societies

Article
Experiences of Adolescent Participation in Educational
Institutions in Croatia
Ivana Borić 1 , Andrea Ćosić 1, * and Iva Prskalo 2

1 Faculty of Education and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia;
ivana.boric@erf.unizg.hr
2 Center for Professional Rehabilitation, 31000 Osijek, Croatia; iva.prskal025@gmail.com
* Correspondence: andrea.cosic@erf.unizg.hr

Abstract: Adolescents in educational institutions are one of the groups of children whose voice is
seldom heard, who have fewer opportunities to participate, and face more obstacles when they
want to participate. Furthermore, growing up in out-of-home care often increases the children’s
vulnerability and endangers their participatory rights in terms of obtaining adequate information
on the course of care, the opportunities to participate in decisions relevant to their life and care,
the impact on the quality of care, etc. The aim of this paper is to describe adolescent participation
from two perspectives: prescribed and formalized in the form of beneficiary councils in educational
institutions and in the form of adolescent’s experiences in institutions. A qualitative approach was
used, and the data were obtained from focus groups with adolescents, as well as from descriptions
of beneficiary councils through online questionnaires. The results shed light on the importance
of adolescent’s rights but also on the lack of their fulfilment in educational institutions, especially
when it comes to participation. Adolescents’ participation in educational institutions is perceived as



limited, characterized by restriction and a lack of choice, which results in decreased motivation for

 participation. Beneficiary councils, despite being regulated in terms of legislation, are not considered
Citation: Borić, I.; Ćosić, A.; Prskalo, a significant form of child participation in educational institutions.
I. Experiences of Adolescent
Participation in Educational Keywords: adolescents’ participation; educational institutions; forms of participation
Institutions in Croatia. Societies 2021,
11, 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/
soc11040142
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Goran Livazovic
Child participation is the continuous process of expressing opinions and actively
participating in decision-making in different areas of life affecting children. It is a dia-
Received: 30 October 2021
logue between children and adults based on respecting children’s rights, opinions, and
Accepted: 30 November 2021
attitudes [1]. Participation of children who are beneficiaries in the social welfare system,
Published: 3 December 2021
more specifically children placed in educational institutions, is important not only when it
comes to respecting children’s rights, but also in terms of preventing those children and
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
young people from becoming outsiders [2] and enabling them to become active holders
published maps and institutional affil-
of their rights who can make their own choices and create outcomes in their own lives.
iations.
Therefore, child participation is a key factor that can improve treatment outcomes, as it
gives the children a sense of autonomy and control over their own life and the course of
care [3]. There are numerous advantages related to child participation and the participatory
approach1 in working with children in residential care2 , including educational institutions.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Thus, children who are given the possibility to express their opinions and participate in
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
decisions are more motivated to work on their own problems and develop responsibility
This article is an open access article
and autonomy [4,5]. The benefits of the participatory approach in assessing and plan-
distributed under the terms and ning interventions are tangible not only for children, but also for professionals and the
conditions of the Creative Commons community through shared responsibilities and partnerships between professionals and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// children, the development of relationships between professionals and children, a better
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ understanding of the children’s perspective, and the creation of preconditions for better
4.0/). treatment outcomes [4].

Societies 2021, 11, 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11040142 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/societies

Societies 2021, 11, 142 2 of 17

In the context of residential care, more specifically when it comes to care in an edu-
cational institution, children can participate at three levels: the individual, institutional,
and systemic level. Furthermore, a distinction between individual and collective levels
of participation can be made. Individual participation refers to the participation of an
individual child in decisions regarding the course of care, while collective participation
refers to the participation of children as an interest group expressing opinions and partici-
pating in decision-making regarding the social welfare system, policies, and practices [6].
Figure 1 provides a more detailed overview of the possibilities offered to children when
participating as beneficiaries of interventions regarding the level of participation, ways of
exercising participatory rights, and forms of participation, from the authors’ perspective.

Figure 1. Dimensions of child participation in residential care.

Children and young beneficiaries of educational institutions are a particularly vul-

nerable group which, due to personal, family, and environmental characteristics, are at
a greater risk of not exercising the right to participate [7–9]. It can be said that this is
one of the groups of children whose voice is seldom heard (seldom heard young people),
i.e., with fewer possibilities and opportunities to participate, who at the same time face
more challenges in exercising this right [10]. Family separation threatens their rights and
freedoms. Therefore, special efforts should be made to ensure these children are given the
opportunity to express their views and make decisions regarding their lives [11]. Before
entering care, this group of children has experienced multiple risks such as behavioural
problems, inadequate parental care, poverty, and problems in the school environment and
the community that consequently lead to family separation [12]. Their vulnerability and
risks of social exclusion are deepened by entering the social welfare system, as well as
by the deprivations experienced while in care, such as restrictions on freedom, a lack of
privacy, and a lack of choice [12,13]. At the same time, the children in care are faced with
several important decisions regarding changing their behaviour, choice of education, and
future plans after leaving the social welfare system [14]. The interaction between the many
risks they are faced with indirectly affects whether the right to participate is exercised or
not, whereby positive treatment outcomes are also linked to the creation of a supportive
Societies 2021, 11, 142 3 of 17

and structured environment that provides young people with a sense of autonomy and the
ability to make decisions that concern them [15].
Challenges regarding child participation in residential care in general, and specifically
in educational institutions, are also evident at the level of the individual characteristics of
children, professionals, and parents, as well as in the structural features of the system. In
that regard, Duncan [16] states that participation is limited by the child’s actual maturity
and capacity, as well as the child’s maturity and capacity as perceived by professionals and
parents. The key concern of professionals is how to simultaneously respect the child’s right
to protection and well-being, as well as the right to participate. Underlining the conflict
between the right to protection and the child’s right to participation in care, Barry [17] says
that young people often come into the social welfare system from families where they have
not been protected and have taken on the role of adults (e.g., caring for siblings) as a result
of disrupted family dynamics. The social welfare system protects them from dysfunctional
families, but it treats them as children with little influence on decision-making. This sig-
nificantly reduces children’s responsibilities and autonomy, which negatively affects the
opportunities regarding participation and reduces their motivation to participate [17]. This
group of children has also had numerous traumatic experiences, i.e., they have experi-
enced neglect by adults they trusted, making it difficult for them to establish a trusting
relationship with the adults in the social welfare system who play a key role in encour-
aging participation [14]. It is also evident that professionals declaratively recognise the
right of children to participate, but in fact support the paternalist ideology of the social
welfare system based primarily on protection [16]. Professionals also need specific com-
petences in order to develop the participation skills of young people in the social welfare
system [14,18,19], first and foremost being relational competences [20], i.e., developing a
respectful and cooperative relationship with children. Opportunities for participation are
also limited at the systemic level, as the social welfare system is predominantly based on
adultism in assessing the child’s needs and making decisions about their future life and
care [16,21].
Based on studies involving children who have been in alternative care, Duncan [16]
points out that child participation in this system is generally characterised by constrained
participation and defines the typology of child participation in alternative care (Figure 2).
When it comes to constrained participation, the typology presumes that children choose
to participate in a congenial (congenial participation), sceptical, or disaffected manner. In
doing so, congenial participation is characterised by cooperative relationships between
children and adults and authorities, while sceptical participation is characterised by the
child’s hesitation to participate due to doubts, insecurities, and fear of consequences when
expressing opinions. On the other hand, disaffected participation is characterised by
conflicts with authorities and withdrawal from the process due to dissatisfaction with the
system and a lack of trust in professionals [16]. It is also important to emphasise that these
types of participation are not static and stable, but they change as the child spends time
in the system, i.e., as the child matures and experiences life in the social welfare system.
These types of participation also depend on the adults with whom the child interacts in
the social welfare system. It is precisely because of this dynamic nature and the variety of
constrained opportunities for participation that children can simultaneously experience
several different types of participation [16].
Societies 2021, 11, 142 4 of 17

Figure 2. The typology of child participation in alternative care and social welfare systems [16].

The meta-analysis of previous studies on the topic of child participation in residential

care indicates that children have abundant experience in terms of non-participation in
decisions regarding everyday life in care, care planning, participation in the management
meetings related to living in the social welfare system, information about admission, course
of treatment, and leaving care [14,22,23]. The results of the research show that some children
participate in the day-to-day decision-making, but that a large part of them are excluded
from decisions concerning their life, education, and social relations [14]. A satisfactory
practice of participation is supported by a study dealing with the attitudes of children and
young people in alternative care in Australia [24]. A total of 2083 children participated in
the study. The results showed that 67% of children are given the opportunity to express their
views and be heard, 74% have said they are informed regarding the decisions concerning
them, while only 17% feel they are not given an opportunity to be heard and to express
their opinion (10%). Furthermore, Henriksen [21] analysed the perspective of young people
and professionals (case managers) on three key topics: trust and continuity in relationships,
access to information and understanding care, and the impact on decision-making. The
study showed that an important step in promoting young people’s participation in decision-
making is creating a space for mutual trust and a continuous quality relationship between
professionals and children. At the same time, a particular challenge for young people
is the fluctuation of professionals with whom they interact, and numerous ineffective
systemic interventions that have not helped them solve their difficulties. When it comes to
access to information and understanding the process of care, the results clearly showed
that most young people lack an understanding of how the system works, the reasons and
purpose of their placement, and their life after leaving the social welfare system. Moreover,
they perceive the system as extremely intrusive to their lives and relationships. Young
people have also experienced that many adults (both parents and professionals) discuss and
exchange information about their lives, with adults taking all the responsibility for decision-
making. The influence of young people in decision-making is an example of “tokenism”,
where children participate in discussions about their lives, but their opinion is neither heard
nor can it affect the course of care [21]. Furthermore, Sierward and Wolf [25] conducted
two studies on participation involving 1067 young people in residential care in Germany.
The results showed that the participation of young people is relatively low and that a large
number them do not feel fully involved in the life of the institution of their placement. The
most frequent participation was observed in aspects of everyday life in the institution (e.g.,
food, pocket money, leisure time in the home, creation of group rules), while young people
were given no opportunity to participate in the choice of their roommate, the course of care,
and the selection of employees. Analyses of recent studies have also shown that adults are
one of the key elements in the involvement of young people in decision-making, but also in
developing their capacity to participate [5,14,22,23]. For example, young people agree that
it is easier to share their thoughts with interested, involved, and available professionals
Societies 2021, 11, 142 5 of 17

with whom they have established a good and lasting relationship [18]. Moreover, the
impact on future life and care has been shown to be of relevance when it comes to the
participation of young people. For example, the results of a qualitative study in Australia,
carried out with 121 children in the social welfare system, showed that the children feel
the safest in an institution when they have a degree of control over their space and the
situations occurring in the institution [26]. Furthermore, the children clearly expressed
their desire for more influence in decision-making, not only in terms of what they have for
dinner, but in terms of choosing their roommate, choosing available programs, maintaining
relationships with friends and family, and choosing professionals and programs which
can help them change their behaviour. Negative experiences with participation at the
institution level, such as not getting feedback and having their opinions ignored, lead to
children losing motivation and confidence in participation, which consequently further
reduces their participation [5]. A survey with children in the social welfare system in
Ireland showed that children need to have more self-confidence and life skills in order to
feel ready for participation. Children are aware of their own lack of social skills, as well as
the fact that their aggressive behaviour sometimes hinders their access to participation [18].
In this regard, they need informal and formal participation spaces, as well as professionals
with the necessary skills to encourage meaningful participation.
Studies regarding the collective participation of children in residential care are less
common. In a study dealing with the manner of participation of children in care, Ten
Brummelaar et al. [23] concluded that children rarely participate both in meetings dealing
with the organisation and functioning of the institution, and in the beneficiary councils.
In a study conducted in the USA by Brown et al. [27], it was established that out of
126 institutions with a beneficiary council, only 35 of them had meaningfully involved
young people in decision-making and allowed them to assist in ensuring the quality of
care. A recent study by Gazit and Perry-Hazan [28] showed that the collective participation
of young people in care is faced with a number of challenges. Key challenges refer to
contextual factors regarding young people’s lives, such as a lack of family support, lack
of perseverance, lack of support from adults, and engaging in high-risk behaviours that
consequently limit young people’s ability to participate. While the survey clearly revealed
the challenges young people face, the results also showed three factors contributing to
overcoming these obstacles. The collective participation process facilitates young people’s
sense of belonging to a group, their ability to participate in forms which are tailor-made
for them and flexible, accompanied by the continuous mediation of adult managers, and
a sense of participation in bodies as an alternative to non-participation in bodies such as
student councils in schools [28].

1.1. Context of the Research

Since this paper focuses on the experience of participation of young people in educa-
tional institutions in the Republic of Croatia, it is important to briefly clarify the national
context related to this topic. The key processes in the last decade in Croatia regarding
services for children with behavioural problems and the improvement of those services are
the processes of deinstitutionalization and transformation of the social welfare institutions.
Until 2019, only two institutions for adolescents with behavioural problems had changed
their legal status and title and transformed to centres for services in a community; however,
this was without any significant changes related to the quality of care or newly developed
services. The process of deinstitutionalization has been slow with many delays and ob-
stacles in implementation (more in Borić and Ćosić [29]). Therefore, services for children
with behavioural problems in Croatia are still mainly based on a residential type of care
(educational institutions) since there is a lack of structured interventions in the community
and there is still no specialized therapeutic foster care. The research was conducted on the
territory of the Republic of Croatia, in educational institutions in the field of child welfare.
In the Republic of Croatia, children and young people aged between 7 and 21 who show
behavioural problems that endanger their psychosocial functioning, their family, and their
Societies 2021, 11, 142 6 of 17

environment over a longer period of time are placed in educational institutions. There
are currently ten educational institutions of this type in the whole of Croatia, providing
care and specialized intervention for children and young people with behaviour problems.
There are seven centre-based homes and three residential care homes. At any moment,
there are around 350 children and young people in these institutions [30].
Child participation in residential care in Croatia in general, and including educational
institutions, is defined in various relevant national laws, policies, and guidelines. The
National Strategy on the Rights of Children 2014–2020 [31] states that “children who are
beneficiaries of rights in the social welfare system require increased adult responsibility
and special attention from public policies. In this system, children should be given access to
information and services, and the opportunity to advocate for their rights and interests, so
that they can choose between forms of support and participate in situations and decisions
related to their future lives, as well as in the evaluation of treatment outcomes” (pp. 27–28).
Child participation in the social welfare system, which includes children in educational
institutions, is defined in the following national laws: the Social Welfare Act [32], the
Family Act [33], and the Foster Care Act [34]. Furthermore, the Ordinance on Social
Services Quality Standards [35] in Croatia prescribes the following standards regarding
children as the beneficiaries of the social welfare system: the standard of access to information
(current and potential beneficiaries need to receive all the information on the social services
they are entitled to so that they may choose the right services which best meet their needs);
the standard of decision-making and self-determination (beneficiaries are encouraged to
actively shape their own lives, and they are enabled in every way to make their own choices
and decisions on all aspects of their lives); and the standard of privacy and confidentiality
(the recognition of every beneficiary’s right to privacy, confidentiality, and dignity in all
aspects of their lives). At the prescriptive and normative level, as Jed̄ud Borić, Mirosavljević,
and Šalinović [36] conclude, child participation is well regulated. However, it lacks clear
mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating legislation and strategies. Moreover, it lacks
sanction mechanisms in cases of non-compliance with the regulations, and measures and
information about normative documents (laws, strategies, guidelines) related to children
provided in a child-friendly format.
Koller-Trbović and Širanović [37] point out that significant interest in the topic of
participation of at-risk children has been evident in the Croatian research discourse only
in the last fifteen years or so, while the research encompasses several contexts and topics
(e.g., the participatory rights of children in educational institutions, of children who are
in the process of a needs analysis and intervention planning, who are in foster care, or
who are undergoing non-institutional treatment). Even though these are smaller and
most often qualitative studies, the results almost unambiguously indicate that children’s
participatory rights are insufficiently observed and very diversely perceived in practice.
It is also interesting to analyse the survey results regarding the time continuum and the
attitude of young people towards participation. For example, it is evident that young
people in the first studies on participation in care [38] consider that it is important to
participate in decision-making but see themselves as not sufficiently capable or mature for
this role. In subsequent studies, young people clearly point out the need to make changes
in the relationship between the professionals and the beneficiaries, and the importance of
active and responsible participation. They also consider themselves as capable of providing
relevant information about themselves and their own lives [39–41]. This also shows an
increasing awareness of young people about their right to participate, but also the need to
develop a participatory approach in residential care. As regards this group of children, it is
also evident there is no indication of how statutory mechanisms work, such as beneficiary
councils, which should ensure the collective participation of children in care [9]. It may be
concluded that the results of key Croatian studies on this topic unequivocally show the
children’s readiness to participate, but also their continued insufficient involvement and
partnership with adults, especially in terms of participating in decisions on their future
lives. In direct treatment, children report better opportunities for participation than in
Societies 2021, 11, 142 7 of 17

the process of needs analysis and intervention planning, even if such opportunities are
still insufficient [37]. Therefore, this research was conducted with the aim of deepening
the knowledge and understanding of participation of adolescents in various aspects of
institutional life. The motivation for the research was the largely untapped (and unexplored)
space in relation to the characteristics and possibilities of the collective participation of
in-care adolescents as an interest group which makes decisions related to the practice and
the policy of residential care for children and young people.

1.2. The Aim of the Research and Research Questions

The aim of this paper is to deepen the knowledge and understanding of the participa-
tion of adolescents in educational institutions. More specifically, the following research
questions were defined: (1) How do adolescents who are beneficiaries of educational
institutions describe their own participation in the institution? (2) How do adolescents’
representative bodies in educational institutions (beneficiary councils) operate?

2. Methods
This research was based on an exploratory qualitative approach, which is in accor-
dance with the nature and the subject of the research and allows adolescents’ (educational
institution beneficiaries) voices to be heard. According to Flick [42], a qualitative approach
allows us to examine locally, temporally, and situationally relevant perspectives.
Considering the fact that child participation in the social welfare system is well
regulated, the research is focused on two aspects: (1) analysing the activities of beneficiary
councils in educational institutions through the perspective of adults, i.e., professionals who
manage these institutions and (2) the perspective of educational institution beneficiaries as
told from their own experience. Two forms of participation are intertwined in the research:
the formal collective form, described through the perspective of beneficiary councils, and
the individual form, as told from the adolescents’ perspective.

2.1. Participants
Given the two above-mentioned aspects, the first aspect of the research includes
educational institutions in Croatia (a total of 8 institutions3 ), while the second aspect of
the research includes children from the largest educational institution in Croatia, which
is located in Zagreb, the capital city of Croatia. A total of 11 adolescents, beneficiaries of
an educational institution aged from 13 to 17, participated in the research. There were
two focus groups with 4 participants in one and 7 participants in other. The sample is
intentional and follows the logic of sample defining in qualitative research as described by
Patton [43], i.e., information-rich respondents that can offer in-depth understanding of the
researched phenomenon. The time spent in an educational institution was two years on
average (from one to four years of experience in residential care in general).

2.2. Ethical Considerations

In the phase of preparation and implementation of the entire research, the principles
of the Ethical Code for Research with Children in the Republic of Croatia [44] were applied.
For the purposes of conducting research with children, the educational institution has
given its consent. Before the focus group was held, the participants were presented with
the research and given an overview of the topic, the aims of the research, the method of
data collection, and the results. Since consent is an integral part of the research process
and is based on the principle of participant autonomy and the principle of protecting their
best interests and causing no harm, the participants were asked to give verbal consent for
participation and the permission to be recorded, with a prior explanation of the need and
the importance of recording and the future use of obtained information. The participants
were also informed that they were allowed to withdraw from the research at any point.
Societies 2021, 11, 142 8 of 17

2.3. Methods of Data Collection and Analysis

The data were collected using two methods: online questionnaires for educational
institutions aimed at describing beneficiary councils and focus groups with adolescents in
terms of their experience of participation in educational institutions. Online questionnaires
were sent to institution directors via e-mail and were subsequently analysed as text material.
Online questionaries included the following open-ended questions: existence of a council of
beneficiaries in the institution, structure and number of members of beneficiaries’ councils,
scope of work, topics of council meetings, frequency of meetings, and actions as a result
of councils meetings. Focus groups were held on the premises of educational institutions.
Two researchers (authors of this paper), experienced in the field of research and in work
with children in educational institutions, conducted the focus groups. A protocol for
discussion in the focus groups was created in the preparatory phase of the research,
including topics and specific questions for discussion. Key domains of the protocol were
rights of children, rights of children in educational institutions, child participation in
general, child participation in educational institutions, and beneficiaries’ councils. A
distracting factor in one of the focus groups was the presence of educators in the adjacent
room, with the door open. The researchers feel that the participants of this focus group
were somewhat reluctant to respond, which was discussed with the participants. The
participants reflected that they were used to the presence of the educators and that they
could speak freely. An important advantage of the focus group method is the interaction of
participants and the possibility of simultaneous reflection on one’s own experience as well
as the collective experience (group experience).
The following steps were taken for the data analysis. The responses collected through
online questionnaires were systematized according to the key areas of the questionnaire.
Moreover, qualitative content analysis procedures were applied: editing materials, defining
categories, encoding the framework, initial coding (interpreting data with a focus on parts
corresponding to the defined categories), final coding (coding check after the categories
have been applied to the entire material), and establishing patterns (meanings). Data from
focus groups were analysed as follows: the conversations in focus groups were rewritten
verbatim and edited, followed by the initial coding of the material. The initial codes were
then grouped into the code list, revised, and redefined where necessary. After that, the
codes were grouped into categories and themes according to their meaning, i.e., according
to the recognized patterns in the data. Three researchers (authors of the paper) conducted
the data analysis. Each researcher individually conducted initial coding and categorization,
which was followed by a joint discussion and definition of the final codes, categories, and
themes. Results were described according to the defined themes and categories.
The data collected through the online questionnaires and focus groups will be pre-
sented separately and considered in the conclusion in terms of their interrelation with the
common themes, in order to gain insight into the formal and personal forms of adolescent
participation in educational institutions.

3. Results
3.1. Description of the Activities of Beneficiary Councils in Educational Institutions—Participation
through Formalised Forms
The description of the activities of beneficiary councils in educational institutions will
be presented in relation to the following categories: the number of beneficiary council
members; the frequency of beneficiary council meetings; and beneficiary council activities.
The number of beneficiary council members varies greatly depending on the institu-
tion. The range of members participating in the beneficiary council range from four to forty.
In some institutions, the beneficiary council is made up of all the beneficiaries in placement,
with the representative of each educational group participating in the presidency of the
beneficiary council. Some institutions have established their beneficiary council based on
the model of representation, whereby each educational group elects its representative in
the beneficiary council. In larger institutions with remote accommodation units, beneficiary
Societies 2021, 11, 142 9 of 17

councils are established in individual accommodation units, but at the same time there is
no joint beneficiary council at the institutional level.
The frequency of meetings also varies depending on the institution. In some insti-
tutions, meetings take place on a regular basis (either monthly or once every two/three
months), with the same frequency always followed. In other institutions, meetings are
sporadic and less frequent (e.g., in some institutions, once every nine months).
The topics discussed at the beneficiary council meetings are generally similar or
identical in all educational institutions and relate to the diet of beneficiaries (discussions
about the menu), leisure time of beneficiaries (trips outside the institutions and excursions),
and material demands of beneficiaries (clothes, toiletries, maintaining the equipment
and the hygiene of the premises). In addition to common topics, some institutions have
specifically defined topics such as peer-to-peer education, rewarding beneficiaries who
have demonstrated pro-social behaviour, participating in the adoption of house rules,
interpersonal relations of the beneficiaries, and their relations with the educators.
The beneficiary councils of the institutions that have participated in this research
follow the same course of action: after the meeting, the professionals from the institution
(the head of the beneficiary council-educators) communicate the conclusions and the
proposals to the director and the professional council of the institution, either verbally or by
submitting a written record. In some institutions, directors also take part in the meetings
of beneficiary councils.

3.2. Experience of Participation in Educational Institutions—Personal Experiences of Adolescents

The results are presented in relation to the main themes and the corresponding
categories (Table 1).

Table 1. Themes and categories.

Themes Categories
Perceiving children’s rights as important Lack of knowledge regarding
the specific rights of children as intervention beneficiaries
Knowledge and understanding of children’s rights
Relationship of rights and rules in the educational institution
Good relationship with educators as a basis for exercising these rights
Lack of information on interventions
Lack of participation in the educational institution
Exercising participatory rights in an educational institution Dissatisfaction due to the inability to influence decisions
Low motivation for participation in the educational institution
Beneficiary council as a relatively unknown element
The importance of participation in the family and in the group of peers
Exercising participatory rights outside the educational institution
Difficulties in exercising participatory rights in schools

3.2.1. Knowledge and Understanding of Children’s Rights

The focus group participants stated that they are familiar with children’s rights and
also mention specific rights ([Children] have the right to privacy, the right to live and rest,
the right of opinion, the right to make decisions, the right to choose their friends, the right
to play, the right to participate and vote... the right to study, the right to education...). They
believe that children’s rights are as important as the rights of adults. Participants also
pointed out that it is important for children in educational institutions to have the same
rights as children living in their own families. The participants stated that having rights
and being aware of them is important as it enables them to stand up for themselves and
recognise when these rights are being violated. The participants learned about children’s
rights most often in school or by taking part in workshops held in educational institutions.
Referring to the rights exercised as educational institution beneficiaries, the participants
generally state that they were not specifically informed about their rights as intervention
beneficiaries. At the same time, however, they said that some of their rights have been
violated in the institution, such as the right to privacy. They also pointed out a lack of
privacy when using the restroom. This category of responses is linked to the subsequent
Societies 2021, 11, 142 10 of 17

category, which refers to the relationship between the rights and the rules in the educational
institution. When discussing rights in the institution, participants most often described
real life in the institution and talked about rights in the context of the house rules in the
institution. Some participants stated they do not have enough information about the rules
of the institution and that they have to learn about them “on the go”, which they consider
unacceptable. In adopting these rules, they are mostly assisted by other beneficiaries. Some
participants pointed out their dissatisfaction, but also coming to terms with the (in)ability
to change the house rules (We are here, we have been placed here, we are here because we
have to be here and that is all. We simply cannot change these rules.) Participants described
institutional life in a clear and specific manner through the lens of their role and their
behaviour. If they behave appropriately (and in accordance with the rules), they receive
benefits (rights). On the other hand, some participants referred to themselves as passive
recipients of interventions and showed no desire to participate or act. The participants
pointed out that a good relationship with educators, based on agreement and common
goals, is an important element of exercising rights in the institution. In this regard, they
see educators as people who encourage them to participate, both at the individual and
the group level (They [educators] involve us, ask us questions, give us purpose. We are
making plans to decorate our rooms and the living room...). They also see educators as
advocates of their rights and intermediaries with the management of the institution.

3.2.2. Exercising Participatory Rights in an Educational Institution

In the context of exercising participatory rights, the first thing that was observed while
talking to the beneficiaries was the lack of information about the intervention (placement
in institutional care) before the placement. Young people were not adequately informed,
and some were even misinformed, and did not have the opportunity to participate in the
decision on placement. Neither their parents nor the professionals who were involved in
the decision-making process made this possible for them. The responses given by young
people point to the conclusion that in some situations the adults (parents and professionals)
have even resorted to being deceptive, i.e., concealing the fact that the child will be sent
to an educational institution or not providing this information in time for the child to
participate in the process or influence the decision, for example, a day before placement
(I was at home, it was Sunday. My Mom told me to pack my things, I thought I was going on a
trip. Then I came here.). Furthermore, some participants say that they were misinformed
about the duration of the institutional placement (They told me [in the social welfare centre]
I would be there for a year or two. It’s been five years already.). A minority of the participants
were informed about the location of the placement and asked for consent. The lack of
information prior to the intervention is followed by the category which refers to the lack
of participation in the educational institution. This means that the adolescents had no
prior experience of participation (even at the level of information) and that such practices
are repeated in the institution. Their (non)participation experience in the institution is
mainly described through the inability to make various personal decisions: choosing a
room and a bed, using a mobile phone, restrictions in terms of decorating their living
space, the inability to own a pet. In this context, the young people pointed out that it is
important for them to participate in the reception of new beneficiaries, i.e., peers with
whom they will share their life and space. It was also stated that they are sometimes
obligated to take part in various activities in the institution without any real possibility of
choosing whether or not they wish to participate. When discussing the lack of participation
at the institutional level, some young people also referred to the government, i.e., key
decision-makers whose decisions directly affect their quality of life. In this regard, they
said the amount they get as pocket money limits them in their choices (e.g., limiting their
social life because they cannot afford a drink): “The government won’t give us the money to go
out. We walk around and watch people drink coffee.” Most young people are not particularly
motivated to participate at the level of the educational institution, partly because they
believe they cannot greatly influence decisions, which is also reflected in the lack of choice
Societies 2021, 11, 142 11 of 17

in everyday situations. Some participants also stated that they are excessively burdened by
daily duties at school and the institution, which prevents them from being motivated for
greater engagement. Some participants also exhibit a degree of resignation and coming
to terms with the situation, stating that they cannot wait “to go out”. Benefits from the
educators would motivate them for greater participation. Participants’ responses about
the beneficiary council are particularly interesting. Most beneficiaries said their institution
does not have a beneficiary council, even though the responses received by the institution
through the online questionnaires confirm the existence of a beneficiary council. The
beneficiary council reminds them of the student council in their schools and they assume it
is a similar body. After they were given an explanation about the beneficiary council, most
participants did not show any desire to get involved in its activities, but they confirmed it
would be useful to organise a beneficiary council in their institution.

3.2.3. Exercising Participatory Rights Outside the Educational Institution

When it comes to participation outside the educational institution, the young people
stated that the most important form of participation is in the family and in the group of
peers. Participation in school is also important for them, as some perceive school as more
important than the educational institution. At the same time, most of them said they do
not intend to actively participate in school or student councils. Some participants have also
had negative experiences regarding participation in student councils. They have either had
no opportunity to become members of student councils, or they have had the impression
(and the experience) that their opinion was not heard and valued.

4. Discussion
Based on the results of this research, it can be concluded that the experiences of
child participation in educational institutions are determined by the context of care (i.e.,
educational institutions), by the predominant forms of participation, and by the personal
experiences and characteristics of adolescents. These three dimensions are in relation to
one another, and their interplay decides whether the children can exercise their rights or
not. Each of these three dimensions has a metaphorical meaning/meaning in terms of
value and a concrete/operational meaning. The data from this research directly point to
the operational, everyday meaning and experiences of participation, but this aspect also
leads to an indirect conclusion about the value aspect of participation.
In relation to the context of care, based on the discussions with the adolescents, it is
concluded that they do not see any greater significance of beneficiary participation. Their
previous experiences of participation are very modest, even at the level of information
about the social welfare system, where it has been established that most adolescents are
not adequately informed about the interventions, and some have even been deliberately
misinformed. Adolescents also gave very short responses about participation in the educa-
tional institution and do not see participation as a specific right or an area in which they
could be affirmed. In an operational everyday context, young people believe their rights
are important, but consider them in relation to the rules which define their institutional
life. Such a restrictive context of care, i.e., in an educational institution, with numerous
rules, a lack of choice, and the inability to participate in decision-making, even at the level
of decorating their living space, discourages adolescents from participating and leads to
resignation. Young people want to have a choice, they want a life that resembles family life:
decorating their room, the possibility of having a pet, and using mobile phones. Their re-
quirements are realistic and age-appropriate, but they do not comply with the requirements
of an (overly) institutionalised life, which operates in a rigid framework and discourages
participation. This kind of context of care is probably a reflection of adultism and ideas
about organising the environment and care in educational institutions. This means it is
important for adults (professionals) to listen to children’s voices and create new, better, and
more flexible conditions of care and treatment for them (38).
Societies 2021, 11, 142 12 of 17

In further discussions about the forms of participation, one may distinguish between
collective formal participation and individual participation. The formal collective participa-
tion of children refers to beneficiary councils. Based on this research, one may conclude that
the compliance with normative standards is merely declarative and procedural, failing to
offer a meaningful, guided, and influential form of participation in educational institutions.
The data collected on the activities of the beneficiary councils through online questionnaires
were generally of a formal nature, without personal impressions or comments from the
institutions that participated in the research. Knowledge was obtained about the technical
side of the beneficiary council’s activities, but no information was obtained about the
quality of such activities or about the perception of beneficiary councils and their influence.
Information on these aspects was not formally requested in the questionnaire, but institu-
tions did not provide them in the questionnaire on their own initiative, which may suggest
that subsequent studies should focus on a more personal approach and additional methods
of data collection (e.g., interviews), but also that there may not be much information about
the beneficiary council’s activities to be shared. Formal forms of participation in beneficiary
councils, i.e., children’s representative bodies at the level of a specific educational institu-
tion, mainly operate in a similar way: all the institutions stated that they have established
beneficiary councils, which is their obligation in accordance with the applicable regulations
in the social welfare system. Most institutions stated that all the children participate in the
beneficiary councils, while some institutions have established beneficiary councils based
on the criteria of representation (representatives of educational groups are members of the
beneficiary council). Beneficiary councils generally meet on a regular basis, even though
there is a notable difference between institutions (some councils meet monthly, while some
meet once every nine months). The topics addressed by beneficiary councils are also rather
universal: diet, leisure time, material demands. Topics such as peer education, rewarding
beneficiaries, and the participation of beneficiaries in the process of adopting documents
relevant for institutional life are rarely on the agenda or in the focus of beneficiary councils.
Beneficiary councils are led by adults, and the conclusions made at council meetings are
passed on to directors. Similar results were reported by Sierward and Wolf [25] in a study
on child participation in residential care in Germany: children participate most in debates
on topics related to everyday life in the institution and do not participate in topics related to
the decision-making regarding the course of care. The mode of action and topics addressed
by children’s representative bodies, as well as obtaining feedback from adults, have a
strong impact on the children’s motivation to participate. Numerous studies in the field of
school and student councils and children’s councils in cities and municipalities, which are
equivalent to beneficiary councils, show that dealing exclusively with everyday issues, such
as diet and decorating personal space, discourages children from participating. Moreover,
they want to participate in more relevant topics such as the ability to influence policies
and decisions [45–51]. Therefore, Yamashita and Davies [52] argue that ineffective student
councils may have a negative impact on children and make them question the meaning
of participation, giving them the impression that such participation is a waste of time.
Students become frustrated and alienated from the idea of participation and can get the
impression that adults do not truly want to hear their voice. By choosing exclusively mun-
dane and repetitive topics, adults (and consequently children) stay in their comfort zone,
enacting known roles and relationships, and fail to make new opportunities for mutual
influence, learning, and action. When it comes to beneficiary council activities, the focus
groups involving children have evidenced the need for deeper research and questioning of
how beneficiary councils work and their purpose. The adolescents who participated in the
research were not aware of the existence of beneficiary councils in their institution, which
means such councils have no role or influence in their lives, nor do the children give them
any importance, showing no motivation to engage in their activities. However, regardless
of the currently inadequate activities of beneficiary councils, their potential must be used.
Studies show that the process of collective participation also allows adolescents to feel a
sense of belonging to a group, offers the possibility of tailor-made and flexible forms of
Societies 2021, 11, 142 13 of 17

participation, and the possibility of participation in children’s representative bodies as an

alternative to non-participation in similar bodies in regular environments, e.g., student
councils in schools [28]. Participation in beneficiary councils can thus become a place where
adolescents are empowered to participate in other environments where they are very often
on the margins, precisely because they are viewed through the prism of “care beneficia-
ries”. Likewise, the activities of beneficiary councils may help adolescents develop better
social skills and learn various pro-social behaviours, which is also an important treatment
outcome. In relation to the individual level of participation, in addition to the relative lack
of information provided to adolescents, which is the first step in the participatory process,
the results show that adolescents insufficiently participate in everyday institutional life,
even though they would like to. When expressing their desire to participate, young people
mention very specific topics/decisions in which they would like to be involved and which
are very important for their quality of life in the institution: the choice of beneficiaries
who come into their group, persons with whom they wish to share their living space, the
choice of activities in which they want to be involved, and the possibility of influencing the
decisions at the level of the social welfare system (such as the amount they get as pocket
money). So far, studies have also shown that children in residential care mostly have
abundant experience regarding non-participation in everyday decisions, care planning,
management meetings related to their life in care, information about admission, the course
of treatment, and leaving the social welfare system [14,22,23]. It is important to bear in
mind that this group of adolescents exhibit (at least) two vulnerabilities in parallel, i.e., they
are both children and beneficiaries of the social welfare system. In this context, enabling
them to participate is even more important. Adolescents mention educators as the key
factor in encouraging participation, as their actions enable or disable participation. In
particular, the characteristics of educators, such as interest, availability, and concern, are
necessary components of quality supportive relationships [18]. In addition, the continuity
of the relationship between adolescents and educators is an important element, as many
adolescents have no experience of stability and continuity due to numerous interventions
in which they were involved, as well as the fluctuations of caretakers. Previous studies
also confirm the conclusion that adults (professionals) are one of the key elements for the
inclusion of children in decision-making, but also for the development of young people’s
participation capacities [5,14,18,21–23,53].
When it comes to the personal characteristics and the experiences of adolescents in
relation to exercising their rights in an institution, their (both individual and collective)
participation will depend on their personality and skills, but also on their previous partic-
ipation experiences in the family, school, and the social welfare system. Apart from the
experience of participation, experiences with important adults and with the intervention
system are also of relevance. If the adolescents did not have positive experiences with
adults in their earlier life and in the course of care, they will be less inclined to participate.
The results of this research show that some young people do not trust adults (professionals
and parents) due to being inadequately informed (and misinformed) about the duration
of placement, the form of placement, etc. Also, some participants feel a “care fatigue”
and their only desire is to “get out” as soon as possible, showing no desire to participate
(. Numerous traumatic experiences of children in educational institutions, as well as the
neglect from adults whom they had trusted, are cited as challenges in the exercise of
participatory rights [14]. In that regard, Vosz et al. [5] point out that negative experiences
with participation are reflected in the fact that children’s opinions are often disregarded,
and they do not receive feedback on their participation, which also reduces their desire
for future participation. In relation to the individual experiences of adolescents and their
characteristics in the context of life in care, children describe institutional life as the rela-
tionship between their behaviour and the possibility of exercising their rights (including
the right to participate): if they behave appropriately (and according to the rules), they
receive benefits (rights). Regarding the issue of participation, one should ask whether we
“hear” the adolescents’ voices in educational institutions as a sign of participation, or as
Societies 2021, 11, 142 14 of 17

disobedience and rebellion. In fact, very often (which has been shown in focus groups)
adolescents in educational institutions communicate violently, impatiently, and loudly,
which reflects their authenticity, but it can also be challenging when it comes to offering
guidance and direction.
Summarising the above, one may conclude that the restrictive context of care, declara-
tory collective participation, and limited individual participation, along with distrust in
adults and “care fatigue”, discourage adolescents from participating in educational insti-
tutions. These operational aspects also shed light on value aspects, i.e., recognising the
importance of adolescent participation in ensuring the quality of care, encouraging partici-
patory culture at the institutional level, and promoting participation as a value, as well as
promoting the awareness and faith of adolescents in their ability to influence their lives and
their living environment. Keeping in mind the characteristics of beneficiaries’ participation
in educational institutions, it seems that participation and its potential to improve the
quality of care have not (yet) been recognised as a real value in the social welfare system
(more specifically educational institutions), neither generally nor specifically at the level of
institutions. In terms of value, and based on specific descriptions of behaviour, experiences,
and perceptions, it seems that adolescents have little faith in being able to influence their
living environment and change their lives. In relation to the typology of child participation
in the context of alternative care as presented by Duncan [16], one may conclude that
adolescents in this research show scepticism and dissatisfaction regarding participation,
as well as suspicion, uncertainty, disappointment, and a lack of trust. However, they also
show a desire for participation.
Considering the findings of this research, a number of opportunities are presented
in terms of achieving the more meaningful participation of adolescents in educational
institutions. First, an emphasis should be placed on a holistic approach when considering
the children and their contributions in the context of educational institution. Adolescents’
participation should be integrated into the culture and the structure of the social welfare
system, but also into each institution. In this regard, participation should be fostered as a
benefit and the backbone of the relationship between children and adults in educational
institutions. At the institutional level, one must invest in the development of organisational
structures that enable participation (participation infrastructure), such as participation
strategies, action plans, and guidelines for working with adolescents. Furthermore, pro-
viding resources for participation in terms of people, space, and time is also of relevance.
Mannion [54] cites the respective and spatial dimension of participation, whereby the
respective dimension implies changes in the perception of power and coexistence (commu-
nion) in the relationship between children and adults, while the spatial dimension refers
to safe environments, information, time, and support from adults so that children can
articulate their views. Furthermore, it has been shown that adults are crucial in encour-
aging adolescents’ participation. In this sense, it is important to educate professionals
about the concept, forms, and levels of participation, as well as about developing relational
competences when dealing with adolescents. Adult’s dedication, interest, and availability,
along with their belief that participation makes sense, will increase adolescents’ motivation
to participate. Finally, the results have shown that this topic needs to be further deepened
and explored. In this context, it also seems crucial to foster a participatory approach of
including in-care children and young people in all stages of the research process.

5. Limitation of the Research

Even though it has brought some valuable insights, this research is limited to cer-
tain segments and stakeholders of child participation within the system of educational
institutions in Croatia. The data obtained through online questionnaires were relatively
concise, making it is difficult to conclude whether they reflect the reality of beneficiary
councils in the educational institutions. The concise nature of the responses obtained in
the questionnaires corresponds to the declarative and concise nature of the organisation
of beneficiary councils. A possible issue could be the format, i.e., the method of data
Societies 2021, 11, 142 15 of 17

collection, which potentially compels participants to give very specific responses without
providing details, contexts, or their experiences. The content and the outcomes of the
beneficiary council activities can be indirectly concluded based on the outcome of their
specific requests, actions, or reports, through the analysis of social networks of institu-
tions, institution’s magazines, etc. Furthermore, it is important to include children and
adolescents from various institutions in future studies and to talk with those who have had
particularly negative or particularly positive experiences with participation.
In future research, it would certainly be necessary to explore the perspective of
professionals in educational institutions, through interviews or focus groups, regarding
beneficiary council activities and child participation, but also to explore the perspective
of decision-makers in order to obtain information on the value aspect and the actual
significance of child participation in the context of the social welfare system.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.B.; methodology, I.B., A.Ć. and I.P.; formal analysis,
I.B. and I.P.; investigation, I.B. and I.P.; writing, I.B., A.Ć. and I.P. All of them have contributed
substantially to the work reported. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Ethics Code in Research with Children (Council for Children, Government of Republic of Croatia,
2003, 2020).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available on
request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or
ethical restrictions.
Acknowledgments: We thank all the institutions and young people who have participated in
the study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notes
1 Participatory rights refer to children as the holders of rights, while the participatory approach refers to professionals and how they
interact and work with children, which includes respect, dialogue, cooperation, and encouragement to achieve treatment goals.
2 Residential care is used as an umbrella term, which includes different forms of care for children in institutions. The term educa-
tional institutions refers specifically to institutions for the care and treatment of children with emotional and behavioural problems.
3 The questionnaire was sent to all ten educational institutions in the Republic of Croatia, and eight of them provided their response.

References
1. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 12. 2009. The Right of the Child to be Heard. Available online:
https://www.refworld.org/docid/4ae562c52.html (accessed on 1 August 2021).
2. Pölkki, P.; Vornanen, R.; Pursiainen, M.; Riikonen, M. Children’s participation in child-protection processes as experienced by
foster children and social workers. Child. Care Prac. 2012, 18, 107–125. [CrossRef]
3. McLeod, A. Whose agenda? Issues of power and relationship when listening to looked-after young people. Child. Fam. Soc. Work
2007, 12, 278–286. [CrossRef]
4. Koller-Trbović, N. Sudjelovanje djece u procesu procjene potreba i planiranja intervencija: Socijalnopedagoški pristup [Children’s
participation in the process of needs assessment and intervention planning: A socio-pedagogical approach]. In Zaštita Prava i
Interesa Djece s Problemima u Ponašanju—Protection of Rights and Interest of a Child with Behavioural Problem, 1st ed.; Vladović, S., Ed.;
Pravobranitelj za djecu: Zagreb, Croatia, 2012; pp. 63–79.
5. Vosz, M.; McPherson, L.; Gatwiri, K.; Parmenter, N. Enabling Young People’s Participation in Residential Care Decision-Making.
2020. Available online: https://bettercarenetwork.org/sites/default/files/2020-05/YouthParticipation_Research-Brief-CETC-
April2020.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2021).
6. Larkins, C.; Kiili, J.; Palsanen, K. A lattice of participation: Reflecting on examples of children’s and young people’s collective
engagement in influencing social welfare policies and practices. Eur. J. Soc. Work 2014, 17, 718–736. [CrossRef]
Societies 2021, 11, 142 16 of 17

7. Bessell, S. Participation in decision-making in out-of-home care in Australia: What do young people say? Child. Youth Serv. Rev.
2011, 33, 496–501. [CrossRef]
8. Roesch-Marsh, A. ‘Out of control’: Making sense of the behaviour of young people referred to secure accommodation. Br. J. Soc.
Work 2014, 44, 197–213. [CrossRef]
9. Jed̄ud Borić, I. Participacija djece iz ranjivih skupina [Child participation of vulnerable groups]. In Poštujmo, Uključimo, Uvažimo:
Analiza Stanja Dječje Participacije u Hrvatskoj [Let’s Respect, Include, Respect: Analysis of the State of Children’s Participation in Croatia];
Jed̄ud Borić, I., Mirosavljević, A., Širanović, A., Eds.; UNICEF: Zagreb, Croatia, 2017; pp. 88–96.
10. Kelleher, C.; Seymour, M.; Halpenny, A.M.; Promoting the Participation of Seldom Heard Young People: A Review of the
Literature on Best Practice Principles. Research Funded under the Research Development Initiative Scheme of the Irish Research
Council in Partnership with the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. 2014. Available online: https://arrow.tudublin.ie/
cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=aaschsslrep (accessed on 17 September 2021).
11. Lansdown, G. Every Child’s Right to be Heard: A Resource Guide on the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment
No. 12; UNICEF: London, UK, 2011. Available online: https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/node/5259/pdf/5259.pdf
(accessed on 17 September 2021).
12. Kendrick, A. Social exclusion and social inclusion: Themes and issues in residential child care. In Facing Forward: Residential Child
Care in the 21st Century; Crimmens, D., Milligan, I., Eds.; Russell House Publishing: Lyme Regis, UK, 2005; pp. 7–18.
13. Kendrick, A.; Steckley, L.; Lerpiniere, J. Ethical issues, research and vulnerability: Gaining the views of children and young
people in residential care. Child. Geogr. 2008, 6, 79–93. [CrossRef]
14. McPherson, L.; Vosz, M.; Gatwiri, K.; Parmenter, N.; Macnamara, N.; Mitchell, J.; Tucci, J. What does research tell us about
young people’s participation in decision making in residential care? A systematic scoping review. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2021,
122, 105899. [CrossRef]
15. Leipoldt, J.D.; Harder, A.T.; Kayed, N.S.; Grietens, H.; Rimehaug, T. Determinants and outcomes of social climate in therapeutic
residential youth care: A systematic review. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2019, 99, 429–440. [CrossRef]
16. Duncan, M. Participation in Child Protection—Theorising Children’s Perspectives, 1st ed.; Palgrave MacMillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2019.
17. Barry, M. Minor rights and major concerns: The views of young people in care. In The New Handbook of Children’s Rights; Franklin,
B., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2002.
18. McCarthy, E. Young People in Residential Care, their Participation and the Influencing Factors. Child. Care Pract. 2016, 22, 368–385.
[CrossRef]
19. Dixon, J.; Ward, J.; Blower, S. They sat and actually listened to what we think about the care system: The use of participation,
consultation, peer research and co-production to raise the voices of young people in and leaving care in England. Child. Care
Pract. 2019, 25, 6–21. [CrossRef]
20. Juul, J.; Jensen, H. Od Poslušnosti do Odgovornosti [From Obedience to Responsibility]; Naklada Pelago: Zagreb, Croatia, 2002.
21. Henriksen, A.K. It’s my life they are talking about—On children’s participation in decision-making for secure placement. Qual.
Soc. Work 2021, 3, 14733250211036173. [CrossRef]
22. Toros, K.A. systematic review of children’s participation in child protection decision-making: Tokenistic presence or not? Child.
Soc. 2021, 35, 395–411. [CrossRef]
23. Ten Brummelaar, M.D.; Harder, A.T.; Kalverboer, M.E.; Post, W.J.; Knorth, E.J. Participation of youth in decision-making
procedures during residential care: A narrative review. Child. Fam. Soc. Work 2018, 23, 33–44. [CrossRef]
24. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The Views of Children and Young People in Out-Of-Home Care. 2016. Available
online: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/child-protection/the-views-of-children-and-young-people-in-out-of-h/contents/
table-of-contents (accessed on 1 October 2021).
25. Sierwald, W.; Wolff, M. Beteiligung in der Heimerziehung—Sichtweisen von Jugendlichen und Perspektiven fur die Praxis.
2007. Available online: https://www.sos-fachportal.de/paedagogik/mediathek/einzelbeitraege/doku6sierwaldwolff-115820
(accessed on 1 October 2021).
26. Moore, T.; McArthur, M.; Death, J.; Tilbury, C.; Roche, S. Young people’s views on safety and preventing abuse and harm in
residential care: It’s got to be better than home. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2017, 81, 212–219. [CrossRef]
27. Brown, J.D.; Barrett, K.; Ireys, H.T.; Allen, K.; Pires, S.A.; Blau, G. Family-Driven Youth-Guided Practices in Residential Treatment:
Findings from a National Survey of Residential Treatment Facilities. Resid. Treat Child. Youth 2010, 27, 149–159. [CrossRef]
28. Gazit, M.; Perry-Hazan, L. Disadvantaged youth’s participation in collective decision making. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2021,
110, 104759. [CrossRef]
29. Borić, I.; Ćosić, A. Deinstitutionalization and transformation of institutions for children with behavioural problems in Croatia.
In Celostna Obravnava Otrok in Mladostnikov z Vedenjskimi in Čustvenimi Težavami Oziroma Motnjami v Strokovnem Centru Planina;
Krajnčan, M., Ed.; VZ Planina: Planina, Slovenia, 2019; pp. 111–131.
30. Annual Statistical Report of the Ministry of Labour, Pension System, Family and Social Policy. Available online:
https://mrosp.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/MDOMSP%20dokumenti/Godisnje%20statisticko%20izvjesce%20
u%20Republici%20Hrvatskoj%20u%202019%20godini.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2021).
31. The National Strategy on the Rights of Children 2014–2020. Available online: https://vlada.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/ZPPI/
Strategije%20-%20OGP/socijalna%20politika/NACIONALNA%20STRATEGIJA%20ZA%20PRAVA%20DJECE%20U%20
RHZA%20RAZDOBLJE%20OD%202014.%20DO%202020.%20GODINE%5B1%5D.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2021).
Societies 2021, 11, 142 17 of 17

32. Social Welfare Act (Official Gazette 157/13, 152/14). Available online: https://www.zakon.hr/z/222/Zakon-o-socijalnoj-skrbi
(accessed on 2 October 2021).
33. Family Act (Official Gazette 103/15). Available online: https://www.zakon.hr/z/88/Obiteljski-zakon (accessed on
2 October 2021).
34. Foster Care Act (Official Gazette 90/11, 78/12, 115/18). Available online: https://www.zakon.hr/z/485/Zakon-o-udomiteljstvu
(accessed on 2 October 2021).
35. Ordinance on Social Services Quality Standards (Official Gazette 143/14). Available online: https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/
clanci/sluzbeni/2014_12_143_2693.html (accessed on 2 October 2021).
36. Jed̄ud Borić, I.; Mirosavljević, A.; Šalinović, M. Poštujmo, Uključimo, Uvažimo: Analiza Stanja Dječje Participacije u Hrvatskoj [Let’s
Respect, Include, Respect: Analysis of the State of Children’s Participation in Croatia]; UNICEF: Zagreb, Croatia, 2017. Available
online: https://www.unicef.hr/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Analiza_stanja_djecje_participacije_u_Hrvatskoj.pdf (accessed
on 2 October 2021).
37. Koller-Trbović, N.; Širanović, A. Istraživanja u području participacije djece [Research in child participation field]. In Poštujmo,
Uključimo, Uvažimo: Analiza Stanja Dječje Participacije u Hrvatskoj [Let’s Respect, Include, Respect: Analysis of the State of Children’s
Participation in Croatia]; Jed̄ud Borić, I., Mirosavljević, A., Širanović, A., Eds.; UNICEF: Zagreb, Croatia, 2017; pp. 44–53.
38. Koller-Trbović, N.; Žižak, A. Prava djeteta—kako ih vide djeca u odgojnim ustanovama [Children’s rights—how children see
them in educational institutions]. Hrvatska Revija za Rehabilitacijska Istrazivanja 1997, 33, 91–104.
39. Žižak, A.; Koller-Trbović, N.; Jed̄ud Borić, I.; Maurović, I.; Mirosavljević, A.; Ratkajec Gašević, G. Što Nam Djeca Govore o
Udomiteljstvu [What Children Tell Us about Foster Care]; UNICEF: Zagreb, Hrvatska, 2012.
40. Koller-Trbović, N.; Žižak, A.; Novak, T. Kvalitativna analiza u socijalnopedagoškom dijagnosticiranju [Qualitative analysis in
socio-pedagogical diagnosis]. Hrvatska Revija za Rehabilitacijska Istrazivanja 2003, 39, 189–202.
41. Koller-Trbović, N.; Žižak, A. Participacija Korisnika u Procesu Procjene Potreba i Planiranja Intervencija [Beneficiary Participation in the
Process of Needs Assessment and Intervention Planning]; Edukacijsko-Rehabilitacijski Fakultet: Zagreb, Croatia, 2005.
42. Flick, U. An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 5th ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2014.
43. Patton, Q.M. Qualitative research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002.
44. Code of Ethics for Research with Children in Republic Croatia. Council for Children Govrement of Republic of Croatia; 2003,
2020. Available online: https://mrosp.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Socijalna%20politika/NEPID/Eti%C4%8Dki%20
kodeks%20istra%C5%BEivanja%20s%20djecom_%20revidirana%20verzija%202020.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2020).
45. Begg, I. Participation Rights in Norway. In Having Their Say: Young People and Participation: European Experiences; Crimmens, D.,
West, A., Eds.; Russell House: Lyme Regis, UK, 2004.
46. Thomas, N. Towards a Theory of Children’s Participation. Int. J. Child. Rights 2007, 15, 199–218. [CrossRef]
47. Dekleva, B.; Žorga, S. Children’s Parliaments in Slovenia. In Having Their Say: Young People and Participation: European Experiences;
Crimmens, D., West, A., Eds.; Russell House: Lyme Regis, UK, 2004; pp. 138–145.
48. Pavlović, Z. Children’s parliament in Slovenia. In Monitoring Children’s Rights; Verhellen, E., Ed.; Martinus Nijhoff Publishers;
Kluwer Law International: Hague, The Netherlands, 1996; pp. 327–346.
49. Pavlović, Z. The Influence of Children’s Quality Participation on Tension and Violence Reduction: The Process of Children’s
Parliaments in Slovenia. In Proceedings of the Bullying in Schools: European Teachers’ Seminar, Bled, Slovenia, 16–19 April 1998.
50. Whitty, G.; Wisby, E. Whose voice? An exploration of the current policy interest in pupil involvement in school decision-making. Int. Stud.
Sociol. Educ. 2007, 17, 303–319.
51. Rudduck, J.; Flutter, J. Pupil Participation and Pupil Perspective: ‘carving a new order of experience’. Camb. J. Educ. 2000, 30,
75–89. [CrossRef]
52. Yamashita, H.; Davies, L. Students as Professionals—The London Secondary School Counsils Action Research Project. In A
Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation—Perspectives from Theory and Practice; Percy-Smith, B., Thomas, N., Eds.;
Routhledge: London, UK, 2010; pp. 230–240.
53. Marovič, M. Participacija Otroka/Mladostnika v Vzgojnih Zavodih. Ph.D. Thesis, Univerza na Primorskem, Koper, Slovenia, 2019.
54. Mannion, G. Going Spatial, Going Relational: Why “listening to children” and children’s participation needs reframing. Discourse
2007, 28, 405–420. [CrossRef]