Original Articles 49
The Well-being of Children and Young People: The Context
of Social Services from the Perspective of the Capability
Approach
J, Navrátilova (Jitka Navrátilova), P. Navrátil (Pavel Navrátil), M, Punova (Monika
Punova)
Original ArticleMasaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies, Department of Social Policy
and Social Work, CZ.
E-mail address:
punova® apps .fss .muni.cz
Reprint address:
Jitka Navratilova
Masaryk University
Faculty of Social Studies, Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Jostova 10
602 00 Brno
Czech Republic
Source: Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention Volume: 12 Issue: 4
Pages: 49-61 Cited references: 35
Reviewers:
Moses Kimon
Nairobi, Kenya
Andrea Shahum
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, USA
Keywords:
Capability Approach. Well-being. Children. Social Services.
Publisher:
International Society of Applied Preventive Medicine i-gap
CSWHI 2021; 12(4): 49-61; DOI: 10.22359/cswhi_12_4_06© Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention
Abstract: Objective: The aim of this article is to understand how social
services contribute to the well-being of children and young
people who use them.
Method: The research study, based on Capability Approach,
was done using a mixed-research strategy.
Participants: The collection of data took place through 44 indepth
semi-structured interviews with children, young people
and their parents/foster parents who use social services in one
of the regional capitals of the Czech Republic.
Results: Parents at risk underrate their role in loving and caring
for their children. Parents at risk are more likely than children
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention Vol. 12 No. 4 2021
50 Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention
to undervalue education. Social services do not develop youngsters'
capability to live a meaningful life.
Conclusion: The research has shown that although social services
have significant potential to ensure well-being for children
and youth, they work primarily in a way that provides clients
with basic social functioning in the present, without influencing
their future positively.
Introduction
Ensuring the well-being of children is a central
motive of governmental measures related to
protecting children and safeguarding their rights.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child (The United Nations, 1989) guarantees
all children under the age of 18 the observance
of their rights and assurance of their best interests
(the Czech Republic acceded on 6 February
1991). The state thus becomes the principle guarantor,
which, in the spirit of Article 3 of the Convention,
"oversees the protection and care necessary
for the child's well-being". The Convention
has given the child completely new status:
the child has become an independent subject of
the law, which guarantees respect for the identity
of his/her person and the legal right to the assurance
of well-being.
Although the notion of child well-being is
a common part of legislative practice affecting
the work of all those in the area of child protection,
its meaning is not absolutely clear, thus
leading to a number of difficulties in practice.
Various interpretations of child well-being are reflected
in diverse concepts of practice, which
may pose a certain risk to the social functioning
of children and young people.
We believe that reflecting on the concept of
child well-being will facilitate at least basic insight
into the context of its historical development,
which reflects its transformation in the understanding
and emphasis that have been attributed
to well-being. In brief, the content of child wellbeing
has been significantly shaped in society by
the "social indicators movement" and "children's
rights movement". The UNICEF initiative has
been of great importance for the interpretation of
child well-being, and has led to the observation of
the situation of children in the world, the assurance
of their rights and research into their wellbeing.
Since 1979, when the first such report,
State of the World's Children (Adamson, 2013),
was published, there has been a systematic look at
the situation of children in the world and how they
benefit. Almost 4 decades of systematic interest in
the well-being of children has also meant a period
of conflicting opinions and expert disputes about
which indicators are relevant for measuring child
well-being, how they should be measured, and
what social policy measures should be implemented.
Ben-Arieh (2010a; b), one of the most
prominent researchers in the field of child wellbeing,
points out, in agreement with Khan &
Kamerman (2009), that in the understanding of
child welfare, we have moved from the original
notion of rescuing poor and suffering children to
the current idea of supporting the development of
child well-being. This development reflects the
fact that the child is seen as a distinct autonomous
being who has his/her being own physical, psychological,
spiritual, cultural and social qualities,
all of which need to be developed and supported
in the interest of the thriving and flourishing of the
child (Ben-Arieh et al., 2014).
Emphasis on the well-being of children has
also prompted the need to monitor the prosperity
of those children whose life situations require
specific attention (Gojova et al., 2020;
Glumbikova, 2020; Land, 2000; Selwyn & Briheim-Crookall,
2017; Mydlrková, 2017; Punova,
Navrátil & Navrátilova, 2000). In light of this
goal, we focus our attention to a group of children
who are in the care of social services. Based
on the research, this article should answer the
question: How is well-being developed in children
andyoungpeople who use social services?
In assessing the development of well-being, we
refer to the Capability Approach to anchor our
theoretical and methodological conceptualization
and assess how social services in the selected locality
support the development of child well-
being.
Child well-being and the Capability Approach
Nowadays, when examining child wellbeing,
the Capability Approach (CA), developed
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention Vol. 12 No. 4 2021
Original Articles 51
by Amartya Sen (1999; 1993) and Martha Nussbaum
(Nussbaum, 2000; 2007), has increasingly
been gaining attention. The Capability Approach
focuses on the conditions, possibilities and capabilities
that enable people to live a life of wellbeing
and prosperity. Both authors, who have
made a significant contribution to the formulation
of the concept of well-being, point out that
not every person in society has the same opportunities
and freedom of choice to achieve dignified
well-being.
Sen's interest in issues of human development
and quality of life in the context of existing
global inequalities, poverty and famine resulted
in the conceptualization of criteria for quality of
life and human development, including Human
Development Index. The fundamental optics for
viewing the functioning of an individual in society
include capability, understood as "a varied
combination of functioning (ways of being and
acting) that a person can achieve. Capability is
a set of working vectors reflecting the personal
freedom to lead a certain way of life... to choose
from possible lives (Sen, 1992). In other words,
it is "substantial freedoms that a person uses to
lead such a way of life that he/she has reason to
appreciate" (Sen, 1999). In Sen's conception, capabilities
are perceived as "the ability of an individual
to do valuable deeds or to achieve a state
of being he/she values" (1993). The decisive factor
is, according to Sen, "freedom of choice,"
which is determined by the structure of the options
available to a particular person (1992). In
this respect, the notion of capability is essentially
a "concept of freedom" reflecting the spectrum
of choices that a person has in deciding what kind
of life he/she wants to lead (Palovicova, 2011).
Different options available to the individual thus
lead to different levels of capabilities. These are
explained by Sen as the individual peculiarities
of individuals, and their cultural and social specificities
(1993).
Sen and Nussbaum advocate different approaches
to capabilities. Sen's ideas are integral
to the participatory development of a person
based on the ability of individuals to express and
defend, through social dialogue, the minimum
degree of capability that would enable such
a quality of life that a given society deems as
valuable; however, Nussbaum is critical of such
an attitude. Her selection of capabilities is
founded more as the fulfillment or non-fulfillment
of which is an indicator of the existence or
non-existence of capabilities. Nussbaum is critical
of Sen's assumption that all individuals have
the same opportunities to participate in social dialogue
and negotiate capabilities allowing them
to live the kind of life they could appreciate. For
example, people with disabilities point to the fact
that there are always individuals in society who
are not able to formulate and promote their own
rights (Nussbaum, 2007). In contrast to Sen's approach
to capabilities, Nussbaum applies a more
analytical attitude based on the need for a fairer
approach to people who are unable to rationally
participate in creating the conditions for the kind
of life they could value. In this respect, she has
identified 10 basic capabilities she considers to
be the foundation for a dignified human life.
They are "a set of basic human claims that create
a prerequisite for various ways of life; claims that
are contained in the idea of human dignity"
(1999; 2007).
In the context of the Capability Approach,
human well-being is assessed merely by the degree
to which an individual achieves the kind of
functioning that he/she values. The assessment
of human well-being presupposes a distinction
between capabilities and human functioning,
with "capability meaning only a real opportunity
to achieve social functioning in various areas"
(Sen et al., 1993). Social functioning itself is
a concrete result that the individual has achieved.
Palovicova (2011) states that "the difference between
capabilities and functioning is, therefore,
the difference between the possibility to achieve
social functioning and its actual achievement; between
the potential and the outcome."
Although Sen and Nussbaum choose different
ways of promoting well-being, they agree that society
should create fair conditions (for capability)
for all, which presupposes taking into account the
unique conditions of individuals and their cultural
and social contexts. Because of the way the
CA is conceptualized, it opens up space for analyzing
the physical opportunities that people encounter
and their freedoms for achieving a valued
way of functioning, as well as making it possible
to work with the needs, desires and feelings of
individuals. The multi-dimensional character of
CA allows us to track several factors simultaneously
(Alkire, 2008; Deneulin, 2002).
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention Vol. 12 No. 4 2021
52 Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention
Nussbaum's endeavor to have a fair approach
to providing conditions for a dignified life, especially
for those who have difficulty accessing
this, has strong resonance in consideration to
child well-being. Arising from a constructivist
perspective, the CA approach has thus become
one of the pillars of the "conceptual frameworks
for understanding the well-being of children"
(Biggeri, 2017; Biggeri et al., 2007; Fegter &
Richter, 2014; Navrátilova, 2018). This has contributed
to the fact that the methodological features
of this approach can respond to changes in
the way children are perceived which has occurred
in the social sciences. Fegter & Richter
(2014) characterize these changes in 3 points: 1)
the child has become the subject of separate
analysis, rather than merely a part of family
analysis; 2) there is an increasing focus on the
need to explore the diverse areas of children's
lives that are important to their everyday life; 3)
children are increasingly considered to be "experts
on their own lives".
Fundamental shifts in perceptions on children
and childhood have also had a significant
impact on methodology. In contrast to the previous
adult-centered perspective applied in the
analysis of child well-being, attention has shifted
directly to children. Children themselves and
their view on how they see their possibilities to
realize their own life are now at the heart of the
analyses. As such, an autonomous space has
opened up for children allowing them to freely
and actively participate in shaping their own
lives. The child is seen as a distinct social actor;
to understand him/her, it is necessary to explore
his/her own experiences and ideas (Navrátil,
2019). The Capability Approach allows the understanding
of a child's reality not only on
his/her individual level, but also takes into account
the social context. It is especially the network
of relationships between the possibilities
that children have and their vision of how they
would like to live that can capture the quality of
their functioning, or the level of their well-being.
This makes it possible to gain a more accurate
image of what is important for the child's life
from his/her point of view.
Method and study characteristics
An empirical survey was carried out using
a mixed research strategy of semi-structured interviews.
We created interview scenarios for children
and adolescents and their parents / foster
parents based on Nussbaum's list of 10 capabilities
that are a prerequisite for a dignified life: (1)
life; (2) bodily health; (3) bodily integrity; (4)
senses, imagination and thought; (5) emotions;
(6) practical reason; (7) affiliation; (8) other
species; (9) play; (10) control over one's environment
[13]. This list of capabilities was updated
on the basis of the work of Biggeri et al. (2007)
which focuses on the study of capabilities in chil-
dren.
With regard to finding answers to the main
research question {How is well-being developed
in children and young people who use social
services?), the interview scenario covered 4 main
areas that were focused on determining the following:
1) child capabilities; 2) the achieved
functioning within the individual dimensions of
capability; 3) the impact of the service on the individual
dimensions of capability; 4) which aspects
of capability the project should prioritize.
This scenario enabled the children and young
people to determine the most appropriate dimensions
of capability and to assess their functioning
in light of their ideas of how they would like their
life to be. At the same time, it also made it possible
to see to what extent the parents consider social
services as creating an environment that promotes
well-being for their child.
1st
, from the point of view of determining the
capabilities of children, we identified the following:
"What are the most important opportunities
that children I young people should have during
their lives?" The aim of this question is to find
which capabilities (i. e. opportunities) are relevant
here, without us limiting the possible responses
by a predefined range of options. When
the child mentioned a capability that was not previously
identified by a researcher, we added the
response to the list. When the child mentioned
a capability that was already listed, the response
was noted. As such, the children directly participated
in the formulation of the questionnaire.
This phase of interviewing allowed us to conceptualize
and identify various capability dimen-
sions.
The 2n d
phase of the research was focused on
the functioning of the individual capability dimensions
that they spoke about in the 1st phase.
The children and young people were asked to
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention Vol. 12 No. 4 2021
Original Articles 53
evaluate every capability based on their experience.
For example, in regards to the "health" capability,
we asked, "Have you been feeling
healthy lately?" The result was also noted by the
children according to the Lickert scale (1 - lacking;
10 - full health).
In the 3rd phase, we asked the children about
what impact the social services had on their capabilities.
For this reason, we asked (e.g. in regards
to the health capability) "Do you think that
the social services you use affect your health or
the possibility of living in a healthy way?" The
aim of this question was to measure the impact
of social services on each identified capability dimension
from the subjective view of the children.
This question evaluates the expanding or contracting
of the capability.
In the 4t h
last phase of the research, the children
were asked what capabilities should be
given more attention in social service. Each of
the children was questioned about their preferences.
The aim is to identify which capabilities
the service should pay most attention to. For this
reason, we asked, "Which areas of life should the
social service pay more attention to in the fu-
ture?"
Before the implementation of the research, interviewers
were trained on the basis of a specially
created Interviewer's Manual which included an
interview script and remarks sheet. The length of
the interview, including filling in of the remarks
sheet, ranged from 30-60 minutes, depending on
various circumstances, especially the respondent's
age; the interview environment; the motivation
of the respondent. The conversations were
recorded on a Dictaphone, transcribed and then
qualitatively interpreted. Selected interview information
was also transferred to a remarks sheet
containing the list of capabilities, including new
ones, so as to make it possible to quantify them
all. Scaling techniques have also been used
within this strategy. The collected data were
processed using IBM SPSS Statistics.
The selection of respondents took place in cooperation
with social services organizations thus
allowing us to collect data directly from the organization.
In total, there were 28 in-depth semistructured
interviews with children and young
people up to the age of 22. The average age of
the interviewed children and youth was 15.4
years, with the ages ranging from 11-22 years.
For the youth over the age of 18, we encountered
some individuals who continue to make use of
social services for youth, despite being over the
age limit (of 18).
At the same time, however, we also considered
it essential to speak with their parents/foster
parents, who have experience with social services
and who naturally could evaluate the impact of
these services on the children's lives. We conducted
16 interviews with these parents/foster
parents: 45% of which were men; 55% women.
Average age of the interviewed parents was 44.6
years. The youngest parent was 25; the oldest 70
(this was the case of a foster grandmother). All
participants provided informed verbal consent
with their participation in our research.
Results
In the following section, we present the basic
empirical findings related to the evaluation of 4
of the researched areas of capability.
Main areas of potential (opportunities and
possibilities)
Table 1 shows the perspective of children and
their parents on what opportunities they consider
valuable and essential in order for children to be
able to thrive. In order to secure the well-being
of their children, parents see as the most important
areas: the presence of loving and caring parents
(or surrogate parents), and opportunitiesfor
learning and health (both 56% of the parents).
A slightly smaller but significant percentage of
all the parents (50%) identified the area of safety;
over 77% of all respondents (children and parents
together) agreed with this point.
It seems that the parents want their children
to enjoy the commonly held values of health,
safety, a family setting and learning opportunities,
which are considered in this society to be
prerequisites for a successful life. Parents believe
that the following are also important for their
children: having good relationships (44%), an
open future (38%), and to have a life free from
bullying (31%).
From the point of view of relationships, it is
evident that parents prefer their children to have
close family relationships, that is, between child,
parents and siblings. Other (more distant) family
relationships, and those with friends or within the
community are of lower priority.
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention Vol. 12 No. 4 2021
54 Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention
Table 1 The importance of individual areas of
life from the perspective of children &
parents
Areas
of life
Child/
Adolescent
Parent
Count % Count %
Health 3 10.7 9 56.3
Loving parents 25 89.3 9 56.3
Siblings 7 25.0 4 25.0
Relatives 5 18.5 3 18.8
Friends 16 57.1 3 18.8
To be feeling fine 3 11.1 5 31.3
Safety/security 3 10.7 8 50.0
Good relationships 12 42.9 7 43.8
Having personal
opinions 2 7.1 1 6.3
Chance to learn
new things 4 14.3 9 56.3
No bullying or
exploitation 3 10.7 5 31.3
Nice clean
environment 3 10.7 4 25.0
Fun 4 14.3 2 12.5
Respect 3 10.7 4 25.0
Spirituality 1 3.6 1 6.3
Enough time 3 10.7 2 12.5
Goals 3 10.7 3 18.8
Going where 1 want 3 10.7 3 18.8
Orientation in life - 4 25.0
Open future 4 14.3 6 37.5
Money 5 17.9 1 6.3
School 4 14.3 1 6.3
Work 4 14.3 2 12.5
Accommodation 3 10.7 It
is interesting that parents do not place emphasis
on areas that are potential sources of creativity
development for their children: such as the
ability to express their opinions; have their own
goals in life; or form relationships with friends.
It seems that parents remain in their parenting
"guardian" role and consider the needs of the
child only from their point of view. It is clear that
the application of an adult-oriented perspective
suppresses those areas of children's lives that are
important to their development and future.
We analyzed the same question exclusively
from the point of view of the interviewed children
and young people who use social services
and social work services in the city of Brno. The
research revealed differences in the viewpoints
of the parents and children. The children's views
were not so different overall; however, there are
some noteworthy differences.
The children and young people assess the importance
of the presence of loving and caring parents
even more often than the parents. Almost
90% of them spontaneously stated that the presence
of affectionate and caring parents is a very
important condition for their well-being. Overall,
children and youth are particularly in need of social
relationships to be satisfied. Among the
most-described conditions for a good life, there
are also relations with friends (57%), good relationships
in general (43%) and relationships with
siblings (25%). In comparison to the parents,
some areas of life are not considered as crucial
by the children: security (11%); learning (14%);
respect (11%); open future (14%). The question
is to what extent certain factors play a role in the
children's evaluation; for example, they may feel
satiated in terms of security and learning, while
certain points may be completely irrelevant or
even unimaginable for them for the time being.
The research data show the differences between
parents' and their children's views of what
is important for children to prosper. We consider
empirical mapping of these differences to be crucial
to confirming the importance of including
the perspective of children in a study of child
well-being.
Assessing the State of Conditions of Life
In our research, we also focused on assessing
the current state of conditions for child wellbeing.
Table 2 shows the average assessment of
the state of conditions for child well-being in individual
areas of life. The table contains a comparison
between the evaluations of the
children/youth and parents. We particularly point
to those areas where there are noticeable differences
between them. The respondents used ratings
from 1 to 10, where 1 is unsatisfactory and
10 is the best possible situation.
Of the areas that were actively evaluated by
children, the worst ranked item was Open Future,
which rated an average of 3.0 points. Unfortunately,
the item Support was also rated 3.0 by
children. This item represents formal sources and
places of support where children and youth can
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention Vol. 12 No. 4 2021
Original Articles 55
Table 2 State of the individual areas of life
from the viewpoints of the children
and parents
Areas
of life
Child
Mean
Parent
Mean
Health 9.33 9.10
Loving parents 8.48 8.22
Siblings 9.14 10.00
Relatives 9.00 9.67
Friends 8.50 7.33
To be feeling fine 9.33 7.40
Safety/security 7.33 5.57
Good Relationships 8.33 7.43
Having personal
opinions 7.50 8.00
Chance to learn
new things 4.67 6.50
No bullying or
exploitation 10.00 6.75
Nice clean
environment 9.00 10.00
Fun 6.00 7.00
Respect 10.00 10.00
Spirituality - 9.00
Community 9.00 7.50
Enough time 7.67 8.67
Goals 7.67 5.33
Going where 1 want - 6.75
Orientation in life 8.50 7.00
Open future 3.00 Money
8.50 8.00
Support 3.00 8.00
School 8.00 10.00
Work 9.25 10.00
Accommodation 10.00 Money
7.50 7.33
Special Education 10.00 Decent
education - 10.00
Social worker 10.00 turn
when in need. It is not clear whether this reflects
an inadequacy in their knowledge of available
possibilities, or whether there is an actual
absence of support. In either case, however, this
is a serious finding that requires action. The overall
average of the status of Support (including the
rating by parents) was higher. Thus, parents assess
the possibilities of formal support more positively.
It is likely that they have a positive experience
with the provision of this support.
The item regarding a chance to learn new
things was rated somewhat better. Nevertheless,
the state of this condition was assessed by children
and young people as below average (4.67).
Even here, children express a more critical assessment
than that of their parents, who rated it
at 6.50 on average. In contrast, the research
shows that children rate various items less critically
than their parents: for example: their safety;
their idea of feeling fine; their feeling of belonging
in the community; social services helping
them achieve their goals. From the point of view
of children, it is evident that social services are
not only a source of safety and protection, but
also development. It is interesting, however, that
children are unable to associate this support to
ideas about their future. It seems that children
primarily appreciate their present state without
linking it to their future.
There is a serious gap in the ways that parents/foster
parents and children/youth assess the
areas of life. This shows that understanding the
child as a client should also be sought in the effort
to design adequate services; not just the opinions
and experiences of parents are important
(but neither should they be underestimated). It is
evident that we need to talk openly with children
about their future and explicitly about how to
achieve a successful future.
The impact of services on the state of
opportunities for children from the
perspective of children and parents
In the research, we looked at how respondents
perceive the impact of social services and
social work services on individual areas of life
that are important for the well-being of children
and youth. Table 3 shows the average ratings of
service impact according to the respondents' ratings,
especially the comparisons between the parents
and children. As in the previous case, the respondents
worked with a scale of 1-10, with
a score of 1 being a bad influence and an evaluation
of 10 being the best possible impact.
In general, children and young people who
have participated in the research evaluate the
benefits of the services mainly on the positive
side of the scale. Values exceeding 5 can be considered
as an assessment of benefit. The children
negatively evaluated only the area of finance (avClinical
Social Work and Health Intervention Vol. 12 No. 4 2021
56 Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention
Table 3 The impact of services on individual
areas of life from the perspective of
children and parents
Areas
of life
Child
Mean
Parent
Mean
Health 5.70 5.86
Loving parents 6.22 7.50
Siblings 8.00 7.25
Relatives 6.00 7.33
Friends 8.13 6.67
To be feeling fine 8.00 8.00
Safety/security 9.67 9.29
Good relationships 8.10 9.00
Express personal
opinions 9.00 9.00
Chance to learn
new things 0.75 8.56
No bullying or
exploitation 6.00 7.80
Nice clean
environment 9.33 9.50
Fun 8.75 7..0
Respect 6.33 9,25
Spirituality 7.00 10.00
Community - 9.00
Enough time 5.33 10.00
Goals 7.33 10.00
Going where 1 want 8.33 7.33
Orientation in life - 8.75
Open future 7.00 8.00
Money 4.00 6.50
Support 10.00 School
7.50 10.00
Work/Job 8.25 7.50
Accommodation 7.00 Free-time
activities - 3.00
Decent education 6.00 10.00
erage 4). However, this result can be understood
as meaning that social services do not allow
young people to earn money.
Services are valued for their contribution as
a source of support (average rating 10). They are
perceived by children to provide safety and security
(9.67), as well as a nice clean environment
(9.33). The services are also highly valued for
providing opportunities for expressing and cultivating
personal opinions (9), as well as creating
and offering leisure time facilities (fun 8.75). The
services expand their clients' possibilities in the
area of spatial mobility (8.33) and increase their
chances of obtaining a job (8.25). Children also
perceive that the services increase their possibilities
for an open future (7). It is evident that the
potential of social services to help provide a better
future for children is great and that children
also perceive it. It is a challenge for social services
to exploit this potential, because the unfortunate
data showing little hope of an open future
for children in the care of social services may
point to unused resources. It is also worth mentioning
that, according to children's assessments,
the services are not able to influence the provision
of loving and caring parents. The average
rating in this area is 6.22. We believe that it
would be worthwhile to consider whether and
how the focus of services can be developed and
strengthened in the future. It is evident that the
development of parental competences of the parents/foster
parents would be appreciated by the
children in the study.
From the perspective of parents there is a better
evaluation primarily in the area of relationships,
especially between themselves and their
children, and between relatives and children.
Compared to children, parents give a lower rating
to the impact of services on sibling and friend relationships.
Compared to children, parents give
a significantly higher rating to the amount of free
time. This difference is worth noting because, as
other research shows, the nature of free-time activities
affects children's well-being (The Children's
Society, 2017).
The development of social services in terms of
capabilities
In this section, we asked about which conditions
of life should be given more attention in the
context of social services and social work services.
We asked children and parents about their
preferences for future service delivery. The aim
is to identify the most important conditions that
service providers should pay increased attention
to. The areas of life are judged on a scale of 1-
10, where 1 has the least importance for service
development and 10 has maximum importance.
The average values, which respondents assigned
according to the importance of individual
areas of life for service development, are presented
as a comparison between parents and chilClinical
Social Work and Health Intervention Vol. 12 No. 4 2021
Original Articles 57
Table 4 Development of services with respect
to individual areas of life from the
perspective of children and parents
Areas
of life
Child
Mean
Parent
Mean
Health 4.50 4.22
Loving parents 6.40 5.11
Siblings 5.00 3.75
Relatives 5.67 4.33
Friends 7.43 6.67
To be feeling fine 8.33 5.25
Safety/security 10.00 7.29
Good relationships 6.80 6.14
Having personal
opinions 6.50 9.00
Chance to learn
new things 7.50 7.89
No bullying or
exploitation 3.67 6.40
Nice clean
environment 4.67 10.00
Fun 7.50 5.50
Respect 5.33 4.75
Spirituality 5.00 1.00
Community - 2.00
Enough time 6.00 1.00
Goals 5.33 7.00
Going where 1 want 9.50 9.67
Orientation in life - 7.75
Open future 6.00 9.80
Money 5.80 8.00
Support 5.00 School
2.00 10.00
Work 4.33 9.00
Accommodation 7.33 Car
5.00 Education
- 500
Free-time activities - 4.00
Decent education - 10.00
dren/youth who participated in the interviews
(Table 4).
In terms of future service development, the
priorities for children and youth included:
safety/security (average 10); spatial mobility
(9.5); emotional well-being (8.33); development
of knowledge and skills (7.5); leisure-time activities.
It is worth noting that parents' ratings for
safety/security and mental/emotional well-being
appear to be less significant (7.29). However, the
views of children here reflect some criticism.
Another 5 areas that children and young people
proposed as important for the future targeting
of services range in average values from 6.04 to
7.43. This area has unambiguously subjective
weight given to the topics; however, the data
should also be taken into account in future strategies
for service development. The topics include:
relationships with friends (average value 7.43);
the issue of temporary/permanent housing (7.33);
the topic of relationships (6.80); the area of expression
and cultivation of personal opinions
(6.5); as well as the sphere of support for parental
competence (6.04).
When we look at the priorities for service development
with respect to the opinions of parents,
other important topics appear. The following
topics were in the highest positions: a nice
clean environment (average 10); raising children
to be decent (10); with emphasis on services
helping to provide an open future for the children
(9,80); as well as a focus on helping
children/youth to gain good orientation in life
(7,75). It is interesting that in contrast to parents'
high rating, children themselves support the development
of services in the area of an open future
at a value of 6, which is slightly higher than
average.
Discussion
The main objective of this article was to understand
to what extent social services enable
children and young people to improve their wellbeing.
The research, anchored in the theory of capability,
not only examines whether social services
create conditions for children to prosper, but
also shows an image of what children themselves
consider as important for achieving their own
well-being. In order to better understand what
children in the care of social services need, we
are taking into consideration results obtained and
their interpretations in the context of other research
studies involvingsubjective measurement
of child well-being (Selwyn & Briheim-Crookall,
2017; The Children's Society, 2017).
These studies, like ours, have shown the crucial
role of relationships in children's lives. The
success of children and young people in relationships
with peers and others is crucial. According
to research (Richardson et al., 2008; Selwyn &
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention Vol. 12 No. 4 2021
58 Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention
Briheim-Crookall, 2017; Vysloužilová &
Navrátil, 2019), these relationships influence
children in the perception of themselves as social
actors and generally affect the level of their life
satisfaction. For children in our group, this means
primarily the relationships with parents, whether
biological or surrogate. This is closely followed
by relationships with friends. For children, the
importance of relationships with others is greater
than for their parents, although even the parents
consider them to be crucial.
In the context of relationships and their fundamental
position in children's lives, we should
pay increased attention to their development.
A comparative study of the Children's Society
(The Children's Society, 2017) has produced
strong evidence that the quality of these relationships
is deteriorating. From 2009 to 2015, there
was a decline noted in the level of happiness in
relationships with friends and in life generally.
Although this trend was observed in British children
and young people, an annual comparative
study by UNICEF on the situation of children in
the world also reflects this fact. For the Czech
Republic, this trend is even more pronounced.
According to the above UNICEF study, conducted
in April 2013, the Czech Republic has the
lowest values of all the countries of Central and
Eastern Europe in the quality of children's relations
(26th
place). Only 56% of Czech children
consider their classmates to be "nice and considerate"
. This rating is one of the lowest in the developed
world (Adamson, 2013). In this respect,
it seems essential to create within the framework
of social services conditions that promote good
relations and at the same time prevent risky
forms of relationship development. This does not
concern only the prevention of bullying, but
mainly the prevention of arguing and fighting
among children. According to this UNICEF report,
Czech children are among the highest in the
level of conflict among peers.
A more positive point is that social services
are seen as a means for helping children and
youth to become incorporated into a network of
relationships. However, a certain risk can be seen
in the fact that social services do not focus on the
development of these relationships. The possibility
for building interpersonal relationships has
arisen as a natural consequence of the fact that
social services are, used by other people through
whom the children and youth are drawn into
a network of relationships. An active approach to
developing this capability could in many ways
result in increased success in children's lives. For
example, the results of a research study (Selwyn
& Briheim-Crookall, 2017) have shown that in
order to fulfill the well-being of children in care,
it is crucial for the child to have at least one key
adult available. Thanks to such a relationship,
many skills and abilities develop that are important
for the child to mature, and are prerequisites
for a successful life.
Perhaps the most serious observation brought
about by this research is the perceived lack of
hope for the future of the children using social
services. The results of the research have shown
that skepticism regarding the child's future outweighs
optimism and hope. The research findings
show that children and young people in social
services do perceive that these services affect
their future; however, they do not expect them to
be a means to help contribute to a promising fu-
ture.
It has often been shown that hope is an important
part of such life prospects, enabling people
to actively participate in personal and social
life (Matejcek, 1999). It is interesting that the
studies in the UK (Selwyn & Briheim-Crookall,
2017) are generally consistent with the results of
our studies, although there is one fundamental
difference: the British children living in surrogate
family care, unlike the Czech children, see hope
for the future. This is an alarming fact that cannot
be easily resolved and deserves proper attention.
These results represent a great challenge for social
workers working with these children. It is evident
that the mere factual existence of certain capabilities
is no guarantee that children will be
able to use them;, that they will be able to perceive
certain potential as meaningful for turning
it into a result.
From the point of view of capability approaches,
through which we view the well-being
of children, it seems to be appropriate to develop
services that, instead of merely ensuring material
well-being, are consciously aimed at developing
the physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, cultural
and social characteristics of children, as essential
prerequisites for the development and promotion
of their well-being. A prerequisite for this development
of social services is the education of soClinical
Social Work and Health Intervention Vol. 12 No. 4 2021
Original Articles 59
cial workers, which develops their professionalism
(Navrátilova & Navrátil, 2020; Punova,
2019; 2020)
Conclusion
In this research on the prosperity of children
using social care services, we have used a research
tool based on the Capability Approach.
With this study, we also wanted to discover
whether it is appropriate to use this tool to explore
the well-being of children and young people
in the Czech environment of social services.
Experience from the research has shown that
tools based on the Capability Approach were accepted
without difficulty by children. Our young
respondents actively participated in identifying
capabilities that they considered important for
their lives. The involvement of children in the research
design was also facilitated by the fact that
one of the important components of this approach
is the emphasis on the individual experience;
wishes and aspirations of the people interviewed.
It is particularly the emphasis on these characteristics
of life that became an important factor of
their active participation in the research.
We believe that in using this tool, we have
gained significant findings about the lives of
these children and young people using social
services. We consider the findings that point to
the absence of hope in the lives of the children to
be particularly serious. We believe that this requires
special attention and for us to consider
whether the childcare system itself does not create
dispositions for the absence of hope for the
future of children and young people. We believe
that focusing primarily on material conditions
may help children to live better in the present;
however, this approach may not positively affect
their future. For this reason, we believe that there
is a need to make significant changes to the childcare
system to ensure their well-being. One of the
most important changes we see is that we should
seriously consider how to invite children and
young people to participate in creating their own
concept of well-being. We should allow ways for
them to participate with regard to their own development
and source of freedom.
Although our research has not captured the
reason why children in the care of social services
do not look to their future with hope, other studies
show that active participation of children in
determining their own life opens a space in which
they learn to take responsibility for their lives and
exploit potential of their creativity. These abilities
are also important in the prevention of risky phenomena
such as bullying, addiction and other
pathological behavior in children (Giant, 2014;
Navrátilova, 2015). They are also the basis for
children and young people to develop resilience
for surviving in difficult life situations (Růžičkova
& Punova, 2018).
Research on child well-being has brought
many challenges to the conceptualization of social
services. We believe that within these concepts,
we should create a space for involving
children and youth in determining the form of
what is offered by these services. Although the
services are conceived on the basis of community
planning (which means there is an opportunity to
involve the users of the services), it is still only
dult-oriented perspective that is considered. Not
only are children uninvolved in the process of negotiation
about the form of these services, but
this possibility is not even considered.
From the perspective of the content of the
service offer, it is clear that certain services are
absent; such services involving capabilities that
would help children learn practical ways of how
to live responsibly in society. Practical experience
from the field shows that "overloading the
client with services" leads to client dependence
on services as well as a low level of responsibility
for their lives. Within these services, children and
young people should have the opportunity to engage
responsibly in the resolution of their life sit­
uations.
Furthermore, the offer of social services pays
very little attention to existentially sensitive topics
such as child identity, their self-development
and using their potential for their current and future
functioning. The absence of these topics can
also be a source of some uncertainties: low selfesteem
and disorientation as to who they are and
who they would like to be. This could also be
a source of the low degree of hope for the future
that the children/youth expressed in the survey.
Attention that is dedicated to children and
young people who are being helped by professionals
is mainly seen from the perspective of securing
their rights and fulfilling their needs. Although
respecting children's rights and providing
for their needs play a key role in their protection,
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention Vol. 12 No. 4 2021
60 Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention
we do not place enough emphasis on the aspect
of prosperity which relates to the high quality living
of one's own life. We believe that there is
a need within the offer of services to steer slightly
away from the perspective of securing children's
rights and needs - towards one of supporting
their reflective capabilities to handle life. Today's
late-modern times require new types of skills:
children and young people need to learn to cooperate
with others; to negotiate and to have dialogues.
They need to learn how - in an uncertain
world - to build their own successful existence.
References
1. AMSON P (2013) Child well-being in rich
countries: A comparative overview. United
Nations Publications.
2. ALKIPvE S (2008) Choosing dimensions:
The capability approach and multidimensional
poverty. Palgrave Macmillan.
3. BEN-ARIEH A (2010a) Developing indicators
for child well-being in a changing context.
In ROSE W & M C A U L E Y C (Eds),
Child well-being: Understanding children's
lives (pp.129-142). Jessica Kingsley Publish­
ers.
4. BEN ARIEH A (2010b) From child welfare
to children well-being: The child indicators
perspective. In K A M E R M A N S B, PHIPPS
S & BEN-ARIEH A (Eds), From child welfare
to child well-being: An internationalperspective
on knowledge in the service ofpolicy
making children's well-being: Indicators and
research series, vol. 1. (pp. 9-22). Springer.
5. BEN ARIEH A , CAS AS F, FRONES I &
KORB IN J E (2014) Multifaceted concept of
child well-being. In BEN-ARIEH A, CAS AS
F, FRONES I & KORBIN J E (Eds.), Handbook
of Child Well-Being Handbook of child
well-being (pp. 1-27). Springer The Nether­
lands.
6. BIGGERI M (2017) Children and the capability
approach. Palgrave Macmillan.
7. BIGGERI M , LIBANORA R, MARIANI
S & MENCHINIL (2007) Children conceptualizing
their capabilities: Results of a survey
conducted during the first Children's
World Congress on Child Labor. J. of Human
Development, 7(1), 59-83.
8. DENEULIN S (2002) Perfectionism, paternalism
and liberalism in Sen and Nussbaum's
capability approach. Review of Political
Economy, 14(4), 497-518.
9. FEGTER S & RICHTER M (2014) Capability
approach as a framework for research on
children's well-being. In BEN-ARIEH A ,
CASAS F, FRONES I & KORBIN J E
(Eds.), Handbook of child well-being (pp.
739-758). Springer Netherlands.
10. GIANT N (2014) Life coaching for kids:
a practical manual to coach children and
young people to success, well-being andfulfilment.
Jessica Kingsley publishers.
11. GLUMBÍKOVÁ K (2021) Non-normative
use of reflexivity in social work with families
in the Czech Republic. British Journal ofSocial
Work, 51(2), 583-599.
12. GOJOVA A, GRUNDELOVA B, CILECKOVA
K & CHRENKOVA M (2020) Path toward
a Child-Centered Approach in the
Czech Social and Legal Protection of Children.
Sustainability, 12(2), s. 1-18.
13. K H A N A J (2009) From child saving to child
development. In K A M E R M A N S, PHIPPS
S & BEN-ARIEH A (Eds.), From child welfare
to child well-being: An international perspective
on knowledge in the service ofpolicy
making (pp. 3-8). Springer Netherlands.
14. LAND K C (2000) Social Indicators. In
BORGATTA E F & MONTGOMERY R J
V (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sociology (pp.
2682-2690). Macmillan.
15. MATĚJČEK Z (1999) Surrodate Family
Care - A guide for professionals, adopters,
andfosters parens. Portal.
16. MYDLIKOVA E (2017) Indicators for Assessing
Childrenfrom Socially At-risk Families.
The European Journal of Social & Behavioural
Sciences, 10(3), 2468-2475.
17. NAVRÁTIL P (2019) Epistemic discourses of
'explanation' and 'understanding' in assessment
models. In PAYNE M & REITH-HALL
E (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Social
Work Theory, (pp. 69-83). Routledge.
18. NAVRÁTILOVA J (2015) Life coaching as
a means to build the identity of young people.
INPROFORUM: Common challenges - different
solutions - mutual dialogue. University
of South Bohemia in Ceske Budějovice.
19. NAVRÁTILOVA J (2018) Use of capability
approach in assessing children's well being.
Social work., 18(6), 65-11.
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention Vol. 12 No. 4 2021
Original Articles 61
20. NAVRÁTILOVA J & NAVRÁTIL P (2020)
The concept of professional identity in selected
approaches to the education of social
workers. In SAJID S M , BAIKADY R,
SHENG-LI C & SAKAGUCHI H (Eds.),
The Palgrave Handbook of Global Social
Work Education, (pp. 133-150). Palgrave
Macmillan.
21. NUSSBAUM M (1999) Women and equality:
The capabilities approach. International
Labour Review, 138(3), 227-245.
22. NUSSBAUM M C (2000) Women and
human development: the capabilities approach.
Harvard University Press.
23. NUSSBAUM M C (2007) Frontiers ofjustice:
disability, nationality, species membership.
Harvard University Press.
24. PALOVICOVA Z (2011) The concept of socialfunctioning.
Philosophy, 66(9), 833-844.
25. RŮŽIČKOVA J & PUNOVA M (2018) Accompanying
scout members in difficult life
situations. Social work, 18(2), 85-101.
26. PUNOVA M (2019) Strengthening resilience
in the practical education of social work students.
Social work, 9(2), 5-20.
27. PUNOVA M (2020) Personality disposition
and resilience ofsocial workers. Social work,
20(5), 88-107.
28. PUNOVA M , NAVRÁTIL P &
NAVRÁTILOVA J (2020) Capabilities and
well-being of child and adolescent social
services clients in the Czech Republic. Children
and Youth Services Review, 117, 1-9.
29. RICHARDSON D, HOELSCHER P &
BRADSHAW J (2008J Child well-being in
central and eastern european countries
(CEE) and the Commonwealth of independent
states (CIS). Child Indicators Research,
1(3), 211-250.
30. SELWYN J & BRIHEIM-CROOKALL L
(2017) Our Lives Our care: Looked after
children's views on their well-being. University
of Bristol.
31. SEN A K (1992) Inequality reexamined. Russell
Sage Foundation.
32. SEN A K (1999) Development as Freedom.
Oxford University Press.
33. SEN A K, NUSSBAUM M C & World Institute
for Development Economics, R. (1993).
The Quality of Life. Clarendon Press.
34. The Children's Society (2017). The Good
Childhood Report. Society, T. C. s. The
United Nations (1989). Convention on the
Rights of the Child.
35. VYSLOUŽILOVA A & NAVRÁTIL P
(2019) Individualization in social work with
thefamily - blaming the victims. Social work,
19(6),pp.l42-157.
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention Vol. 12 No. 4 2021