The Capability Approach as a Normative Foundation for Social Work with Socially Disadvantaged Children and Youth

Abstract

The capability approach, shaped by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, offers an innovative normative framework for social work with disadvantaged children and adolescents. Unlike purely resource- or income-oriented approaches, it asks what real opportunities young people have to lead the lives that they value. At its core is the question of how these young individuals can develop their talents, build relationships, and participate in community and culture. The potential of the capability approach becomes particularly evident in social problem contexts often characterized by poverty, educational disadvantages, or discrimination. It emphasizes the importance of freedoms, self-determination, and agency, viewing children not merely as in need of assistance but as active agents in shaping their own lives. For social work practice, this opens up new possibilities for designing interventions in a participatory manner, ensuring that children’s needs and values are taken into account. Instead of standardized solutions, individualized and context-sensitive strategies are promoted. This approach also calls for a multilateral perspective: beyond individual casework, societal and institutional structures must be addressed. Only by removing barriers in areas such as education, health, and housing can real opportunities be created. At the same time, the concept aligns well with children’s rights work, trauma-sensitive approaches, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Although operationalizing the approach is complex, a capability-oriented perspective allows for a comprehensive assessment of children’s living conditions. In this way, social work can increasingly focus on strengthening agency and recognizing young people as subjects of their own becoming.

1. Introduction and Conceptual Framework

The capability approach, developed by the economist Amartya Sen (Sen 1992) and the philosopher Martha Nussbaum (Nussbaum 2011), offers a special framework in order to explore and respond to the situation of socially disadvantaged children and adolescents (Schweiger and Graf 2015; Biggeri et al. 2011; Dirksen and Alkire 2021). Contrary to more classic approaches to ethics and justice, which set their focus on material goods, standardized welfare indices, or exclusively on economic indicators, the capability approach focuses on what individuals can actually be and do. More specifically, it searches for something beyond the different superficial measures to really obtain substantial liberty, enabling the young people to lead a life that is valuable—that is, an orientation that seems to hold special promise for guiding the practice of social work.

In most disadvantaged contexts, children and adolescents face several adversities interwoven in the fabric of their upbringing, which have their root causes in chronic poverty, high levels of limitation with respect to educational opportunities, exposure to discrimination, inadequate healthcare access, and a lack of supportive community networks (Andresen and Meiland 2019; Terzi et al. 2023). Resource-centered or one-size-fits-all responses tend to be insensitive to these dimensions. In contrast, the capability approach invites social workers to explore the lived realities of young people. Rather than whether they have received particular benefits, the capability approach asks whether the children have adequate opportunities to develop personal talents, build nourishing relationships, participate fully in their communities, and finally, choose a number of life paths (Biggeri et al. 2011; Andersen 2022; Dixon and Nussbaum 2012).

This framework is anchored by three interlinked concepts (Robeyns 2011): functionings, capabilities, and agency. Functionings capture important aspects of a person’s life, including physical well-being and social participation, intellectual development, and engagement in culture. Capabilities capture the actual freedoms and real choices that a person has to achieve such functionings. The concept of agency—a concept present everywhere in social work—emphasizes that all individuals, regardless of age, are not passive recipients of social provisions but rather active agents who have choices about the shaping of their life trajectories. The perspective then strongly echoes the ethical core of the profession by emphasizing human dignity, self-determination, and social justice. In putting capabilities at the heart of assessment and intervention, practitioners can look beyond the scarcity of yardstick measurements and help create the context where the voice and potential of young people are lifted.

The capability approach is marked by the absence of uniformity, so a strict distinction amongst the different theoretical articulations of the capability approach is to be drawn, most notably the models offered by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, since the differences have important practice implications. Sen’s theory (Sen 1992, 2009) emphasizes the importance of freedom and agency, assuming that capabilities represent the substantial freedoms that people have to achieve different-valued functionings. Sen’s theoretical model eschews the stipulation of an extensive list of capabilities, arguing that capabilities should emerge from democratic discourse amongst the community. A more outlined model is offered by Nussbaum (Nussbaum 2011), who sets down ten core human capabilities that she believes draw on the requirements for a good human life. These include bodily health, sensory experience and imagination, emotional attachments, practical reasoning, affiliation, and the capacity to form control over the environment. Whilst Nussbaum’s model is more specific and thus provides more direction for policy and practice, at the same time, it raises questions about the ways in which universality collides with the importance of contextual sensitivity. These conceptual differences hold particular salience within social work with vulnerable children. Sen’s emphasis on the democratic derivation of capabilities fits well with the participatory forms of social work, emphasizing client self-determination through engagement in the process of decision-making (Hart et al. 2014). However, his model offers minimal explicit guidance about which capabilities are most likely to require development in childhood. Nussbaum’s listed capabilities more specifically provide practice guidance but also raise questions about the potential for paternalism or cultural insensitivity in determining the good life for diverse children. In addition, Sen’s framework highlights the processual elements of liberty, that is, the importance of holding a real voice in determining the direction of one’s life. Conversely, Nussbaum’s framework more directly addresses the psychological elements of capabilities that include emotional development, imagination, and social inclusion. It is critical that social workers navigate this theoretical landscape cautiously, aware that elements from both frameworks will prove useful in different practice settings for marginalized children.

As far as social work with disadvantaged children and adolescents is concerned, attention has to be given to the broader ecological context in which they reside (Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2007). No child lives in a vacuum. Life opportunities are closely interlinked with the quality of schools, healthcare systems, social welfare agencies, and policy frameworks that impact these institutions. For this reason, the capability approach encourages practitioners to adopt a multilevel perspective: besides supporting individual children, the approach calls for an attack on systemic inequalities as part of the effort to promote capability expansion (Schweiger and Graf 2015). Another strength of the capability approach is that it is sensitive to cultural context and can thus be adapted into practice. Rather, it recognizes that significant opportunities differ across contexts. For example, for an adolescent girl in a rural community, having adequate space to safely learn marketable skills, receive healthcare, and continue cultural practices may be of equal or greater importance compared to formal education. Similarly, the needs of a refugee adolescent seeking to rebuild her life in a new society may be very different from those of an adolescent experiencing intergenerational poverty in an urban setting (Van Raemdonck et al. 2022). Allowing space for local variation and showing respect for varied values and aspirations, the capability approach invites the social worker to tailor-make interventions and recommendations that match the specific contours of a community. Further, this perspective can be used to develop more holistic ways of evaluating intervention processes in social work. Rather than posing questions such as how many children received remedial education or psychological counseling, a capability-oriented evaluation process could demonstrate how these services helped young people experience new possibilities for education and affective learning or enabled young people to feel that their participation in decisions about their future was valued. The orientation is one that invites an emphasis not just on outcomes but also on the processes and relationships through which the world of a young person becomes constructed. Finally, bringing the capability approach into practice in social work with disadvantaged children and adolescents lays the ground for interrogating immediate interventions and longer-term strategies. It supplements traditional forms of well-being with a more nuanced appreciation of young people’s freedoms, aspirations, and capabilities (Amerijckx and Humblet 2014; Graf and Schweiger 2015; Ben-Arieh 2010). By so doing, it orients the social worker, the policymaker, the educator, and the community leader toward the pursuit of endeavors that respect children’s emergent identities, broaden their horizons, and address those structural constraints that limit them.

Instead of following a traditional systematic review format, this research offers a conceptual analysis that integrates meaningful literature at the nexus of Capability Theory, social justice frameworks, and the practice of child-centered social work. The literature selection was based on a narrative approach, focusing most strongly on seminal contributions to Capability Theory, primarily written by Sen and Nussbaum, and their implications for childhood studies and social work practice. The assembly of the literature was achieved through repeated searches across academic databases like Web of Science, Scopus, and Social Work Abstracts, using various permutations of the main terms “capability approach”, “children”, “youth”, “social work”, “disadvantage”, and “participation”. The search strategy was supplemented by backward citation tracking on specifically appropriate publications. Selection criteria were set to give first preference to the following: (1) the theoretical literature that clarifies capability concepts specifically in the case of children and youth; (2) empirical analyses based on capability frameworks applied across populations of disadvantaged youth; and (3) social work literature that incorporates capability concepts or parallel theoretical frameworks. While the strategy is not designed to provide a thorough overview of the literature extant, it does enable the critical examination of the potential prospects for the capability approach to shape the normative principles and practical styles applied in social work aimed at disadvantaged children and youth.

The following sections clarify how the capability perspective has the potential to enrich the normative basis of practice, advance more inclusive and participatory approaches, provide concrete mechanisms for the process of implementation, and generate policy changes that are consistent with a broad vision of human flourishing. Here, the capability perspective not only strengthens the theory but also charts the way for a more morally guided and situated practice that is radically transformative for people who are located at the periphery in relation to opportunities.

It is important to recognize that this piece is not proposing the capability approach as some kind of sole replacement for the traditional theoretical underpinnings of social work. Rather, it examines the capacity of Capability Theory to interact fruitfully with and enrich the dominant moral frameworks and practical approaches to social work. The discipline is rooted in deep theoretical traditions that value human dignity, self-determination, and cultural understanding about human experience, conditioned in distinctive, localized cultural environments (Reamer 1998, 2018)—values that resonate with Capability Theory but are rooted securely in the historical development of social work itself. The aim is not to remove the notion of “good social work” solely from the Capability Theory but to show how both traditions of the literature can enrich and inform each other. Ethical norms at a universal level that govern the practice of social work necessarily include a large set of ideals consistent with Capability Theory, including human dignity, self-determination, and social justice (International Federation of Social Workers 2018). The capability approach does not eliminate these elemental commitments but rather offers an analytic framework for understanding how these ideals are realized in the lives of children—and how social work interventions can more effectively promote the genuine freedoms of adolescents.

2. Relevance of the Capability Approach for Social Work with Disadvantaged Children and Adolescents

This section outlines how the capability approach can be relevant and adds value as a guiding normative framework in practical social work with socially disadvantaged children and adolescents (Kjellberg and Jansson 2022; Bonvin and Moachon 2008). It offers insights into an analysis of typical problems these children have to face, including chronic poverty, educational disadvantages, discrimination, and restricted access to healthcare. Traditional approaches have often failed due to the narrow focus on material input or standardized interventions without sufficient consideration of the perceptions and strivings of the children themselves (Carpenter 2009; Ridge 2011; Schweiger 2019a).

In envisioning the lives of children and adolescents growing up in socially and economically disadvantaged contexts, it is often too tempting to focus on the apparent deficits: insufficient family income, precarious housing, or a lack of access to a formal education. However, those who work directly with young people know that what really matters most usually falls well below the line of these external circumstances. Behind the facts and figures are adolescents longing not just for some abstractly better future but for a present in which their voices are heard, in which they are respected and valued. Schweiger (2019a) argues that child poverty constitutes a profound injustice because it undermines children’s self-confidence, self-respect, and self-esteem, all of which are central to their overall well-being. This is where the capability approach reveals its profound relevance for social work. In emphasizing these freedoms, opportunities, and personal agency that give shape to a person’s life, this framework enables practitioners to take cognizance of the richness of young people’s inner lives, to value their vulnerabilities alongside their competencies, and to respond in ways that foster their overall human development (Frampton et al. 2024; Biggeri and Santi 2012).

The traditional ways of measuring and supporting disadvantaged youth often focus on a narrow set of indicators—test scores, household income, or attendance records—and then recommend interventions based solely on these measurable factors (Dirksen and Alkire 2021; Biggeri and Cuesta 2021). Even though such quantifiable data can be useful, they risk overlooking what matters most to the children themselves. The capability approach takes a more expansive view. Rather than only asking, “Do these young people have access to schooling?” it asks, “Do they have the real freedom to learn in a way that feels meaningful and genuinely opens up their horizons? Are they able to develop as confident, curious, and resilient individuals?”. These questions prompt social workers to consider intangible, though no less vital, dimensions of well-being. Research highlights how children themselves conceptualize their capabilities, emphasizing not only education and material security but also love, care, and meaningful participation in decision-making (Biggeri and Cuesta 2021).

Such a reframing of the question has practical implications. For one, it makes social workers engage with children and adolescents not as passive recipients of aid but rather as partners whose insights and experiences in life are crucial to the helping process. Children should be recognized as active agents navigating their social realities rather than passive victims of poverty (Ridge 2011; Lister 2004). Underprivileged children do not need handouts; they need settings where their voices will be listened to by adults who treat what they say about the everyday obstacles, their further aspirations, and the cultural or community-based traditions that are dear to them as something (Biffi et al. 2023). A capability-informed practitioner may create participatory workshops that invite youth to detail what they find fulfilling, what blocks them, and what kinds of support would really help them. In so doing, the design and delivery of interventions become more collaborative and responsive.

This need to look beyond immediate, tangible problems to the identification of complex contexts in a child’s life is further fueled by the capability approach. For example, a young person can be disadvantaged not only by low family income but also by language barriers, social stigma, or gender roles that limit ambition. Viewed through the capability lens, such factors become more salient. As Carpenter (2009) points out, the capability approach provides a framework for addressing the intersection of structural inequalities with individual agency, ensuring that social policies do not merely redistribute resources but actively dismantle systemic barriers. The approach invites the social worker to think about eliminating or reducing such structural barriers—for example, supporting policies of language inclusiveness in school, developing community programs that help create a sense of belonging among diverse populations, or providing mentoring programs that challenge such limiting stereotypes (Van Raemdonck et al. 2022). The thinking takes the profession beyond quick solutions to ponder sustained changes that will empower children in the long term (Hedge and MacKenzie 2012; Biggeri and Arciprete 2022).

Another critical point of relevance is that the capability approach fills in the gap between personal and structural dimensions: while social work may well include personal relationships and individual coping strategies, it cannot afford to neglect the more general societal conditions—poverty, discrimination, the inequitable distribution of resources—that systematically place a child at a disadvantage (Weinberg 2024). The capability approach insists on freedom and real opportunities, which, by their very nature, imply a critique of systems suppressing them. No child can meaningfully choose whether to pursue higher education when the nearest good school is simply unreachable, too costly, or not supported by teachers or their family. A young adolescent cannot unfold her potential fully if the local policy has neglected her need for safe places to relax, psychological counseling, or vocational guidance (Graf and Schweiger 2015; Hurrelmann and Quenzel 2018). With its systemic perspective, the capability approach will be able to help social workers express why macro-level advocacy—such as policy changes, fairer distributions of resources, and more inclusive institutions—is necessary. It affirms the intuition that in order to really support a young person’s capabilities, one has to attend to the larger environment structuring their choices.

This would encourage more comprehensive assessments in direct practice. For instance, social workers may ask themselves questions such as the following: Is this child free to show emotions without fear of judgment or belittling? Do they feel safe and included in their neighborhood? Are their cultural traditions recognized and respected in the services offered to them? Such reflections lead practitioners to interventions that support not only school success or physical needs but also emotional security, cultural dignity, and community membership. Children experiencing poverty often suffer from social exclusion and stigma, which impact their emotional well-being as much as material deprivation (Ridge 2011; Schweiger 2019b). Addressing these broader social dimensions, service plans could involve programs using the arts as a medium of expression, peer groups in which teenagers share experiences and forge solidarity, or intergenerational dialog sessions that put young people in contact with elders who bring experience and historical perspectives.

A particularly challenging conceptual issue in applying the capability approach to children concerns the appropriate emphasis on functionings versus capabilities. Nussbaum (Dixon and Nussbaum 2012) has suggested that for children, the assurance of actual functionings (achieved states of being and doing) may be more important than the protection of capabilities (freedom to achieve those functionings), as children’s developmental stage may limit their ability to make fully informed decisions about their well-being. This raises important tensions around paternalism, protection, and participation, which social workers must navigate carefully (Stoecklin and Bonvin 2014). This article proposes a developmentally informed perspective on capabilities and functionings—one that acknowledges the importance of ensuring certain basic functionings for children (such as adequate nutrition, healthcare, and education) while also progressively emphasizing capabilities as children mature. This dynamic approach recognizes that children’s ability to make autonomous decisions evolves over time (Lansdown 2005), requiring social workers to calibrate their interventions accordingly. The capabilities–functionings relationship in childhood can be conceptualized along three dimensions: First, certain basic functionings must be secured to enable the development of future capabilities. A child who lacks access to adequate nutrition or early education will have significantly limited capabilities later in life, justifying interventions that prioritize these functionings. Second, children’s evolving capacities mean that their involvement in defining and pursuing valued capabilities should increase progressively with age and maturity. Rather than a binary shift from functionings to capabilities, social workers should facilitate a gradual approach to participation and choice. Third, even young children exhibit agency and preferences within the bounds of their developmental capacities. Their perspectives on what constitutes well-being should inform interventions, even as adults retain the primary responsibility for ensuring basic functionings. This nuanced understanding helps to resolve the apparent tension between Nussbaum’s emphasis on functionings for children and the broader commitment of the capability approach to freedom and agency (Schweiger and Graf 2015). It suggests that social work with disadvantaged children should simultaneously safeguard essential functionings and cultivate the conditions for expanded capabilities and meaningful participation as children develop.

Another advantage lies in the flexibility and adaptability of the capability approach: children and adolescents who face disadvantage are not a homogeneous group; they vary in their aspired lifestyles, capacities, and adversities (Bertram 2020; Betzler 2022). Some may uniquely value opportunities to learn a trade or to play in an after-school orchestra, while others may appreciate the opportunity to take care of younger siblings or participate in community activities celebrating their cultural heritage. Plenty of research now demonstrates how children competently conceptualize their own capabilities, placing value on aspects such as education, security, and participation (Biggeri and Cuesta 2021). In allowing space for local values and individual differences, the capability approach prevents practitioners from imposing one-size-fits-all visions of the “good life” but instead supports open communication and mutual learning. A social worker operating under this approach might listen carefully to the story of a young person and then work with them to decide which capabilities are worth cultivating at this particular juncture in life.

Focusing on social work does not imply that early childhood education, school education, or broader educational systems are irrelevant to capability development. In fact, educational settings are critical environments where children’s capabilities can either be enhanced or constrained (Hart and Brando 2018; Walker and Unterhalter 2010). However, the aim of this paper is to explore how capability theories can specifically inform the distinctive contribution of social work to supporting disadvantaged children. Social work with children intersects with educational contexts in multiple ways: school social workers address barriers to educational participation; community-based programs provide informal learning opportunities; and child welfare practitioners collaborate with educators to support vulnerable children. The capability approach offers a framework for conceptualizing these intersections, particularly through its emphasis on informal education and the cultivation of capabilities beyond academic achievement.

The concept of informal education deserves special attention in capability-oriented social work. While formal education focuses on curriculum-based knowledge and skills, informal education encompasses broader learning that occurs through relationships, community participation, cultural activities, and everyday experiences. Social work is often well positioned to support this dimension of informal education through mentoring relationships, group work, community development, and creative projects that expand children’s horizons beyond formal schooling. From a capability perspective, these informal educational processes are not merely supplementary but fundamental to the development of capabilities such as practical reasoning, emotional intelligence, social belonging, and cultural engagement. Social workers can facilitate these processes by creating spaces where disadvantaged children can explore interests, build relationships, and engage with their communities in ways that may not be available within formal educational settings constrained by standardized curricula and assessment pressures.

Importantly, the focus on capabilities and freedoms also aligns with broader human rights principles that guide many areas of social work (Mapp et al. 2019). Respecting the voices, choices, and dignity of the most disadvantaged children is not only good practice; it reflects international norms, which position children as rights-holders whose best interests must be kept at the very center of all decisions that affect their lives. Ridge (2013) highlights how austerity policies disproportionately impact the lives of children, making it clear that their agency must be recognized rather than overlooked. By linking to existing frameworks, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the capability approach reinforces the moral and legal dimensions of supporting young people (Dixon and Nussbaum 2012; Schweiger 2023; Stoecklin and Bonvin 2014). It confirms that capability enhancement is not some kind of optional add-on; it is integral to ensuring that children are seen not as a problem to be contained but as full human beings entitled to respect and opportunity.

It is also relevant to the capability approach in that it invites social work practitioners themselves to continuous reflection and learning (Kjellberg and Jansson 2022). The needs and circumstances of children are constantly changing, and the capability approach keeps social workers attuned to these shifts. A capability perspective thus fosters openness to adopting, reassessing, and innovating strategies in response to new challenges. Where an intervention does not seem to increase a child’s real freedoms or their capability to shape their future, a capability-oriented social worker will seek alternatives. They would prioritize direct feedback from children, learn from their professional peers, and stay updated on the latest research into what works best in enabling young people in adversity to flourish (Babic et al. 2010).

In all, the capability approach enriches traditional social work approaches by refocusing attention on what really matters: the well-being, dignity, and agency of disadvantaged children and adolescents as whole human beings. It challenges social workers to move beyond the superficial measures of success and instead engage with the deeper freedoms and opportunities that define a life worth living. It provides more than abstract concepts—it offers an ethical foundation and a practical framework to guide practitioners in supporting young people as they navigate the complexities of their world.

3. Operationalizing Capabilities: Practical Strategies in Social Work Interventions

Following the conceptual underpinning within the first section and the discussion of how the capability approach is relevant in Section 2, this part of the analysis will consider how these might be practically translated into social work interventions with socially disadvantaged children and adolescents (Babic et al. 2010; Larkins et al. 2021). While the theoretical underpinnings and the moral imperatives are important, the real test of any framework is whether it can help inform concrete, day-to-day practices that genuinely improve the lives of the young. Operationalizing the capability approach in social work with children and youth is not a straightforward matter. It requires imagination, reflection, and a predisposition to learn from the young people themselves. However, by careful assessment, participatory approaches, collaboration between disciplines, and attention to context, some abstract ideals we have discussed can be brought to life. A central challenge in operationalizing capabilities is that no single metric will get it quite right, given that capabilities are inherently multidimensional and context-dependent. Social workers are accustomed to working with complexity; reframing assessment tasks in light of a capability approach nonetheless requires refinements in methods. Rather than ticking boxes—Has the child attended school? Has the family income increased?—the practitioner might ask: Is the child really engaged in learning? Does she feel supported and safe in her classroom? Is she gaining confidence, a sense of purpose, or more freedom to pursue interests that matter? This kind of inquiry often takes the form of structured but open-ended interviews, conversations with family members and teachers, community mapping exercises, and creative techniques like art or photography workshops that give children opportunities to express experiences and aspirations in nonverbal ways.

For example, a social worker using a capabilities-informed approach might invite a small group of adolescents to create “life maps” or “vision boards” that reflect what they value and where they see themselves in a few years. Though these tools may not resemble traditional assessment instruments, they can provide deep insights into what young people believe is important and where they feel their choices are limited. Are they unable to participate in extracurricular activities because they do not have a way to get there? Do they avoid developing certain skills because they have never met adults who would value those talents? By posing these types of questions and listening deeply to the responses, social workers can begin to identify which capabilities are most at stake for each person and how local conditions expand or limit their options.

In practice, as patterns become clearer, practitioners may move toward capability-expanding interventions that are explicit in their intent. Suppose, for example, that youth identify a lack of safe recreational spaces as one important barrier to both their social participation and to their personal development more broadly. An intervention based on capability might well involve community-driven advocacy focused on the betterment of parks, after-school clubs, or youth centers (Barnes 2012; Larkins et al. 2021; Hart et al. 2014). It might involve bringing together local parents, educators, health professionals, and city officials to discuss how to create—or find funding for—spaces in which young people can develop supportive peer networks and explore their interests. Rather than just providing services within the existing environment, in other words, the social worker is trying to alter the environment in a manner likely to open up new options and opportunities for freedom. This role of environmental shaping often calls for breaking out of traditional professional molds as one forms alliances with other sectors. Interdisciplinary collaboration is called for. The capability approach invites the social worker to stand shoulder to shoulder with educators, community organizers, psychologists, healthcare providers, and policymakers. In combining their discrete skills, they can address the multidimensional features of capability deprivations. Where the impediment to educational capabilities is linguistic, for instance, the social worker might join forces with language specialists and cultural mediators in generating education materials that are more inclusive. When a teenager struggles because of unresolved trauma, collaboration with mental health specialists ensures that therapeutic assistance forms part of the larger work of expanding his or her life opportunities (Hickle 2020). It is also important to engage with families and communities, not simply as passive subjects of the process but as contributors (Ruch et al. 2020; Jack 1997). Capability expansion can be sustainable only insofar as it connects with local values and social organization. Thus, if girls within a given neighborhood are rarely in evidence in public life due to deep-seated gender values, then a capability-informed intervention would involve working with community leaders and parents to debate these values publicly, highlight positive instances of women’s leadership, and foster more balanced role-modeling within the schools and other local institutions. Over time, such efforts can help to shift the cultural landscape in a way that makes it easier for girls to explore their interests, set ambitious goals, and make the most of their capabilities. Of course, dilemmas and tensions abound in operationalizing such capabilities. Not least is the risk of paternalism—of adults, including social workers, imposing their own notions of what “should” matter in a young person’s life (Van Bijleveld et al. 2015; Toros 2021). Here, reflection and a dose of humility are important. It is easy to misunderstand the capability approach if practitioners treat it as some kind of checklist of ideal states or universal goals. Rather, the process has to stay open-ended and dialogical. A capability-oriented social worker listens more than they lecture, respects children’s agency, and is prepared to change course if the interventions simply do not resonate with participants.

Another challenge is that of monitoring the process. How will we know that the capabilities are indeed expanding? Traditional indicators may have their place: improved school attendance or reduced dropout rates can become very important signals. However, capability-oriented assessments depend significantly on qualitative feedback (Biggeri et al. 2006): over time, it is possible to ask children and adolescents to reflect on the ways that their sense of possibility has or has not evolved. Are they more confident approaching new activities, more willing to speak up in class, more hopeful about their futures? Collections of personal testimony, stories of growth, and even creative outputs provide a much better sense of whether the lives of young people actually change in ways that count to them. Operationalizing capabilities sometimes means direct attention to systemic concerns. Even the most perfectly designed interventions may not succeed if their foundational policy climate remains mired in conservatism. Advocacy for policy reforms such as inclusive education, more stringent anti-discrimination laws, improved public transportation, or increased healthcare access often has an enormous impact on expanding the capabilities that young people can achieve (Boylan and Dalrymple 2011). This is the macro work that ensures capability expansion will not be confined to atomistic projects but can be woven into the fabric of the social order.

Perhaps one of the big strengths of this framework is how it constantly challenges practitioners to sharpen their methods. The capability approach does not provide a bottom-line formula or a neat set of directions (Robeyns 2006). Instead, it offers an orienting ethos that we do not take superficial metrics for granted, that we involve those most affected in our decision-making, and that we take a holistic view of human development (Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2007; Schweiger and Graf 2015). It is through this vision that a social worker will gradually build up, through experience, repertoires of practices, tools, and methodologies. She may maintain a portfolio of case studies that highlight successful capability-enhancing interventions, share experiences with other professionals in other parts of the country or abroad, and adjust her approaches to suit changing circumstances or new learning. Ultimately, the operationalization of the capability approach within social work interventions is a question of reconceptualizing what we mean by helping (Frampton et al. 2024; Kjellberg and Jansson 2022). Rather than a narrow focus on immediate needs or the fulfillment of externally set performance targets, this perspective raises questions such as the following: How can we contribute to an expansion of valuable freedoms for children and adolescents to give shape to their life stories? How can we ensure that they are active agents in the definition and pursuit of valuable life goals (Schweiger and Graf 2015)? Difficult questions, without doubt, but ones that go right to the heart of the profession’s commitment to human dignity, empowerment, and social justice. In all, the application of the capability approach moves from theory into practice through reflective appraisal, participatory planning, interdisciplinary collaboration, policy advocacy, and learning over the long haul. It allows social workers to design and improve interventions that conceive of children and adolescents as whole persons within layered contexts—those that will eventually enable them not only to survive adversity but, importantly, to develop the capabilities they need to thrive.

The intersection between the capability approach and children’s participation requires a strong theoretical underpinning in order to move beyond intuitive insight. The capability approach highlights the normative importance of participation on several fronts: first, participation has intrinsic value—where the power to express one’s opinions and be part of decision-making is acknowledged as an inherent capability (Sen 2009). Second, participation has instrumental value insofar as it promotes the formation and fulfillment of other capabilities; through participation, one actively generates capabilities, cognitive development, social skills, and greater self-confidence. However, applying this model to children provides the possibility of a paradoxical contradiction. According to Nussbaum (Dixon and Nussbaum 2012), the central concern with children ought to be the support of the achievement of actual functionings in various areas and not merely capacity development. At first glance, such an assertion seems contrary to the importance of meaningful participation for children. This apparent conflict, however, may be resolved through the development of a more advanced conceptual model of development that incorporates the following three key points: Participation needs to be acknowledged as an essential element that is in need of development in order to foster the potential for developing competencies in the next generation. The participatory process—a process of learning decision-making skills, articulating personal needs, and resolving difficulties through collaboration—constitutes a process of experiential learning that promotes independent decision-making for future generations. This perspective is consistent with Nussbaum’s support for the development of key capabilities during childhood alongside the expansion of the critical framework to include participation as an inherent capability. Finally, the development of agency in childhood—even if in a nascent form—provides essential social and psychological foundations for the development of more complex competencies at later stages of life. Empirical research with children has shown that early exposure to autonomy and self-efficacy greatly enhances the building of intrinsic motivation, self-regulation, and psychological resilience—skills critical to the development of competencies later in life.

An incremental framework is appropriate to enable the participation of children in accordance with the values of autonomy and protection. The framework recognizes that children are not a homogeneous group but are at different stages of developmental process that require different forms and levels of participation (Hart 1992; Lundy 2007; Kennan et al. 2019). It is imperative that participation is adjusted to the stage of the developmental process of the individual child in the particular setting, and at the same time, catering to protective requirements while acknowledging individuality through the voice and rights of the individual child. Theoretical clarification identifies that the capability approach offers the normative basis for the participation of children, not in spite of but because of the differences in the approach to capabilities and functionings. The seeming contradiction with respect to Nussbaum’s emphasis on functionings and the right to participate is resolved in reading participation as a developmental functioning in the capability approach framework. Such a perspective is consistent with Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognizes the rights of children to express their opinions so that these are given due consideration in the matters that affect them. The Convention is aware that the realization of this right should be performed “in accordance with the age and maturity of the child”—a description that captures the developmentally responsive and incremental character of the capability approach considered in this critique.

Rather than simply advocating holism as a vague ideal, this paper presents explicitly multidimensional, integrative, and context-sensitive methodologies for the assessment of children’s capabilities. A capability-focused assessment framework differs from standard problem-focused assessments in at least four significant respects. Firstly, the framework simultaneously assesses different dimensions of a child’s life, including physical health, emotional development, social relationships, educational engagement, cultural participation, and environmental experience. The multidimensionality captures the capability approach’s recognition that notions of well-being and (dis)advantage are irreducibly complex and cannot be adequately captured through singular metrics like income or attainment. Secondly, a capabilities-based assessment integrates both subjective and objective factors in measuring quantifiable states, such as health or educational attainment, alongside experiential dimensions, such as feelings of belonging, aspirational interests, or perceived barriers. This synthesis acknowledges that capabilities encompass not just external opportunities but also internal capacities to discern and pursue valued functionings. Thirdly, there is an emphasis on understanding in context, since capabilities are always realized in specific social, cultural, and institutional contexts. Thus, the assessment considers how these contexts facilitate or hamper a child’s substantive freedoms, rather than only focusing on individual characteristics or family dynamics. Fourthly, capability-oriented assessment is longitudinal in its dynamism. It recognizes the specific circumstances at a particular moment in time but also tracks developmental trajectories and future possibilities. This forward-oriented outlook is consistent with the social worker’s commitment to the development of potential rather than just the remediation of deficits. Finally, the assessment is participatory; it includes children’s own views about what capabilities they value and the difficulties they face, as well as professionals’ expertise about developmental needs and risk factors.

4. Structural Barriers and Policy Implications

A general insight that may arise from the capability approach discussed above is that the experiences and opportunities of disadvantaged children and adolescents are never exclusively a matter of the person. To be sure, individual traits and personal resilience count; however, the life chances of such young people are also determined—often crucially—by the structural contexts in which they grow up. It is policies, institutional arrangements, cultural norms, and economic inequities that define the contours of their freedoms well before any single intervention can hope to make a difference. The challenge thus lies not only in working directly with children to cultivate their capabilities but also in engaging with the social, economic, and political frameworks that shape the very availability and distribution of those capabilities.

It is necessary to avoid a simplistic binary opposition between the provision of material resources and the construction of capabilities in social work with disadvantaged children. Capabilities emerge from the interaction between individual characteristics and supportive social, economic, and political environments. For disadvantaged children, material poverty often constitutes a fundamental barrier to the growth of their capabilities (Biggeri and Cuesta 2021; Terzi et al. 2023)—a problem calling for direct redress. Rather than presenting material support and voice as an either/or choice, an integrated capability approach recognizes their intertwinement. Children need both material security and genuine participation in order to maximize their capabilities. At the same time, the provision of material resources alone is insufficient if it is delivered through disempowering mechanisms that neglect children’s agency or stigmatize recipients. The capability approach reminds practitioners that how resources are delivered is as important as the resources themselves. Material support should be distributed in ways that respect dignity, recognize agency, and augment substantive freedoms—rather than promoting dependency or reinforcing unequal power dynamics. Practically, this entails that social workers must respond to pressing material needs while simultaneously agitating for structural changes, enabling sustainable capability development. Such initiatives may include advocating for adequate income support for families in conjunction with developing mechanisms for meaningful child involvement in the design and delivery of services (Schweiger 2019a; Kennan et al. 2019). This means acknowledging that a child cannot genuinely engage with educational opportunities without access to a suitable study environment, proper nutrition, and freedom from the anxiety associated with material precariousness. By eschewing reductionist either/or scenarios, capability-informed social work asserts that the cultivation of material foundations and practices supportive of agency must be pursued simultaneously in order to develop authentic capabilities for disadvantaged children.

For social workers and other practitioners committed to the capability approach, grappling with structural barriers means moving beyond “band-aid” solutions that address only the symptoms of disadvantage (Schweiger 2019a). Poverty, for instance, is not only a lack of financial resources; it often means a lack of quality schooling options, sparse access to healthcare, inadequate nutrition, and few safe communal spaces—forces that systematically constrict a child’s development. Similarly, discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, disability, or migration status cannot be addressed by improved counseling or mentoring alone, although these may be important. Truly enhancing capabilities requires a consideration of the policies and institutional practices that sustain unequal outcomes and then working toward reforms that open up new possibilities for all children, not just a fortunate few.

This inevitably entails an expanded notion of advocacy and policy engagement as part of what doing social work means (Barnes 2012; Boylan and Dalrymple 2011). The latter has so far been framed—within many academic and professional contexts—not only as a helping profession but also as one imbued with a moral mandate to realize justice. In this regard, it is ethical resonance that the capability approach willingly shares. By emphasizing the fact that what is truly important is that people have substantive freedoms to lead their lives, it lays bare how unjust policies and institutional arrangements can systematically drain those freedoms. A school system that segregates its students by socioeconomic classes may deny educational and cultural capabilities to students coming from poor backgrounds (Carlson et al. 2016; Hart and Brando 2018). Racist law enforcement policies may restrict the freedoms of whole demographics, making it harder for young people from those communities to find their place and trust in public institutions or to dream about a good future (Weinberg 2024; Coyne-Beasley et al. 2024).

In turn, a capability-oriented social worker does more than work with individual children; she bears witness to injustice and becomes an agent of systemic change. That might involve entering into policy debates, drafting testimony for legislative hearings, working with human rights organizations, or preparing public awareness campaigns. The credibility and nuance that the practitioner on the front line can bring, informed by the reality of life that disadvantaged children live out, can thus bring gravitas and detail to arguments for structural changes. The social worker who knows from personal experience that children are not “underachieving” in school but actually struggling with chronic hunger, unstable housing, and marginalization in the classroom can articulate the case for policies that guarantee free school meals, ensure stable housing allowance, or mandate teacher training in cultural competency. At the same time, policymakers and community leaders often welcome evidence-based research and theoretical frameworks able to underpin more equitable decision-making. Merging the capability approach, various professionals might suggest new policy evaluation indicators beyond the simplistic metric (Dirksen and Alkire 2021; Leßmann 2014). Rather than assessing a policy solely by test scores, decision-makers might be called to assess whether reforms result in more young people participating in extracurricular activities without fear of bullying or whether they foster more culturally and linguistically inclusive practices. In time, these more nuanced measures have the potential to shift the focus of policy debate so that “What does this policy do to actual freedoms and well-being for children?” becomes as compelling as “What are average grades or attendance rates?” Structural barriers take many shapes. Some are linked directly with resource distribution: as long as high-quality schools, libraries, and healthcare facilities cluster in wealthier neighborhoods, poor children enter life vastly behind. Others arise from policy choices that fail to consider the particular needs of children. For example, when public transportation systems are unreliable or unsafe, adolescents may not be able to take advantage of after-school programs. When housing policies fail to recognize the importance of stable family environments, frequent changes in residences may disrupt the social and educational life course of a youth. The capabilities approach to these issues enables the work of the social worker and advocate to emphasize that even apparently mundane or technical policy decisions—like those about zoning laws, public transportation routes, and budget priorities—can make a serious dent in the freedom that children have.

Another set includes the general attitude and ways of society: more elusive to capture with explicit policy changes, yet just as crippling. A society that stigmatizes ethnic groups, refuses respect for religious practices, or marginalizes non-traditional family structures inevitably undermines the potential of some children to develop a healthy sense of identity and belonging. Community organizers and social workers can foster dialog, organize cultural exchanges, and advocate for anti-discrimination policies. The pace of change in cultural transformation is often very slow, but it is crucial. As social norms eventually shift, so will prejudices that keep some children from feeling their valued place in society (Walker 2014; Ridge 2013; Schweiger 2019b; Andresen and Meiland 2019). Yet, structural reform does not have to mean tearing down every institution and building anew. Sometimes it is a matter of looking for small changes that can have ripple effects. Perhaps a city council can be persuaded to invest in youth centers that encourage collaboration between schools, healthcare providers, and local artists. These can, over time, become places where young people learn new skills, discover new forms of self-expression, receive access to counseling when needed, and find a supportive mentor. Or, for example, pressure can be placed on a local employer’s association to provide more internships and apprenticeships for teenagers who otherwise receive no exposure to the world of work, thereby expanding their future vocational capabilities. Framed through the perspective of capability, such piecemeal policy changes can begin to put a stitch in here and a stitch there, gradually creating an environment that supports rather than hinders the development of a young person. None of this is to say that tussling with structural barriers is easy. Overburdened by high caseloads and under-resourced by the agencies where they often work, social workers may seldom find the time or energy for policy advocacy. Efforts at systemic change may meet skeptical questions, political pushback, or just plain old practical obstacles. Yet the capability approach can be both a motivational and an analytic tool. It helps remind practitioners that even when individual interventions seem to be but a drop in the ocean, they are part of a mosaic of social change. By illuminating the linkages between daily troubles and their deeper policy or structural sources, the approach provides a roadmap of what needs to be done and why. This, in the approach of capability, underlies profound policy and structural transformation implications for the very core mission of social work: the promotion of human dignity, social justice, and collective well-being (Banks 2016; Mapp et al. 2019). Capability building means addressing not just the visible irritations in a child’s life but also the invisible structures that support such irritations. It requires the linkage between the worlds of direct practice and those of macro-level advocacy, where social workers should feel themselves as being part of a greater movement in the making of a just society. In so doing, the field will inch closer to that future wherein disadvantaged children and adolescents are not merely provided with respite or token protections but are genuinely empowered. They can be enabled to stand tall in communities and institutions that value them and unlock the gates to possibilities previously considered out of reach. This is the promise of the capability approach as applied to the domain of structural barriers and policy reform: it affirms that the circumstances of childhood are not inevitable and immutable but can be remade through collective will, judicious policies, and unrelenting effort into something fairer, saner, and transformative (Graf and Schweiger 2015).

5. Critical Reflections and Future Directions

The application of the capability approach to social work practice with marginalized children requires a deep transformation of the professional role, going beyond superficial methodological changes. Such transformation entails a thorough rethinking of the power relations between professionals and children and a renegotiation of the epistemological and ethical foundations of professional action.

Historically, the practice of social work with children has oscillated between the paradigms of regulation and advocacy (Van Bijleveld et al. 2015). Under the advocacy paradigm, social workers advance the interests of children, advocating their “objective” needs through the deployment of their expert knowledge. Under the regulation paradigm, these professionals are charged with maintaining compliance with social norms and intervening against examples of established deviant behavior. Both paradigms are characterized by skewed power relations where the professionals are seen to hold the position of expert, and the children are the objects of expert intervention. The capability approach replaces the traditional binary opposition with an alternative of a facilitating agent or reflective enabler. This perspective identifies children as epistemic agents—capable, expert leaders in their interpretations of experience, needs, and desires. The emergent role has several conceptual elements:

On an epistemological level, this calls for a redefinition of knowledge and expertise in terms of practice. Rather than solely relying upon types of academic and expert knowledge, the experiential knowledge of the child, along with their intuitive understandings, is recognized as a viable source of knowledge. This calls for an epistemic humility (Fricker 2007; Burroughs and Tollefsen 2016), which is recognizing limitations in experts’ knowledge while creating conditions for the emergence of participatory understandings. Practical consequences of this include evaluations that move beyond the expert perspective to include conversational interactions where the child can articulate and evaluate experience. Methodologically, this position requires the implementation of novel approaches to working that go beyond traditional interviewing frameworks, enabling multiple forms of expression and engagement. These may include creative, participatory, and somatic approaches that are responsive to the varying communication preferences and capacities of children. These approaches should not only be used solely as tools for data collection but should also create real settings in which children are able to express their views.

On a relational level, this change represents a shift away from simply being “about” the needs of the children toward the development of a “partnership” with them. This requires a relational practice of mutual respect, authentic engagement, and sustained attention to power relations. A sense of “ethical presence”—having a reflexive awareness that respects and understands children as independent agents in their lives (Hart et al. 2014; Sutterlüty and Tisdall 2019)—is of particular importance in this respect. Institutionally, the newly identified role requires changes within the structure of social work organizations. Uniform procedures, mandatory documentation, and hierarchical decision-making structures may hinder participatory approaches. Conversely, an organization that values capabilities creates a cultural setting that promotes flexible, tailored approaches, participatory decision-making processes, and learning driven by the voices of children. That this transformation is multidimensional has profound implications for the practices of education, supervision, and organization. It requires that the underlying beliefs about childhood, development, and professionalism undergo close scrutiny. At the same time, it offers the potential for a practice of social work that is technically competent but also committed to values and responsive to sociopolitical contexts. The challenge lies in the realization of this change in the settings of real-life situations with constrained conditions, institutional constraints, and the social responsibilities inherent in the regulating role of social work. The capability approach has no easy solutions to propose in these situations but outlines a normative model that can shape transformative practice. The attainment of this model requires personal reflection and commitment on the part of professionals, in addition to collective efforts to change institutional and political structures.

However, it is important to reflect on how the capability approach has, until now, been applied within social work with disadvantaged children and adolescents with an appropriate degree of critical awareness. The above sections have discussed the normative underpinnings of the capability framework, its applicability to direct practice, the difficulties regarding operationalization, and its implications for structural inequalities. On many counts, the capability approach at the very least has suggested a much-welcomed change in regard to perspective—one that has allowed practitioners and policymakers to look beyond narrow metrics and superficial solutions. Simultaneously, that which is promising invites continuous scrutiny, adjustment, and modesty. One major reason has to do with the level and fluidity of capabilities themselves: whereas quantitative welfare indicators or developmental attainments are fixed, the capability approach is contextually and fluidly complex (Gladstone et al. 2020; Domínguez-Serrano and Del Moral-Espín 2022; Domínguez-Serrano et al. 2018). This complexity is its greatest strength—it is what allows social work interventions to be so responsive to local realities and personal values but also what has made it difficult to implement in practice. Among such a bewildering variety, practitioners can easily become unclear as to which capability is most valuable. Should they invest their resources in expanding educational opportunities before cultural activities? How can one be sure that one valued capability will not come at the cost of another?

Further, the capability approach, in itself, requires practitioners to be alert to the dangers of paternalism (Claassen 2014; Schweiger and Graf 2015; Dixon and Nussbaum 2012). Even while acting with the best of intentions, professionals risk imposing their own values or culturally specific ideals of a “good life” on children. A social worker may sincerely believe that success through traditional academic achievements is invariably worthwhile, neglecting that some teenagers may esteem spiritual development, family obligations, artistic achievement, or community leadership above these. In keeping with the spirit of the capability approach, this means that practitioners have to dialogically work out understandings and be open to feedback, always revising their interpretations in light of the valued capabilities of the young people and their families with whom they work.

This leads to the question of participation. The agency of children and adolescents has been echoed throughout this paper, and again, it cannot be reiterated enough. If the capability approach is to avoid being another top-down framework, it must be based on continuous, respectful, and inclusive involvement. It does not only mean listening to the voices of children but also that young people should be active members of decision-making committees. Examples include youth advisory boards, participatory research, and codesign initiatives for community programs (Keddell 2023; Biffi et al. 2023). These methods will not only make the interventions better informed but also enhance those very capabilities—self-expression, critical thinking, and problem-solving in collaboration—that the approach is attempting to nurture.

Another site of critical reflection involves the wider political and economic environment. The capability approach was, in part, a response to development and well-being theories that placed economic growth above human flourishing. Applied to social work, it challenges practitioners to think about their role within a broader social and political tapestry. But political and economic climates are not always easy to alter. In times of austerity or shifting policy imperatives, how far can capability-oriented approaches continue to have an impact? If funding is cut or policy directions become more punitive than supportive, how can social workers use their insights to argue for and extend children’s freedoms? These questions underscore the importance of strategic advocacy, coalition-building, and ongoing professional development (Carlson et al. 2016). Social workers may find it advantageous to partner with educators, community leaders, healthcare professionals, and human rights activists who share a vision of person-centered support (Frampton et al. 2024). Such networks may safeguard capability-oriented initiatives during less propitious times, supply evidence that helps make a case for effectiveness, and counter any charges that the approach is too idealistic or abstract (Carpenter 2009). Framing their work in terms that resonate with diverse stakeholders—from parents and young people to policymakers and funders—can help keep the conversation focused on what truly matters: enabling children to grow, learn, and flourish in all their complexity and individuality (Larkins et al. 2021). Looking ahead, there may be new opportunities to strengthen capability-based practice through advances in research methodologies and measurement tools (Thomas 2021; Keddell 2023; Kennan et al. 2019; Dirksen and Alkire 2021). Quantitative and qualitative methods can be combined to provide a richer, more multidimensional assessment of outcomes. For example, narrative interviews, participatory photo projects, and reflective journals can be linked to a set of carefully selected indicators capturing changes over time in agency, voice, and inclusion. Documenting such changes can help social workers communicate the concrete value of the capability approach and bolster policy discussions or further investment in holistic interventions.

Technology may also have a role to play in the years ahead, most important is possibly artificial intelligence (Reamer 2023). Thoughtfully designed digital platforms might facilitate communication between social workers and young people, providing safe spaces in which adolescents can share their experiences and connecting remote communities with broader networks of support (Pink et al. 2022). That said, not everyone has equal access to technology, and face-to-face relationships will always remain crucial. Used judiciously though, technology can augment traditional methods and enable capability-enhancing programs to scale beyond immediate geographic boundaries. It is also instructive to consider how well the capability approach aligns with other recent frameworks in social work, such as trauma-informed care, strength-based practice, and culturally responsive education (Hickle 2020). All share a focus on respect for the person, regard for context, and the fostering of long-term capacity rather than short-term problem-solving. The capability perspective thus becomes part of a larger conceptual ecosystem, in which noticing its complementarities with these approaches paves the way for creative experimentation and mutual enrichment (Gupta 2017).

Lastly, in considering future directions, we must keep our ambitions realistic about what might be achieved. The capability approach is not about quick fixes. It does not provide a readymade list of interventions that can universally transform a young person’s life. Rather, it beckons the social work profession to rethink assumptions, expand horizons, and engage in far more inclusive thinking about child development. It calls for patience, openness, and a willingness to explore unaccustomed territory. Yet the potential rewards are considerable: a practice setting genuinely respectful of children’s rights, honestly acknowledging their agency, and actively committed to removing disabling constraints that obstruct children from becoming the people they want to be. More simply stated, the capability approach is both an invitation and an imperative. It invites social workers to adopt an expanded moral and analytic frame—to see children not as bundles of deficits but as individuals with latent capacities and aspirations. It imposes an imperative: to listen carefully to what matters to young people themselves, to remain vigilant to hidden forms of inequality and exclusion, and to press for systemic changes in the circumstances of their lives. By rising to these challenges, the field can continue evolving toward practices that are not only effective in narrow terms but also deeply respectful, fully inclusive, and profoundly attuned to the complete range of human possibility.