applications. the benefit of young people’ (Beočanin, 2011, 51). The practice of youth work needs to be set up in dialogue with youth and other stakeholders, transform aims and ob- They are also often forced to adapt their mission by the requirements of those of their jectives into strategies and plans, define the preconditions needed for carrying out it currently stands, mainly dependent on project-based financing, which means that In practice, youth work means ‘work by young people for young people or work to scouting organisations), while organisations that do not have such resources are, as and training for youth workers with the aim of addressing the challenges that their The T every two years) gives us an indication of how some of the best-supported topics member organisations have in common. In the 1990s, as the um-within youth work have developed over the years. The priorities of individual years brella association of youth organisations at national level, the have tended to be connected to national as well as international (European) social National Youth Council took part in key discussions around contexts and the public policy campaigns current in the year or period in question. the formation of the youth sector, and introduced the The focus in 2007 was on the Council of Europe’s ‘All Different – All Equal’ Euro-term ‘youth work’ into the country on the basis of pean Youth Campaign for Diversity, Human Rights and Participation; this was joined good practices abroad. By publishing manuals the following year by a focus on the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, which for youth workers and developing a pool of train-featured themes relating to intercultural dialogue between young people and to pro-ers, it helped lay the theoretical and practical moting the participation of young people with fewer opportunities. In 2009 the call foundations for the exchange of knowledge in prioritised the active participation of young people, youth information and counsel-the field. It set up the first training programmes ling, youth voluntary work, the recognition and evaluation of non-formal and informal that focused on quality in youth work, and made learning, youth mobility and youth research. Equal opportunities for and the social the establishment of high-quality youth work inclusion of young people, international youth work, a deeper understanding of young one of its core missions. It also acted as a basic people, and health and well-being were the priority areas in 2010, followed a year later link between organisations in this field (Nation-by a continuation of voluntary youth activities and the European Voluntary Service, al Youth Council, n.d.). New organisations with transnational cooperation projects and participation in the European Year of Volun-the same mission began to appear subsequent-teering. The European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations ly, perhaps the most visible of them being the was a new area of focus for 2012, alongside Structured Dialogue with young people. MaMa Youth Network, which was founded at the In 2013 priority was given to the employability of young people (in response to the initiative of local youth centres. MaMa is a na-economic and financial crisis), although the call also focused on Structured Dialogue tional (non-governmental) network of 50 youth and active citizenship as part of the European Year of Citizens. In addition to employ- if young people had jobs. Debeljak says that ‘if we have a good employment policy, ability and Structured Dialogue, the focus of the 2014 call was on programmes that then there is no need for a particular housing policy’ (interview, 10 May 2021). He addressed themes relating to the work of the European No Hate Speech Movement. therefore identifies, within youth work, a systemic mechanism that addresses the Areas that contributed to the achievement of the goals of the ‘Youth and society’ major challenges that young people face, which in turn entails the transfer of the section of the Resolution on the National Youth Programme 2013–2022 were also systemic problems of young people to youth work. Many see this as a problem, as highlighted as priorities. In 2015 the call prioritised international volunteering projects they believe that the resolution of systemic problems is neither the core mission of co-funded by the Erasmus+ programme (European Voluntary Service, international youth work nor the primary task of the youth sector. Tea Jarc points out (interview 20 youth exchanges, etc.) within the context of youth volunteering, while also maintaining April 2021) that during the period of crisis focus on achieving the objectives of the ‘Youth and society’ section. The first two- […] many institutions, not only in Slovenia but chiefly at European level, year public call (2016/2017) prioritised the response to the refugee crisis, but also imposed responsibility for resolving youth unemployment on youth organ- continued to focus on the achievement of the goals of the ‘Youth and society’ section isations and, of course, made this conditional upon receiving funds. This of the National Youth Programme (as did the 2018/2019 call), while the 2020/2021 meant that the focus of many organisations that had previously not dealt call was mainly concerned with responding to the topics of hate speech, radicalisa- with this topic at all changed, simply because this was the only way they tion and the integration of young people not in education or employment (NEETs), could get funding. Of course, youth work should address the challenges of and climate and environmental challenges in line with the premises laid down by the society and the needs of young people to a certain extent. But changing its European Commission (the focus on the achievement of the goals of the ‘Youth and mission because there are no adequate national policies, and shifting this society’ section was also maintained). The 2022 call, for the co-financing of youth responsibility for saving their peers onto young volunteers, is absurd. While work programmes in 2022 and 2023, maintained the focus on the ‘Youth and society’ youth work can also involve itself in policy development, responsibility for section of the National Youth Programme (whose period of validity ended in 2023) that cannot fall entirely on its shoulders. particularly for young people with fewer opportunities, and activities that are beneficial Maja Hostnik takes a similar view of the development of youth work outlined above while also looking towards ensuring equal opportunities for participation in society, to society and constitute a response to the most pressing issues (e.g. hate speech, od (interview, 19 May 2021): radicalisation of young people, integration of NEETs, etc.). The most recent calls (for In the last few years, all projects have been based on the conviction that we dultho programmes have been closely tied to the ‘Youth and society’ section of the National Since 2014 the Office for Youth’s public calls for the co-financing of youth work as possible. This has turned us away significantly from the focus and core mission of youth work. We carried out a lot of training programmes, but this 2024/25) add climate challenges to the topics highlighted in the previous call. have to train young people for employment ― that they find a job as quickly o A calls to the implementation of that programme, particularly when vertical youth pol- funding calls and giving out these projects are thinking in the wrong di- The T rection. More consideration needs to be given in future to the acquisition icy is involved. Promoting the participation and representation of young women and Youth Programme, which indicates a very clear awareness of the importance of public was not backed up by concrete practice. Those responsible for publishing ransition t men, the establishment and development of organisations in the youth sector and of skills and competencies by young people, not only through theoretical training but also through practice. the development of key youth sector fields, providing conditions for the operation of non-organised youth, encouraging and strengthening involvement in international Current debates around the digital and green transitions are also foreshadowing youth work and learning mobility in the youth sector, and promoting voluntary work trends in youth work towards digital transformation and environmental protection. among young people: all these topics have acquired a clear financial instrument, In addition to a strong emphasis on digital youth work, a significant shift towards despite having already appeared as relevant topics in earlier calls. The priorities and young people’s mental health can be expected as a result of the situation caused areas of focus that have emerged in specific calls for the co-funding of youth work or exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. As far as debates around the long-term have played a significant role in formulating (and restricting) the operations of organ- trends in youth work are concerned, Barbara Zupan points out that ‘participation’ isations involved in youth work, as those operations are heavily dependent on public and ‘youth dialogue’ will become increasingly important topics within youth work: funding. This coincides with the finding that if youth work used to be ‘directed pri- ‘It is time for citizens to become aware of their rights and responsibilities, including marily towards young people’s leisure activities, it has more recently become subject the fact that their active participation is required in things that should lead to certain mainly to the need to respond either to the problems of individuals or to the problems social changes’ (interview, 21 April 2021). of society’ (Tea Jarc, interview, 20 April 2021), with sufficient funds being required for a high-quality approach to these issues. The thematic focus of public calls reflects a desire on the part of the Office for Youth for youth work to make a social intervention; Challenges of youth work in Slovenia ‘There will never be a shortage of challenges in youth work’ (Barbara Zupan, in- terview, 21 April 2021) The Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States Meeting Within the Council on the Framework for Establishing a European Youth Work Agenda, which was adopted in 2020, highlights the challenges faced by youth work in Europe. One of these challenges remains the need for a com- mon definition of what youth work is ― in reality, the need for a common conceptual framework. It also highlights the importance of creating spaces for the delivery of youth work that are safe, accessible, open and autonomous, and this is indeed one of the main challenges in Slovenia as well. Representatives of youth work organisa- tions highlight the fact that the premises in which they work are often cramped and unsuitable (with excessively high monthly maintenance costs), and do not allow varied activities to be carried out, or more than one activity at a time. They also highlight the major issue of securing the necessary equipment; in their experience, there is no suitable funding call that would allow the necessary or even basic equipment required for the delivery of youth work to be purchased (furniture, computers and the like). They point out that most of the equipment they use is donated or brought from home (Deželan and Vombergar, 2023). The reasons for the underdevelopment of youth work in Slovenia, in terms of premises and infrastructure, can be found in the low profile of that work and, more specifically, in a general lack of awareness of od the positive effects it has on social life. Jurij Šarman puts this down to ‘a tendency [in Slovenia] not to perceive youth work as important to the life of the local community’ dultho (interview, 14 April 2021). o A The Council Resolution also points out that sufficient resources must be secured for the education and training of youth workers, which is a precondition for the deliv- ery of high-quality youth work. In common with other specialised fields, youth work ransition t requires continuous staff development, particularly where it deals with current social The T issues; otherwise professional knowledge gradually stagnates, and becomes outdated and incapable of responding swiftly to young people’s problems. If youth work is to be of a sufficiently high standard, investments must be made in research and devel- opment, and ‘research should be carried out [...] but without creating unnecessary bureaucratic burden’ (Council of the European Union, 2020), since only a data-led policy of bolstering youth work, either by studying the challenges faced by young people or by aiding the professional development of youth workers, will lead to the effective recognition and strengthening of that work. A further major challenge for youth work, in Europe generally and in Slovenia in particular, is cooperation between ‘youth work providers and youth policy makers’ and ‘sustainable structures’ (Council of the European Union, 2020), which subsequently feeds into problems relating to the funding of youth work. In Slovenia, organisations are often entirely dependent on project-based funding; indeed, according to Uroš Skrinar, this type of funding is ‘frequently the only way that youth organisations can survive’ (interview, 6 May 2021). It is a preservation tactic that means that youth organisations are forced to neglect their core mission. As they become increasingly performance-oriented (e.g. by having (up to 90%), local community funds (10–50%), the Office for Youth (5–10 %), calls for and wider society. Greater recognition for youth work would, in the opinion of repre- applications published by other ministries, and their own funds. Most organisations sentatives of youth centres and other youth work NGOs, lead to greater support for drawn on funds from all the above sources, and funding is mostly project-based and youth work at national and local level (Deželan and Vombergar, 2023). therefore only available for a limited amount of time (Deželan and Vombergar, 2023). Most activities, including a substantial part of youth work, moved online in 2020 The method by which funding is allocated is also far from ideal. Šarman points as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. This gave further impetus to debates on the out that ‘if funding remains as it is, local youth work will not develop’ (interview 14 importance of digital youth work as a response to the spirit of the times, although April 2021). Given that youth work is always primarily local in character, he believes these debates had already been under way before the arrival of the pandemic; it also that it would make sense to involve local authorities more closely in the allocation set something of a trap for youth work by suggesting that digital youth work could be of funding by allowing them to receive central government funds for young people seen as a substitute for youth work that takes place through live interaction between on the basis of various set indicators, including the number of young people in their participants. This is something Jurij Šarman is keenly aware of: ‘I think that digital municipality. In his opinion, the current method of allocation heavily favours those youth work can be very useful, but not the prevailing approach within youth work’ organisations that know how to access funds and are proficient in doing so; it is not (interview, 14 April 2021). This means that the situational development of one area necessarily tied to the quality of the youth work they carry out in practice. Of course, of youth work has made it necessary to undertake a thorough reconsideration of the we need to remind ourselves that the professionalisation of one field often leads to direction of development of youth work as a whole; and the fact is that while there the professionalisation of others, and that such indicators can be biased. Some local is no going back, a naked acceptance of technological determinism will inevitably authorities, for example, might have strongly developed services for young people lead to ruin. Barbara Zupan believes that these changes will, sooner rather than later, outside of youth work, which means that even with larger numbers of young people, result in the emergence of new organisations in this sector better able to make use the pressure on youth work itself is not so great. The fact remains, however, that of the new methods and address the new challenges of young people. It will be vital making the funding allocation process more local would bring that process closer to for youth work actors to adopt the mindset that ‘youth work must not be static, but the local specifics of youth work in those environments, implicitly rendering it more develop and grow together with the people and content that surround us’ (interview, effective. Considerations of this type are not new: indeed, when it was drawing up od 21 April 2021). the Strategy for Youth in the Field of Youth Policy Until 2010 nearly 20 years ago, the The situation in which young people find themselves today, in this period of Office for Youth recognised that dultho near-constant crisis, must be understood through the social context in which they live. […] activities at local level […] are increasingly dependent on funding strate- o A They no longer view the future with certainty, as a promise or as something to which gies based on the ‘top down’ principle, which makes it impossible to plan for they are entitled, but as a threat (Galimberti, 2009, 21–22). It is therefore particularly the long term and, in turn, leads to a fall in motivation, and hampers serious important that young people have, at this time of great uncertainty and discomfort, long-term planning and the continuity of operation of youth work. From the ransition t which has social and cultural origins, a pillar of support through which they can find point of view of ensuring high-quality youth work in Slovenia over the long meaning and pursue their life objectives; and at times like these, youth workers and The T term, this is in no way a promising situation (Office for Youth, 2005). youth work can be among the most vital factors in young people’s lives. However, This challenge has long been acknowledged by political decision-makers and workers will not be able to provide the necessary support and encouragement. Sup- without the adequate and necessary support of the state or public authorities, youth youth work providers alike. It appears that all that is needed is a common will among porting youth work organisations also means involving them to a greater extent in the key stakeholders to regulate this field in a way that pays closer attention to the local policy formation process, as Tea Jarc points out (interview, 20 April 2021): faced by youth work, particularly with regard to its profile and professionalisation. documents that have already been published, but that they are involved in Precarity of employment is also a major challenge for youth work in Slovenia and the process of formulating these documents and of monitoring and imple- needs of young people and, at the same time, addresses the systemic challenges This does not mean that young people merely find out about things through one that is linked to the uncertainty that attends the funding of youth work. Precarity menting measures, i.e. their delivery and evaluation. Young people should means that staff turnover is high, which has an adverse effect on the quality of youth therefore not have the role merely of observer or adviser, but be given greater work. opportunities to be part of the decision-making process. The challenge for youth work, in addition to establishing quality standards and providing quality youth work, lies in ensuring that it enjoys a sufficiently high profile Policymakers, and not just those involved in the youth field, should be very con- outside the sector as well. In the opinion of sector representatives, it remains low, with cerned about the findings of the Mladina 2020 study (Lavrič and Deželan, 2021), which little connection to and cooperation with the formal education system. Young people at showed that more than four-fifths of young people were prepared to move permanent- school should be made more aware of the possibility of taking part in activities outside ly to another European country if this would provide them with greater opportunities young people so that they do not leave for other countries or other continents to • The profile of youth work must be raised if adequate funding is to be secured. This make a living, but mainly because of the extreme levels of despair that young people will also improve the image of youth work and help to overcome the prejudices so obviously feel, to the point where they are prepared to make drastic adjustments that attend it. to their plans simply in order to lead a decent life. This also creates a series of needs • Youth work must be designed for young people above all. They must be involved and mental states that youth work is perhaps more able to address than any other at all stages of project development, including project design and the selection field, and probably why, given the numbers of young people who feel this way, youth of the topics they wish to address. work is more vital today than it has ever been. • Better information needs to be provided to young people on the options and op- Looking towards the future portunities provided by youth work. This also means the establishment of more direct access to the wider youth population, which must be addressed via the • Serious effort must continue to be invested in professionalising youth work in line channels they prefer to use. with the general standards of occupational professionalisation rather than with • Youth work organisations must be provided with the opportunity to strengthen the partial interests of some individuals and organisations. This should include all their capacities and upskill their staff through publicly accredited and high-qual- publicly accredited steps for obtaining and recognising education levels, sectoral ity education and training programmes so that they are better able to meet the qualifications and quality assurance systems. This could further the professional growing needs of young people. development of youth workers, improve the quality of youth work and lead to a consideration must be given to setting up formal education in the youth and youth References recognition of the positive outcomes that youth work produces. In relation to this, systematic regulation of non-formal education for youth workers that complements Vanhee, J. and H. Williamson (eds.). Thinking Seriously About Youth Work. And How to Prepare People To Do It. Council of Europe Publishing. https://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/youth-part- formal education; (c) the upgrading of the existing national vocational qualification work fields in the form of: (a) publicly accredited education programmes; (b) the Agdur, J. (2017). ‘Assuring the quality of youth work’. In Schild, H., Connolly, N., Labadie, F., for youth workers and greater focus on promoting it. od nership/thinking-seriously-about-youth-work Baizerman, M. (1996). ‘Youth Work on the Street: Community’s Moral Compact with its Young • To ensure the comprehensive development of youth work, quality standards and People’. Childhood – A Global Journal of Child Research, 3(2), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.117 7%2F0907568296003002003 guidelines, including the principles of high-quality youth work, must be formulated dultho Baldridge, B.J. (2018). ‘On Educational Advocacy and Cultural Work: Situating Community-Based and adopted. o A Youth Work[ers] in Broader Educational Discourse’. Teachers College Record, 120(2). https:// • To measure the achievement of the objectives of high-quality youth work, mecha- www.tcrecord.org/books/exec.asp?ContentID=21990 nisms must be put in place for monitoring the delivery of youth work in the qualita- Beočanin, T. (2011). ‘Mladinsko delo’ (Youth work). In Pucelj Lukan, P. (ed.), Mladinsko delo v ransition t teoriji in praksi (Youth Work in Theory and Practice) (pp. 49–68). National Youth Council of tive (and not just the quantitative) sense, and for measuring the impacts of youth Slovenia. work. Research into the impacts on the community also needs to be strengthened, The T Brady, B., Canavan, J. and Redmond, S. (2016). ‘Bridging the Gap: Using Veerman and Van which means that relevant community stakeholders will have to be involved in Yperen’s (2007) framework to conceptualise and develop evidence informed practice in an obtaining this information. It is also important for youth workers to be relieved of Irish youth work organisation’. Evaluation and Program Planning, 55, 128–133. http://dx.doi. • Youth work must be provided with adequate and stable funding for steady de-being funded to perform those tasks instead. Brady, B. and Redmond, S. (2017). ‘Connecting Research and Practice: Perspectives on the Role of Manualized Programs in Youth Work’. Child & Youth Services, 38(3), 252–268. https://doi. the task of measuring the impact of their work, with experts and research groups org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.01.003 org/10.1080/0145935X.2017.1326306 velopment of the field and the strategic development and professionalisation of Brennan, M. A., Barnett R. V. and Baugh, E. (2007). ‘Youth Involvement in Community organisations that work with young people to follow their strategic directions rather archives.joe.org/joe/2007august/a3.php Coburn, A. (2011). ‘Building Social and Cultural Capital Through Learning About Equality in Youth youth work organisations. This should be established in such a way as to enable Development: Implications and Possibilities for Extension’. Journal of Extension, 45(4). https:// than having to abandon them if they wish to meet the criteria of public calls and Work’. Journal of Youth Studies, 14(4), 475–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2010. the demands of a particular priority. 538041 • If the desired effects of youth work are to be secured and youth work carried out Council of the European Union (2010). Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of to a high standard, a support environment must be put in place that provides the Governments of the Member States, Meeting Within the Council, on Youth Work. Official Journal of the European Union (2010C 327/1). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ suitable forms of employment for youth workers, thereby enabling them to move TXT/?uri=celex%3A42010Y1204%2801%29 away from the precarity that currently dominates the sector as a result of the Council of the European Union (2020). Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives short-term nature of projects. of the Governments of the Member States Meeting Within the Council on the Framework de St Croix, T. (2018). ‘Youth Work, Performativity and the New Youth Impact Agenda: Getting Paid Pazlar, N. (2009). Profil mladinskega delavca v Sloveniji danes in v prihodnosti (Profile of Youth for Numbers?’. Journal of Education Policy, 33(3), 313–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939 Worker in Slovenia Today and in the Future, undergraduate thesis). http://dk.fdv.uni-lj.si/ .2017.1372637 diplomska/pdfs/pazlar-nina.pdf Devlin, G. and Gunning, A. (2009). The Purpose and Outcomes of Youth Work: Report to the Youth Political Parties Act (Zakon o političnih strankah, ZPolS) (1994). Adopted by the National Services Interagency Group. Irish Youth Work Press. http://www.cdysb.ie/Files/The-Purpos- Assembly, effective from 8 August. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO359 es-and-Outcomes-of-Youth-Work.aspx Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act (Zakon o javnem interesu v mladinskem sektorju, ZJIMS) Deželan, T. and Vombergar, N. (2019). Miti in resnice o mladinskem delu: učinki (lokalnega) (2010). Adopted by the National Assembly, effective from 12 June. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis. mladinskega dela: Pregled literature (Myths and Realities About Youth Work: Impacts web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO5834 of (Local) Youth Work: A Literature Review). MOVIT. http://www.movit.si/fileadmin/ Resolution on the National Youth Programme 2013–2022 (Resolucija o Nacionalnem programu za movit/0ZAVOD/Publikacije/Tematske/2019_Miti_o_mladinskem_delu.pdf mladino 2013–2022, ReNPM13–22) (2013). Adopted by the National Assembly, effective from Deželan, T. and Vombergar, N. (2023). Kakovostno mladinsko delo in podporno okolje za izvajanje 24 October. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=RESO93 kakovostnega mladinskega dela: Poročilo o raziskavi (Quality Youth Work and a Support Williamson, D. (2017). ‘Collecting and Using Youth Development Outcomes Data to Improve Youth Environment for the Delivery of Quality Youth Work). Internal material of the Državna strokovna Work Practice’. Queensland Review, 24(1), 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1017/qre.2017.15 delovna skupina za dvig kakovosti in prepoznavnosti mladinskega dela/National Working Youth Councils Act (Zakon o mladinskih svetih, ZMS) (2000). Adopted by the National Assembly, Group for Raising the Quality and Profile of Youth Work. effective from 16 August. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO2614 Deželan, T., Babič, K. and Vombergar, N. (2024). Nacionalno poročilo o implementaciji in učinkih YouthLink Scotland (2017). National Youth Work Strategy 2014/19: Interim Report – July programa Erasmus + na področju mladine v Sloveniji: delovna verzija (National Report on the 2017. Edinburgh: YouthLink Scotland. https://www.youthlinkscotland.org/media/1824/ Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme and its Impact on the Youth Field in Slovenia: national-youth-work-strategy-interim-report-july-2017.pdf Working Version). University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences. Zubulake, D. M. (2017). ‘Building Blocks of Professionalism’. Journal of Youth Development, 12(1), Dunne, A., Ulicna, D., Murphy, I. and Golubeva, M. (2014). Working with Young People: The Value 8–17. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2017.483 of Youth Work in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/ assets/eac/youth/library/study/youth-work-report_en.pdf Edinburgh Youth Work Consortium (2015). Universal Youth Work. A Critical Review of the Literature. University of Edinburgh. https://www.youthlinkscotland.org/media/1112/ youth-work-literature-review-final-may-2015.pdf od European Commission (2015). Quality Youth Work: A Common Framework for the Further Development of Youth Work: Report from the Expert Group on Youth Work Quality Systems dultho in the EU Member States. https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/youth/library/reports/quality- o A youth-work_en.pdf European Commission (2019). European Charter on Youth Work. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_ policy/rest/cms/upload/14092020_045124_20191002_egl_charter_eng_online.pdf Galimberti, U. (2009). Grozljivi gost: nihilizem in mladi (The Disturbing Guest: Nihilism and Young ransition t Gormally, S. and Coburn, A. (2014). ‘Finding Nexus: Connecting Youth Work and Research The T People). Modrijan. Practices’. British Educational Research Journal, 40(5), 869–885. https://doi.org/10.1002/ berj.3118 Idecon (2012). Assessment of the Economic Value of Youth Work. Dublin: National Youth Council of Ireland. Lardier, D. T. Jr., Herr, K. G., Garcia-Reid, P. and Reid, R.J. (2018). ‘Adult Youth Workers’ Conceptions of Their Work in an Under-Resourced Community in the United States’. Journal of Youth Studies, 21(8), 1029–1044. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2018.1442563 Lavrič, M. and Deželan, T. (eds.) (2021). Mladina 2020 : položaj mladih v Sloveniji (Youth 2020: Position of Young People in Slovenia), 1st edition. Maribor: Univerza v Mariboru, Univerzitetna založba; Založba Univerze v Ljubljani, 2021. Lee, F. F. L. (1999). ‘Empowerment Model in Youth Work’. Asia Pacific. Journal of Social Ljubljana Work and Development, 9(2), 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650993.1999.9756118 MaMa Youth Network. https://www.mreza-mama.si Ministry of Education (2023). Resolucija o Nacionalnem programu za mladino za obdobje 2023–2032, Predlog predpisa (Resolution on the National Youth Programme 2023–2032, draft regulation). https://e-uprava.gov.si/si/drzava-in-druzba/e-demokracija/predlogi-predpisov/ predlog-predpisa.html?id=16045 National Youth Council of Slovenia (MSS). http://mss.si/ About the authors The lead author and editor of this publication is Tomaž DEŽELAN, Professor of Political Science at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana. The co-authors are Karolina BABIČ, Maja DROBNE, Tin KAMPL, Marko MAJCE, Katja NACEVSKI, Nina VOMBERGAR (all researchers at the Faculty of Social Sciences) and Andraž ZGONC, who is Secretary of the Office of the Republic of Slovenia for Youth. co-management of youth policy: 25, 47 political participation of young people Council of Europe: 7, 17, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26, 28, 44, 45, 47, precarious work: 118 59, 61, 69, 70, 111, 113, 127, 128, 129, 145 principles of youth policy cross-sectoral approach: 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 35, public interest in the youth sector 24, 28, 33, 43, 46, 60, 65, 43, 82 69, 75, 79, 143 education: 11, 17, 18, 19, 22, 27, 30, 31, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, Public Interest in the Youth Sector Act (ZJIMS) 16, 28, 30, 49, 50, 51, 52, 59, 61, 62, 70, 72, 73, 74, 81, 89, 90, 91, 31, 33, 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 67, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 103, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 72, 73, 74, 82, 134, 135, 138 118, 120, 121, 112, 123, 126, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, RAY Network 99 142, 143, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152 SALTO South East Europe Resource Centre: 88 Erasmus+: 60, 79, 80, 89, 91, 94, 97, 99, 102, 103, 104, 145, 146 Slovenian Court of Audit: 49 Erasmus+: Youth: 93, 100, 14, 148 social inclusion: 17, 80, 91, 96, 102, 115, 145 Index Erasmus+: Youth in Action: 45, 74, 76, 78, 79, 91, 93, 94, Socialist Youth League of Slovenia (ZSMS): 10, 66, 68 97, 100, 103 Strategic Partnerships: 91, 94, 95, 103 European Social Fund (ESF): 76, 81, 89, 93, 100, 102, 104, Strategy for Youth in the Field of Youth Policy Until 2010: 141 16, 26, 46, 134, 150 European Solidarity Corps (ESC): 45, 60, 74, 76, 78, 79, Structured Dialogue: 18, 19, 24, 52, 72, 91, 94, 96, 145, 146 80, 88, 89, 96, 104, 141, 148 United Nations (UN): 7, 17, 20, 21 European Union (EU): 6, 12, 17, 18, 19, 44, 69, 90, 94, 128, values of young people 137, 138, 148 young people’s leisure time: 111, 138, 150 European Voluntary Service (EVS): 88, 89, 90, 145, 146 youth centres: 20, 27, 61, 64, 72, 73, 74, 75, 82, 83, 97, 98, European Youth Pact (EYP) 18, 26, 28, 94 101, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 144, 145, 148, 151 EU Youth Strategy 19, 94, 96, 102, 127, 128, 134 Youth Councils Act (ZMS): 25, 26, 42, 43, 58, 67, 68, 70, Government Council for Youth (SVM): 16, 25, 27, 28, 33, 142 35, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49, 82 Youth Dialogue: 19, 24, 35, 61, 91, 96, 147 housing issue: 125, 126 youth employment: 101,103, 118, 122, 146 independence of young people Youth Exchanges: 18, 90, 91, 93, 94, 99, 146 intergenerational relations: 127 youth observatory: 49, 129 intersectoral cooperation youth organisations: 11, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, labour market: 17, 19, 51, 59, 91, 100, 101, 116, 139 34, 35, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 52, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, MaMa Youth Network: 103, 104, 121, 128, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 27, 48, 49, 58, 73, 74, 144, 145 143, 144, 147, 148 local community youth councils: 25, 26, 27 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81, 82, 91, 97, 102, mental health of young people: 81, 103, 104, 122, 124, 125, 147 youth participation: 17, 18, 20, 23, 45, 47, 61, 62, 63, 67, 72, 102 Mladina 2000: 110, 111, 114, 116, 120, 123 Mladina 2010: 16, 31, 51, 110, 111, 115, 116, 118, 120, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 43, 44, 45, 46, youth policy: 7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, Mladina 2020: 51, 111, 116, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 74, 82, 83, 91, 94, 95, 99, 100, 104, 124, 127, 128, 135, 126, 127, 136, 151 146, 148 Mobility of Youth Workers: 91, 95, 100 youth policy strategy: 138 national vocational qualification (NVQ): 51, 61, 101, 140, youth sector: 7, 9, 12, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 142, 152 34, 35, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, National Youth Council of Slovenia (MSS): 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 11, 16, 23, 24, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 89, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 27, 32, 34, 36, 47, 58, 67, 68, 69, 134, 137 101, 102, 103, 104, 120, 121, 127, 128, 129, 138, 139, national youth organisations 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 74, 75, 82, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147 139, 141 youth work: 7, 12, 17, 20, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 45, National Youth Programme (NPM): 16, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 33, 34, 37, 42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 53, 58, 59, 60, 62, 69, 69, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 89, 90, 91, 127, 128, 129, 134, 135, 138, 140, 146 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 127, 129, non-formal education: 17, 44, 50, 51, 59, 62, 70, 72, 73, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, Youth With Youth By Youth For Youth Without Youth No Youth