Child welfare workers’ resilience and coping styles in Ankara,Turkey

Introduction

In order to manage daily life routines, all individuals must cope with stressful situations, problems, and difficulties. This is particularly true for professionals who work in human welfare institutions since they regularly face emotional demands and stressful situations. As a profession, social work is both high stress and burnout prone (Arrington, 2008; Lloyd et al., 2002). Social workers work in different fields such as women’s or child welfare and medical social work. Compared with other fields, burnout, compassion fatigue, and stress are the most common in the area of child welfare (Anderson, 2000; Conrad and Kellar-Guenther, 2006; Jayaratne and Chess, 1984).

In Turkey, child welfare has a long history that includes the institutionalization of social work as a profession, with the child welfare field and child protection in particular forming one of the social services delivery system’s main concerns. This practice began in 1868 when the governor of Danube, Mithat Pasha, established a workhouse. In 1895, the Hospice Institution opened to accommodate the elderly and disabled who were unable to work as well as children who needed protection and/or had been abandoned (Gökçe, 1971). Emerging during the Ottoman Empire, the orphanage was the first comprehensive institution that aimed to protect and educate parentless children (Erkan and Erkan, 1987). In 1921, the Turkish Association for the Protection of Children was established. To date, the Association is the first institution that comes to mind upon mention of Turkey’s child protection system and child welfare policies. In 1983, it became the Social Services and Child Protection Agency (Salim, 2011), uniting all social services with the passing of Law 2828. In the 2000s, the Agency underwent fundamental institutional changes. In 2005, the 5395 Child Protection Law (2005) came into force. In 2011, the Ministry of Family and Social Policies was established and the Agency’s child protection responsibilities were transferred to a general directorate within its framework. In 2018, the ministry was renamed the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Services (MFLSS). As has been demonstrated, Turkey’s child welfare has a long-established legal and institutional background, providing ample material for this study’s focus on child welfare as a social work field.

Although international literature has examined child welfare/protection workers’ resilience through meta-synthesis (Truter et al., 2017), systematic review (McFadden et al., 2015), and studies (Hurley et al., 2013; Kearns and McArdle, 2012), no studies have focused on the resilience of social workers in Turkey in the process of designing the study. To address this research gap, we investigated MFLSS professionals’ resilience and coping styles, given the ministry’s responsibility for children’s protection and care. The study’s research questions were as follows:

Turkey’s child protection system

In Turkey, the MFLSS is the institution that undertakes child welfare services on behalf of the state in accordance with 2828 Social Services Law (1983). The law makes reference to children in need of protection, meaning those whose physical, mental, and moral development or personal security are at risk, as follows:

The Convention on the Rights of the Child considers every person up to the age of 18 a child (UNICEF, 2004). A similar definition is enshrined in the 5395 Child Protection Law, which constitutes one of Turkey’s central legal foundations. However, the law addresses children who are in need of protection and children who have been pushed into crime separately.

MFLSS child welfare services are closely related to child protection systems. The ministry offers both family- and institution-based services. The former includes social and economic assistance and foster parent and adoption services. Turkey’s child protection policy prioritizes family care and children’s protection within families; however, children are taken into institutional care whenever a family-based situation is not possible.

Turkey’s institutional care service model is one of the oldest. Child protection and care were once the sole purview of orphanages and several studies have revealed the negative consequences of this arrangement (Güçray, 1993; Kut and Özaltın, 1987; Uluğtekin, 1993). As of 2018, all orphanages were closed and children were put under protection at children’s homes or sites that aim to provide family-like environments. In children’s homes, five to eight children stay together in an apartment or a detached house. The children’s homes model, which accommodates children in need of protection, is considered the healthiest institution-based model since it aims to prioritize children’s best interests. Children’s homes sites differ because they are campuses comprised of separate detached villas where a maximum of 12 children in need of protection are housed in independent buildings. Child Support Centers (CSCs) are another source of institution-based services, specifically children’s rehabilitation. They are specialized institutions that are individually structured to address specific age and gender groups within the child population, as well as specific categories of risk such as delinquency, child pregnancy, street children, and unaccompanied refugee children (Child Support Centers Regulation, 2015). Child welfare functions as a dependent of the Ankara Provincial Directorate of Family, Labour and Social Services (PDFLSS) Child Services Branch Office within the MFLSS framework. Founded within the PDFLSS, the Directorate of Children Homes Coordination (DCHC) is responsible for coordinating and overseeing the function of children’s homes. In general, the following represents a top-to-bottom ranking within the framework of Turkey’s institution-based child welfare services: PDFLSS Child Services Branch Office, Child Services Branch Office, DCHC, children’s homes and sites, which are the institutions that directly offer services.

The 5395 Child Protection Law and its related regulations delineate child welfare professionals’ duties and responsibilities. These professionals include professional degree holders in social work, psychology, sociology, child development, psychological counseling, guidance and teaching, medicine, family and consumer sciences, child education, and nursing. As for this study, social workers, sociologists, psychologists, child development experts, and teachers also play a role. These professionals conduct a social investigation of the child and their social environment, submit the social investigation reports they prepare to the authorities, consult, follow the child’s psychological and social development, organize sports and cultural activities for children, carry out work with other professionals, and follow the school success of children. Professionals generally have these duties and responsibilities while working in the institutions. The duties and responsibilities of each professional are also detailed in the regulation. Other professionals in institutions (e.g. nurses and doctors) do not write social investigation reports when evaluating situations involving children and families. These professionals do not work in the social service department; they work in the health unit of institutions.

Previous studies (Gelen and Çınar, 2014; Söğütlü, 2015) have discussed the challenges that child welfare workers face in the field. Some studies (Berkün, 2010; Güzel and Selcik, 2017; Zengin and Çalış, 2017) have also specifically addressed the difficulties that can be encountered within Turkey’s social work institutions. These studies have found that professional challenges in the child welfare field manifest as an excessive workload, a lack of legislation, insufficient staff in terms of both quality and quantity, role conflict, a lack of supervision, differences in opinion among managers/professionals, the sheer complexity of child-related problems, issues with children’s families, barriers to accessing child welfare institutions, a lack of resources, insufficient psychical facilities, and institutional security vulnerabilities.

Resilience as an important strategy for coping with difficulties

The word ‘resilience’ was derived from the Latin verb resiliere. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘resilience’ as ‘the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties and withstand conditions’. The term is also used in the social sciences (Fletcher and Sarkar, 2013). As a concept, resilience was initially proposed in Kobasa’s (1979) PhD thesis.

Resilience is defined in literature as follows: the process of positive adaptation in spite of negative interactions between an individual and the environment (Truter et al., 2014), the ability to respond to the challenges of life positively and flexibly (Kinman and Grant, 2016), returning to daily life while coping with symptoms of traumatic stress (Zara, 2011), and surviving and being sustainable in the face of complex or unforeseen events (Yılmaz Börekçi and Gerçek, 2018).

Resilience is a dynamic process that requires individuals to adapt positively under unfavorable circumstances. When exposed to a major threat or an unfavorable situation, successful adjustment is crucial (Luthar et al., 2000).

Resilience has three components, namely control, commitment, and challenge, which are essential to reducing the effects of stressful life events (Kobasa et al., 1982). Workers who can master these three components are well equipped to effectively cope with stressful circumstances (Maddi and Khoshaba, 2005). In Grant and Kinman’s (2013) study, students defined resilience as synonymous with successful coping. According to Folkman and Lazarus (1980), coping is a defense system used to reduce tension or stress and maintain balance. In other words, instead of focusing on problem solving, coping aims to reduce tension or stress that arise as a result of problematic circumstances. Coping is either problem- or emotion-focused. Whereas problem-focused coping refers to focusing on a problem that causes stress, emotion-focused coping refers to the regulation of one’s emotions to reduce tension (Folkman et al., 1986). If people cope with stress using the three components of resilience, they can establish resilience and successfully deal with stressful circumstances (Lambert et al., 2003).

Numerous publications (e.g. Basım and Şeşen, 2005; Collings and Murray, 1996; Lloyd et al., 2005) have addressed social work professionals’ stress and burnout. Although it is agreed that social workers must be resistant in order to protect their well-being in a stressful profession, there are very few sources that help them achieve this (Grant and Kinman, 2014b). In Turkey, resilience is studied in different educational science and psychology fields. Although resilience is obviously an important strategy for social work as a profession, in comparison with other disciplines, there is limited recent research (Çetinkaya Büyükbodur, 2018) on social workers’ resilience. Grant and Kinman (2014b) highlighted resilience’s importance to social workers in the following two categories: (1) resilience helps social workers manage complex problems and improves their job performance; and (2) resilience helps social workers manage emotional demands, protect themselves, and avoid burnout.

Since social workers interact with children and adolescents who have lived through traumatic experiences, they focus on their clients’ resilience. However, while attempting to reduce their clients’ trauma, social workers themselves may be exposed to various risks in the workplace. These risks have the potential to negatively affect social workers, leading to an increase in workload, a decrease in morale and a reduction in their capacity to function effectively in the workplace (Horwitz, 1998). In general, social workers struggle to enhance clients’ resilience while subordinating the importance of improving their own (Fox et al., 2014).

In practice, improving resilience is a key skill for promoting professionals’ well-being and job satisfaction (Grant and Kinman, 2014a), and evidence-based studies are needed to foster their development. In Turkey, studies on social workers’ resilience are too few (Çetinkaya Büyükbodur, 2018), especially given that international literature includes several studies (e.g. Grant and Kinman, 2013; Grant et al., 2013; Truter et al., 2014) that involve both social workers and social work students. For Turkey, identifying the difficulties that professionals encounter in the field and devising strategies for overcoming these difficulties in the interest of building professionals’ resilience remain high-priority research issues.

Materials and method

This study’s dependent variables were professionals’ resilience and coping styles. The independent variables were age, gender, marital status, overall years of experience, years of experience working in child welfare in particular, education level, job willingness, income, caseload, and occupational groups.

Data collection tools

Data were collected through a questionnaire that the authors prepared and scales, namely the Coping Style Scales-Brief Form (CSS-BF) (Bacanlı et al., 2013) and the Resilience Scale (RS) (Işık, 2016). Before conducting the scale’s validity and reliability study, permission was obtained via e-mail.

Statistical analysis

Data analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 21.0. Questionnaire and scale responses were recorded in the program as numerical values. Levels of significance were set to p < 0.05 for all tests. Since the participating professionals’ scores for all the CSS-BF subdimensions were not normally distributed (p < 0.05), analysis was performed using non-parametric tests (Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis). Meanwhile, since the total RS scores were normally distributed (p > 0.05), parametric analyses such as the t-test, ANOVA, the Welch test, Fisher’s Exact test and the chi-square test were used. Finally, Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used to perform correlation analysis.

Results

Child welfare professionals’ in-field difficulties and coping styles

In this study, 81.3 percent of the participants considered child welfare very stressful. When a multiple-choice question was asked to assess professionals’ stress levels, it was mainly institutional stressors that stood out. The most stress-inducing factors were excessive workload (74.1%), a lack of security measures in institutions (66.7%), tough clients (56.5%), lack of resources (49.1%), complex client problems (47.2%), and unclear role definitions (41.7%).

An examination of the professional situations in which the most difficulties were encountered revealed the following as challenge-creating factors: insufficient numbers of professionals (73.3%), a lack of legislation (52.2%), and role ambiguity/conflict (51.4%). Other albeit proportionally less frequently occurring difficulties that professionals encountered were communication problems with a child, a lack of supervision, and conflicts with agency administration and other professionals.

Based on this study’s research results, it was inferred that professionals develop personal methods for coping with difficulties (i.e. sharing with experienced professionals, getting support from the administrator, using social support networks, positively reinterpreting the current situation, and enrolling in training and related activities) since institutional coping mechanisms are inadequate. It was also found that a remarkable number of professionals rely on peer coaching and peer support as coping methods.

According to the CSS-BF’s results in terms of identifying participating professionals’ individual coping styles, problem-focused coping styles on the UISS and PL subscales were the most used.

An analysis was done to investigate the relationship between the top seven most used methods in the CSS-BF (i.e. UISS, PL, PR, ACC, FVE, TR, UESS) and socio-demographic (i.e. age, gender, marital status, income) and professional characteristics (i.e. professional experience, experience in the field of child welfare and profession). Table 1 shows meaningful differences in the age variable on the UESS and FVE subscales; the gender variable on the FVE subscale; the income variable on the UESS subscale; among professional features on the UISS, FVE, UESS, and PL subscales; and years of experience working in child welfare, in particular the variable on the TR subscale (p < 0.05).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Examination of CSS-BF’s subscales according to socio-demographic and professional characteristics.

	UISS		FVE		ACC		TR		PR		UESS		PL
	Avg. ± SD	P	Avg. ± SD	p	Avg. ± SD	p	Avg. ± SD	P	Avg. ± SD	p	Avg. ± SD	p	Avg. ± SD	p
Age
25–29	6.66 ± 1.42	0.27 a	6.34 ± 1.29	0.00 a	5.76 ± 1.21	0.82 a	5.66 ± 1.97	0.54 a	6.00 ± 1.04	0.30 a	5.59 ± 1.30	0.01 a	6.52 ± 1.18	1.00 a
30–34	6.95 ± 1.02		6.48 ± 1.08		5.67 ± 1.28		5.71 ± 2.24		5.33 ± 1.62		5.76 ± 1.00		6.48 ± 1.40
35–39	6.50 ± 1.45		4.86 ± 1.51		5.93 ± 1.44		6.29 ± 1.77		6.43 ± 1.28		4.86 ± 1.66		6.50 ± 1.40
40–44	5.93 ± 1.58		5.07 ± 1.75		5.67 ± 1.29		5.13 ± 2.23		5.80 ± 1.42		4.80 ± 1.57		6.53 ± 1.06
45+	6.44 ± 1.15		5.17 ± 1.50		6.06 ± 1.92		5.11 ± 2.30		5.94 ± 1.39		4.39 ± 1.42		6.39 ± 1.61
Gender
Female	6.73 ± 1.22	0.06 b	6.01 ± 1.39	0.00 b	5.75 ± 1.32	0.59 b	5.93 ± 1.27	0.08 b	5.96 ± 1.39	0.49 b	5.38 ± 1.27	0.06 b	6.44 ± 1.40	0.61 b
Male	6.17 ± 1.50		5.09 ± 1.65		5.89 ± 1.55		5.09 ± 2.32		5.71 ± 1.30		4.77 ± 1.59		6.63 ± 1.03
Years of experience working in child welfare in particular
<1 year	5.67 ± 1.15	0.10 a	4.67 ± 1.53	0.11 a	5.00 ± 1.73	0.31 a	4.67 ± 2.31	0.03 a	5.33 ± 1.15	0.43 a	5.00 ± 0.00	0.17 a	6.33 ± 0.58	0.73 a
1–5 years	6.81 ± 1.33		6.02 ± 1.50		5.92 ± 1.36		6.02 ± 2.03		6.02 ± 1.32		5.42 ± 1.32		6.53 ± 1.33
6–10 years	6.14 ± 1.66		5.36 ± 1.28		5.64 ± 1.15		6.29 ± 1.54		5.64 ± 1.55		5.36 ± 1.65		6.07 ± 1.38
11–15 years	6.00 ± 1.15		5.60 ± 1.43		5.20 ± 1.48		3.80 ± 2.15		5.30 ± 1.25		4.70 ± 0.82		6.40 ± 1.51
16–20 years	6.38 ± 0.74		4.50 ± 1.69		6.50 ± 1.77		4.88 ± 2.03		5.63 ± 1.30		3.88 ± 1.96		6.63 ± 1.06
>20 years	6.50 ± 1.27		5.70 ± 1.70		5.60 ± 1.43		5.20 ± 1.99		6.30 ± 1.49		5.20 ± 1.23		6.90 ± 0.99

CSS-BF: Coping Style Scales-Brief Form; UISS: using instrumental social support; FVE: focus on and venting of emotions; ACC: acceptance; TR: turning to religion; PR: positive reinterpretation; UESS: using emotional social support; PL: planning; SD: standard deviation.

a

Kruskal-Wallis test.

b

Mann-Whitney U test.

Discussion

We investigated child welfare professionals’ resilience and coping styles, discussed our research findings within the framework of national and international literature and made suggestions based on our results.

Consistent with other research on child welfare in Turkey (Aslan and Erbay, 2017; Yağcı, 2017), it was observed that the field has a high number of cases. This is consistent with international literature, which reports that the field has a problematically high caseload. Jacquet et al. (2008) examined child welfare social workers, finding an average caseload of 36.5. Juhasz and Skivenes (2018) examined child protection workers in England, Finland, Norway, and California in the United States, and found that 84.2 percent (n = 772) pointed to time constraints due to caseload as their biggest obstacle. When discussing caseload, paperwork comes to mind; however, it is important to remember that professionals play important decision-making roles in children’s lives. So, this problem can have a negative effect on the decision-making process, and policy makers or administrators should also be aware of this (Juhasz and Skivenes, 2018). While caseload reduction may not be possible, more professionals can be recruited so that caseload can be better distributed. For instance, in this study, 73.3 percent of the participating professionals stated that there is an insufficient number of professionals employed in child welfare institutions. This shortage contributes to workers feeling overwhelmed by their caseloads.

Child welfare professionals also stated that the field is highly stressful, emphasizing excessive workload as a main stressor. This is consistent with several studies that have also identified excessive workload as a significant work stressor, for example, Gelen and Çınar (2014), who examined care staff, social service professionals, and administrators; Zengin and Çalış (2017), who examined social workers in different fields; Collings and Murray (1996), who examined social workers in the United Kingdom; Lloyd et al. (2005), who examined occupational therapists and social workers in the field of public mental health in Australia; Lee et al. (2017), who examined child welfare professionals in the Midwest; and Arrington (2008), who examined members of the National Association of Social Workers. Although the fact that child welfare is a stressful field is a transnational problem, factors that affect stress may vary depending on the policies and welfare regimes of countries. In this regard, it may be useful to mention the researchers’ suggestions to reduce stress. These are recruiting an officer for paperwork (Gelen and Çınar, 2014), combining individual and organizational strategies to deal with stress (Collings and Murray, 1996), employing adequate numbers of professionals, adopting a quality-oriented approach by institutions (Lee et al., 2017; Zengin and Çalış, 2017), developing trainings and supervisions (Lloyd et al., 2005), reducing paperwork, and creating a work environment where employees will focus on their work (Lee et al., 2017). Considering the institutional stressors that affect the professionals in this research, security measures should be taken to ensure the safety of professionals. In addition, regulations should be improved and role definitions should be clarified.

This study posed various questions about non-formal training to investigate the effects of professional training on resilience. Professionals’ in-service training was deemed functional; however, this result is colored by the fact that professionals said that the training they received addressed the areas in which they least needed training. Other research conducted in Turkey has also found that in-service training contributes to professional development, thus benefiting professions (Berkün, 2010; Güzel and Selcik, 2017). As McFadden et al. (2015) revealed, training plays an important role in both building resilience and reducing burnout. Furthermore, Lam et al. (2016), who examined social workers (n = 36) in Shenzhen, China, found that in-service training is important for maintaining social workers’ skills due to its connection with the formal curriculum and its ability to reflect on-the-job supervision deficiencies. As Lam et al. (2016) emphasized, in-service training should therefore be expanded and tailored to suit professionals’ needs in the interest of bolstering both professional development and resilience. From findings of this research, in-service trainings should be diversified for the needs of professionals and should be more practical and operational.

Taking this study’s participants’ total RS scores in the context of 84 as the highest achievable score, it can be said that professionals have intermediate-level resilience (avg. = 58.70, SD = 8.82). Furthermore, emotion-focused coping was found to be more effective in bolstering professionals’ resilience. Anderson’s (2000) study involving social workers who had at least 2 years’ experience in the field of child protection also found that emotion-focused coping was effective in remediating and preventing burnout.

Moreover, it was revealed that professionals usually turn to peer support and peer coaching to protect their resilience. Meanwhile, supervision support, which has an important function and should be provided by institutions, is seen as the least used method with only 10.1 percent. Supervision and peer coaching are important for fostering commitments to institutions and could play a pivotal role in whether or not employees continue working (McFadden et al., 2015). The current situation in Turkey (i.e. a lack of systematic supervision, inadequate support for motivating professionals, and an inadequate number of professionals) breeds obstacles to providing professionals with institutional support for building and maintaining their resilience. The participants in Kinman and Grant’s (2017) intervention program, which aimed to increase the resilience and well-being of newly recruited social workers in the United Kingdom, also found supervision important.

In this study, a meaningful relationship was not observed between resilience level and socio-demographic (i.e. age, gender, marital status, education level, and income) and professional characteristics (i.e. profession, overall years of experience, years of experience working in child welfare in particular, job willingness, and caseload) (p > 0.05). This is consistent with the findings of other research that examined professional resilience among different types of professionals; for example, Çetinkaya Büyükbodur (2018), Gökmen (2014), and Karakuş (2017) all concluded that there was no meaningful difference arising from age, gender, and marital status variables. However, other research has shown a statistically meaningful difference in professional resilience in the presence of socio-demographic variables such as age, education level, marital status, overall years of experience, and income (Ergenç, 2016; Karakuş, 2017; Stanley et al., 2018; Tekin, 2011). In summary, different research efforts have yielded different results with respect to the relationship between socio-demographic characteristics and resilience levels.

Conclusion

This study aimed to elucidate the resilience and coping styles of child welfare professionals in Ankara, Turkey. It was concluded that professionals use in-service and vocational training as well as peer support and coaching to safeguard their resilience. The inadequacy of the support that institutions offer in terms of coping mechanisms and methods for protecting resilience was also revealed. This study found that both the emotion-focused and problem-focused coping methods were used by professionals to deal with difficulties. However emotion-focused coping was found to be more effective statistically for maintaining child welfare workers’ resilience.

With the using of different methods, such as qualitative and mixed methods research, it is important to identify and understand the difficulties that professionals encounter in different fields and to devise strategies for improving professionals’ resilience in order to reduce stress and prevent burnout.

Limitations

The intention was to conduct this research at all the Ankara PDFLSS Child Services Branch Office institutions; however, due to the denial of official permission to collect data from CSCs, which are central child welfare institutions, no data were collected from professionals in these institutions. The lack of CSC data presented a limitation for this study because there is great significance to revealing the in-field difficulties and resilience levels of CSC professionals who fulfill the institution’s role of serving children affected by substance abuse or delinquency, as well as children who need protection for various reasons.

Another of this study’s limitations concerns the research’s generalizability in the context of Turkey. The number of professionals working within the MFLSS’ General Directorate of Child Services was not shared and the total number of professional staff is unknown. Therefore, this study is only representative of Turkey’s capital city, Ankara.