Sweden has long been heralded as having developed an encompassing welfare state with strong universal provisions. Drawing on seven focus group interviews carried out in different parts of the country between May and July 2023, the chapter examines the experiences of low-resourced families in Sweden. The evidence showed that low-resourced families made substantial efforts to stretch scarce resources, yet experienced stark contrasts to the high living standards enjoyed by many in Sweden. They also faced growing material and psychological insecurity in the wake of recent societal developments. Various forms of social support and policy initiatives were felt to be unavailable or ineffective, especially for families with compounded difficulties, leaving some families with few options but to try to accept their situation of depleting resources and well-being. The chapter contextualizes these findings in relation to the role of family in the Swedish welfare state and reflects on whether Sweden's universal family policy enables low-resourced families to maintain and improve well-being sufficiently in the light of societal developments.

Policy reform evaluations are an important source of knowledge regarding the (in)effectiveness of policies and have become increasingly influential in informing policymaking. A key advantage of these studies lies in their careful description of a single reform, observing outcomes before and after the reform was implemented, and making precise statements about the effectiveness of the policy reform among its beneficiaries. However, the very nature of reform studies also entails a number of limitations that are important to reflect on – particularly given their popularity in the context of evidence-based policymaking. We highlight five blind spots relevant to evidence-based policymaking, by critically reflecting on a focused literature review of reform studies of early childhood education and care (ECEC) policies published between 2000 and 2021, conducted by the authors and commissioned by the European Commission. The critical reflection highlights: (a) the context-specific nature of reform studies; (b) the limited focus on reducing inequality in the use and benefits of ECEC; (c) a focus on short-term outcomes; (d) a focus on individual-level rather than macro-level outcomes; and (e) various forms of publication bias.

This report presents the analysis of the primary research conducted with a range of families in Swedenfor Work Package 4 (WP4) of the rEUsilience project. It outlines the methodological approach taken todata collection and analysis and presents the findings of the empirical work undertaken. The report’sunderpinning evidence was obtained through seven focus groups conducted with 38 members of familiesin different parts of Sweden between May and July 2023. The focus of the research was on family-relatedrisks and so the participants were chosen by virtue of potentially or actually experiencing risks or difficultsituations. The participants were drawn from families on a low income, lone-parent families and familieswith a migrant background. The evidence was analysed using thematic analysis. The study providesinsights into the obstacles facing families in responding to labour market risks when caring for children orother family members, as well as the resources and skills people mobilise to overcome the pressures theyface.The following are the main findings.

•Families were found to be faced with a series of risks, with problems relating to income,employment and care intersecting together and with other background difficulties.

•Insecurity in income and other aspects of life–such as housing and employment–emerged asan important defining feature of participants’ lives.

•Income pressures threaded through various aspects of everyday life and needs. The costs ofchild-related expenses were identified as a primary budget item that was especially felt toincrease income pressures.

•Matters relating to jobs and employment were the source of significant comment, especially inregard to the availability of work, discrimination, work-life balance and, in the case of policiesthat have job-search requirements, coping with rules and regulations.

•As well as money, time was a scarce resource for some people. This led to emphasis on work-lifebalance as one of the challenges facing families–by which was meant especially time for familylife and child-related activities.

•Children were prominent in people’s concerns and a strong sense of child-centredness wasevident. This was expressed in terms of a good life for children, with mention made of their rightto engage in leisure and other developmental activities as well as not to feel different or excludedbecause their parents cannot afford to give them what other children have or what is seen as thenorm.

•Lone parents especially expressed a sense of being differentially treated and indicated that therewas a general lack of recognition of their particular challenges and needs.

•The particular difficulties in the situation of immigrants also came out very strongly from theevidence. As well as being subject to a whole series of bureaucratic difficulties, they often feltlike ‘outsiders’.

•Social pressure was a strong thread running across the focus groups. In this regard, people mademention of strong social norms in Sweden around being in paid work and optimum child-rearingpractices. It was clear that some did not feel included or were unable to be included because oftheir circumstances.

•For this and other reasons, people bore the weight of considerable negative emotions as parents,such as anger and feelings of relative deprivation or fear (of the authorities). They often carrieda moral weight as well, such as feelings of guilt in relation to their children and feelings of notcontributing sufficiently.

•When asked a series of questions about it, people mentioned a range of supports but theirsupport networks seemed fragile. Wider family was the most mentioned form of informalsupport but, generally, people’s support systems were not especially based on wider family andmost relied on support from one source which suggests some fragility in their support systems.

•People showed considerable resourcefulness and even creativity in managing their situations. Itwas clear that they used a wide range of behaviours and skills, including cognitive skills andbehavioural and attitudinal change management. The latter often manifested in an attitude ofstoicism and determination.

•Participants were critical of service availability, especially childcare services, health services andhousing provision. As well as matters of supply and hence availability, some found it difficult toaccess services because of timing, delays and bureaucracy. The system of public support wasperceived as having rigidities.

•Participants had clear ideas about what measures would help to significantly improve theirsituation. In this regard, they prioritised better income support especially. In line with theperceived need for a better recognition by the state of the needs of families, people sought moreperson-oriented services as well as higher benefits to cover the cost of living. Those whosefamilies had specific needs, for example a health-related need, spoke in favour of extending the family contact service. Childcare services and housing were also identified as areas needingimprovement

The rEUsilience project is concerned with labour market changes and how these changes affect the ability of families to balance income security and care. We consider families as agents who respond to these challenges to cushion potentially negative impacts. In the project, we try to understand what are the conditions that support family resilience. The specific questions for the rEUsilience project are: 

What challenges and difficulties are created or exacerbated for families by labour markets in the ‘new world of work’ and how do families try to overcome these? 

How do social policies contribute to familial resilience especially in terms of the extent to which they are inclusive, flexible and complementary? 

The concept of resilience is increasingly used in EU and national policy making. Yet, empirical foundation for monitoring social policies and their ability to strengthen family resilience is currently lacking. This deliverable builds a groundwork for development of tools for monitoring family resilience in the context of social policy. The first step we take is a construction of family profiles and analyse them on the distribution of risks, resources, and socio-economic outcomes. 

The European Pillar Action Plan highlighted the importance of childcare as an important element to increase women’s employment rates. Childcare is also a headline target of the European Pillar of Social Rights, and central to the Gender Equality Strategy. Against this background, we provide a focused literature review to inform the preparation of a proposal for a Council Recommendation on early childhood education and care (ECEC) provision, including a revision of the Barcelona targets on childcare. Specifically, the focused literature review should contribute to answering two questions: y Which aspects of childcare policy reform affect parents’ decision to use childcare (i.e., participation rates of children)? y Which aspects of childcare policy reform affect labour market participation for mothers as well as gender equality in general? The aim of the focused literature review is to provide an evidence base directly relevant to policy makers regarding the revision of the Barcelona targets. To that end, the emphasis in the literature review is on formal childcare (i.e., paid, non-parental care typically outside the parental home) and specifically on childcare policy reforms (i.e., changes to childcare policy rules relating to various aspects of policy design, such as childcare accessibility (including eligibility conditions), affordability (including out-of-pocket expenses and mode of financing), and quality (mostly focusing on structural quality, such as staff educational requirements or restrictions on group sizes). The review is focused explicitly on reforms related to the outcomes of interest to the European Commission: children’s participation rates, mothers’ employment, working hours, and earnings. This report is structured as follows. First, we provide a theoretical background based on the (comparative) literature on ECEC in relation to its use and outcomes relevant to maternal employment and gender equality. This background covers literature outside the scope of the focused literature review itself, to provide a broader context to interpret – and organise – the results. Next, the methodology will be introduced. A third section presents the results of the focused literature review, focusing consecutively on (aspects of) reforms that affected ECEC use, maternal employment rates, working hours, and finally earnings. The review concludes with an overview of key findings, and a number of broader reflections.