The creators of the index emphasize the importance of separately measuring the statistical and subjective indices of child well-being, with special attention given to situations where children’s assessments fall below the statistical figures.
“Of course, for us, the priority is not just the numbers that compile the ranking. As a foundation, our primary concern is the well-being of the child. In other words, how the data from such a comprehensive study influences management decision-making based on an evidence-based approach,” explains Elina Illarionova, Head of the Analytical Service at the Timchenko Foundation.
It is important to separate measuring the statistical and subjective index of child well-being, with attention given to situations where children’s assessments fall below the statistical figures.
According to the Russian Child Well-Being Index for 2022, families with children are facing financial challenges, with only 50 % of surveyed children rating their family’s financial situation positively. Additionally, there is room for improvement in children’s access to leisure activities, as 55 % of surveyed children had not traveled anywhere in the past year. Children’s self-esteem is relatively low, with only 45 % of them reporting achievements and successes they take pride in. Furthermore, there is potential to enhance children’s motivation and interest in learning, as 70 % of the surveyed children expressed liking school, and 65 % found their lessons interesting.
These findings can serve as the foundation for practical initiatives. For example, in Altai Krai, day care groups were established for children from families facing financial difficulties, allowing parents the freedom to work or pursue further education, thereby increasing the family’s income. In Nizhnevartovsk, libraries have created spaces for children and teenagers to explore their interests. In Langepas, summer camps and evening leisure activities were organized, enabling children to discover new talents and interests. In the Tambov region, efforts are being made to boost children’s interest in learning through the expansion of Olympiad programs and the introduction of new supplementary education programs in various fields: arts, natural science, technology, tourism and local lore, social science and pedagogy, physical education and sports.
According to Elina Illarionova, the developers of the index collaborate with regional analytical groups, often based at universities, which can provide practical recommendations to specialized agencies. Both the Subjective and Statistical Indices of Child Well-Being are publicly accessible and can benefit a wide range of stakeholders, including regional and federal authorities, NGOs, social investors, the expert and scientific community, as well as parents and children.
“We strive to ensure that the index data is integrated into regulatory frameworks to lay the groundwork for child welfare programs. On top of that, we believe that presenting the research results should involve the active participation of children, and that the data should not only inform management decisions but also justify the need for child-centric policies,” emphasizes Elina Illarionova.
How does an individual’s perception of happiness and well-being relate to themselves? Are external circumstances in which a person lives influencing this perception? Why is it essential to incorporate subjective and psychological well-being into our evaluations? Answers to these questions can be found by delving into the realm of positive psychology.
When we mention “positive psychology,” most often, it conjures associations with affirmations, a positive mindset, and optimistic thinking. In other words, “think positively, and everything will be fine.” However, this is not the complete picture. Positive psychology, as a distinct branch of psychological knowledge and practice, explores the resources within individuals, their satisfaction, values, talents, and their connection to happiness. These discussions were also part of the Wellbeing-Focused Evaluation track.
The concept of subjective well-being emerged in psychology during the 1970s when the age-old philosophical question of happiness became a focal point for empirical investigation within this field, as explained by Anna Hegai, a graduate student and teacher at the Higher School of Economics, and a psychologist-methodologist at the Victoria Charitable Children’s Foundation.
Researchers identify three approaches to measuring well-being:
1. Subjective well-being (E. Diener) — how closely a person believes their life aligns with the most desirable state.
2. Psychological well-being (C. Ryff, D. Leontiev) — the assessment of personality traits that contribute to happiness (positive relationships with others, self-acceptance, having a life purpose, etc.).
3. Quality of life — an objective evaluation of the favorability of external living conditions.
As far back as 1970, while studying well-being in Nordic countries, Finnish sociologist E. Allardt categorized all human needs into three groups: having, loving, and being.[25] For each category, both objective and subjective measures of satisfaction were examined. Only individuals themselves can determine how complete, fulfilling, and meaningful their lives are — in other words, their subjectively perceived quality of life.
Renowned researchers, including Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and his collaborator Amos Tversky, have discovered that perceived quality of life and subjective well-being are minimally affected by external circumstances. They found that “life circumstances make only a small contribution to the variance of happiness — far smaller than the contribution of inherited temperament or personality.”[26] This phenomenon has been termed the paradox of subjective well-being.
The encouraging news is that if you possess a sufficient level of optimism and life satisfaction, this state of well-being can be quickly regained, regardless of external events. Anna Hegai explains, “After significant life shocks, such as the loss of loved ones, divorce, or severe illness, individuals typically regain their previous level of well-being within 3–5 years. Additionally, people tend to become more content and good-natured with age. This reflects a form of personal growth associated with aging. Individuals in their 40s tend to report greater life satisfaction than those in their 17s.”
According to a model proposed by UCR professor Sonja Lyubomirsky,[27] happiness can be attributed to the following factors:
• Genetic predisposition (50 %);
• Life circumstances (10 %);
• Intentional activities and behaviors (40 %).
While genetic predisposition and life circumstances cannot be easily influenced, behavioral change is within an individual’s control. People can alter their outlook on life, thought patterns, habits, and self-esteem.
Moreover, engaging in activities that demand intentional effort, such as continuous learning, plays a pivotal role in achieving lasting happiness. This implies that external circumstances, which are not related to intentional activity, have a fleeting impact on subjective well-being,[28] whereas purposeful activities involving effortful challenges and volitional choices form the foundation for sustained well-being.
Psychological science also provides diagnostic tools for measuring personal resources, perceived support, life orientation, and subjective well-being. Anna Hegai lists several well-being indicators that can be assessed before and after the implementation of social and psychological projects and programs:
1) Resilience (the ability to recover and grow after facing stress).
2) Endurance (engagement, risk-taking, control).
3) Sense of connection (understanding, manageability, meaningfulness in life).
4) Optimism.
5) Self-esteem.
6) Self-efficacy (belief in one’s ability to cope).
7) Tolerance of uncertainty.
8) Self-control.
As Hegai notes, incorporating relevant questionnaires (e.g., resilience assessments, basic needs satisfaction scales, anxiety and depression screenings, and future perception questionnaires) into the evaluation of social projects and programs yields valuable insights into their impact.
25
Allardt, E. (1993). Having, Loving, Being: An Alternative to Swedish Model of Welfare Research. In M. Nussbaum, & A. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of Life (pp. 1–8). Oxford Scholarship. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198287976.003.0008
26
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, Values, and Frames. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of general psychology, 9(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111.
28
Lebedeva, A. A. (2012). Theoretical approaches and methodological problems of studying the quality of life in human science. Psychology. Higher School of Economics Journal, 9(2), 3-19.