Kuruluş Bakımındaki Çocukların Gözünden İyi Oluş: Destekleyici Gündelik Deneyimler

Abstract

Bu araştırma, kuruluş bakımında bulunan çocukların iyi oluşu nasıl anlamlandırdıklarını ve gündelik yaşamlarında iyi oluşlarını destekleyen ilişkileri, koşulları ve uygulamaları kendi bakış açılarından incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Nitel araştırma yaklaşımıyla yürütülen çalışmaya Ankara’daki farklı kuruluş bakım modellerinde yaşayan 13-18 yaş aralığındaki 30 çocuk katılmıştır. Veriler beş odak grup görüşmesiyle toplanmıştır. Görüşmeler sırasında ve hemen sonrasında oluşturulan ayrıntılı görüşme notları refleksif tematik analiz yaklaşımıyla çözümlenmiştir. Analiz sonucunda altı tema geliştirilmiştir: birey olarak tanınmak ve saygı görmek; süreklilik taşıyan ilişkilerde ait ve güvende hissetmek; kurallar içinde söz ve seçim sahibi olmak; gündelik yaşamı yaşanabilir ve anlamlı kılmak; aileyle bağı sürdürmek; öğrenmek, umut etmek ve geleceğini kurarken desteklenmek. Bulgular, çocukların iyi oluşunun kendilerini değerli, ait ve güvende hissetmelerini, gündelik yaşamları üzerinde söz ve seçim sahibi olmalarını, anlamlı etkinliklere katılmalarını ve geleceğe umutla bakabilmelerini içeren çok boyutlu, ilişkisel ve bağlamsal bir deneyim olduğunu göstermiştir. Sonuçlar, iyi oluşun desteklenmesinde çocuk katılımının, süreklilik taşıyan ilişkilerin, bireyselleştirilmiş uygulamaların ve geleceğe hazırlanma ile bakım sonrası destek olanaklarının önemine işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

• Çocuk katılımı
• İyi oluş
• Koruma ve bakım altındaki çocuklar
• Kuruluş bakımı
• Refleksif tematik analiz

Supporting Institution

Araştırma için TÜBİTAK Bilim İnsanı Destek Programları Başkanlığı (BİDEB) 2211-Yurt İçi Lisansüstü Burs Programı kapsamında destek alınmıştır.

Ethical Statement

Araştırma, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Senatosu Etik Komisyonunun 14 Kasım 2022 tarihli ve E-35853172-399-00002514877 sayılı kararıyla etik açıdan uygun bulunmuştur.

Thanks

Araştırmaya gönüllü olarak katılarak görüşlerini ve deneyimlerini paylaşan çocuklara değerli katkıları için teşekkür ederiz.

Well-Being Through the Eyes of Children in Residential Care: Supportive Everyday Experiences

Abstract

This study examined how children in residential care understand well-being and how they perceive the everyday relationships, conditions, and practices that support it. Participants were 30 children aged 13-18 living in different residential care settings in Ankara, Türkiye. Data were collected through five focus group discussions. The detailed notes produced during and immediately after the discussions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Six themes were developed: being recognised as a person and treated with respect; feeling a sense of belonging and safety through relational continuity; exercising voice and choice within rules; making everyday life liveable and meaningful; maintaining family connections; and being supported to learn, hope, and build one’s future. The findings indicated that children understood well-being as a multidimensional, relational, and contextual experience involving feeling valued and safe; experiencing a sense of belonging; having voice and choice in everyday life; engaging in meaningful activities; and looking to the future with hope. The findings highlight the importance of child participation, relational continuity, individualised practices, preparation for the future, and access to post-care support in promoting the well-being of children in residential care.

Keywords

• Child participation
• Children in care
• Reflexive thematic analysis
• Residential care
• Well-being

Supporting Institution

The research was supported under the TÜBİTAK Scientist Support Programmes Directorate (BİDEB) 2211 National PhD Scholarship Programme.

Ethical Statement

The study was deemed ethically appropriate by the Hacettepe University Senate Ethics Committee in its decision dated 14 November 2022 and numbered E-35853172-399-00002514877.

Thanks

We are grateful to the children who voluntarily participated in the study and generously shared their views and experiences.

References

1. Aile ve Sosyal Hizmetler Bakanlığı. (2022, 6 Eylül). Çocuk koruma hizmetleri planlama ve çocuk bakım kuruluşlarının çalışma usul ve esasları hakkında yönetmelik. Resmî Gazete (Sayı: 31945). https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2022/09/20220906-12.htm
2. Aile ve Sosyal Hizmetler Bakanlığı. (2025). Çocukların iyi oluş halinin desteklenmesine ilişkin yönerge. https://www.aile.gov.tr/media/274612/cocuklarin-iyi-olus-halinin-desteklenmesine-iliskin-yonerge-1.pdf
3. Aile ve Sosyal Hizmetler Bakanlığı. (2026). 2025 yılı faaliyet raporu. https://www.aile.gov.tr/media/289547/faaliyet-raporu-2025-pdf.pdf
4. Akkan, B., Müderrisoğlu, S., Uyan Semerci, P., & Erdoğan, E. (2019). How do children contextualize their well-being? Methodological insights from a neighborhood-based qualitative study in Istanbul. Child Indicators Research, 12(2), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-018-9532-9
5. Atak, I., & Artan, T. (2024). Effects of a mindfulness-based groupwork program on adolescents in a children’s home. Social Work in Health Care, 63(3), 168–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2024.2302631
6. Bilge, A., Pektaş, İ., Gürkan, A., & Ünal, G. (2008). Erkek yetiştirme yurdunda kalan gençlerin ruhsal durumları ve yaşam kalitelerinin belirlenmesi. Ege Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2), 41–50. https://izlik.org/JA39ES33MB
7. Bradshaw, J., Keung, A., Rees, G., & Goswami, H. (2011). Children’s subjective well-being: International comparative perspectives. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(4), 548–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.05.010
8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
11. Casas, F. (2011). Subjective social indicators and child and adolescent well-being. Child Indicators Research, 4(4), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-010-9093-z
12. Casas, F., & Ditzel, A. L. (2025). Children’s perceptions of their participation rights context when living in residential care and its relationship with their subjective well-being. Child Abuse & Neglect, 162, 106933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106933
13. Costa, M., Tagliabue, S., Matos, P. M., & Mota, C. P. (2020). Stability and change in adolescents’ well-being: The role of relationships with caregivers in residential care. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105567
14. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
15. Currie, C., Zanotti, C., Morgan, A., Roberts, C., Currie, D., de Looze, M., Samdal, O., Smith, O. R. F., & Barnekow, V. (Eds.). (2012). Social determinants of health and well-being among young people: Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study: International report from the 2009/2010 survey. WHO Regional Office for Europe. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/326406
16. Çocuk Koruma Kanunu, Kanun No. 5395. (2005). Resmî Gazete (25876, 15 Temmuz 2005). https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2005/07/20050715-1.htm
17. Delgado, P., Carvalho, J. M., Montserrat, C., & Llosada-Gistau, J. (2020). The subjective well-being of Portuguese children in foster care, residential care and children living with their families: Challenges and implications for a child care system still focused on institutionalization. Child Indicators Research, 13(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-019-09652-4
18. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
19. Dinisman, T., & Ben-Arieh, A. (2016). The characteristics of children’s subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 126(2), 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0921-x
20. Dinisman, T., Zeira, A., Sulimani-Aidan, Y., & Benbenishty, R. (2013). The subjective well-being of young people aging out of care. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(10), 1705–1711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.07.011
21. Dirwan, G., & Thévenon, O. (2023). Integrated policy making for child well-being: Common approaches and challenges ahead (OECD Papers on Well-being and Inequalities No. 16). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1a5202af-en
22. Erdoğan, E., Uyan Semerci, P., Akkan, B., & Durmuş, G. (2022). Children’s Worlds national report: Turkey. Children’s Worlds Project (ISCWeB). https://isciweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Turkey.pdf
23. Eryılmaz, A. (2011). Ergen öznel iyi oluşu ile olumlu gelecek beklentisi arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Düşünen Adam: The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, 24(3), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.5350/DAJPN2011240306
24. Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2007). Children’s conceptualisation(s) of their well-being. Social Indicators Research, 80(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-9019-9
25. Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2009). When children are asked about their well-being: Towards a framework for guiding policy. Child Indicators Research, 2(1), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-008-9025-3
26. Gromada, A., Rees, G., & Chzhen, Y. (2020). Worlds of influence: Understanding what shapes child well-being in rich countries (Innocenti Report Card 16). UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti. https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/reports/worlds-of-influence
27. Hiles, D., Moss, D., Wright, J., & Dallos, R. (2013). Young people’s experience of social support during the process of leaving care: A review of the literature. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(12), 2059–2071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.10.008
28. Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311(7000), 299–302. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299
29. Koçak, O., & Arslan, İ. (2018). Çocuk destek merkezlerinde kalan ergenlerde psikolojik iyilik ve algılanan sosyal destek arasındaki ilişki. HAK-İŞ Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, 7(19), 609–621. https://doi.org/10.31199/hakisderg.450902
30. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
31. Llosada-Gistau, J., Casas, F., & Montserrat, C. (2017). What matters in for the subjective well-being of children in care? Child Indicators Research, 10(3), 735–760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-016-9405-z
32. Llosada-Gistau, J., Casas, F., & Montserrat, C. (2020a). Factors influencing the subjective well-being of adolescents in out-of-home care: A mixed method study. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(3), 835–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-019-9708-6
33. Llosada-Gistau, J., Crous, G., & Montserrat, C. (2020b). The relationship between subjective well-being and residential out-of-home care in Spain: The children’s voice. Social Work & Society, 18(3). https://ejournals.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/index.php/sws/article/view/679
34. Llosada-Gistau, J., Montserrat, C., & Casas, F. (2015). The subjective well-being of adolescents in residential care compared to that of the general population. Children and Youth Services Review, 52, 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.11.007
35. McAuley, C., Forrester, D., Holland, S., Mannay, D., Keam, J., & Lyttleton-Smith, J. (2026). Understanding the subjective well-being of 10- and 11-year-old foster children in Wales: Relationships and their interconnectedness with places, possessions and activities. Child Indicators Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-026-10381-8
36. Morgan, D. L. (2018). Basic and advanced focus groups. SAGE Publications.
37. Müderrisoğlu, S., Karatay, A., Uyan Semerci, P., & Ekim Akkan, B. (2015). Children’s Worlds national report: Turkey. Children’s Worlds Project (ISCWeB). https://isciweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Turkey_NationalReport_Final.pdf
38. Müderrisoğlu, S., Uyan Semerci, P., Yakut-Çakar, B., Karatay, A., & Ekim Akkan, B. (2013). Child well-being document. UNICEF Turkey. https://www.unicef.org/turkiye/media/4141/file/Child%20Well-Being%20Document.pdf
39. Nelson, P., Homer, C., & Martin, R. (2020). What makes a looked after child happy and unhappy? Adoption & Fostering, 44(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308575919900665
40. OECD. (2021a). Measuring what matters for child well-being and policies. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e82fded1-en
41. OECD. (2021b). OECD Survey on Social and Emotional Skills 2018 technical report. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c37f1703-en
42. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume II): Learning during—and from—disruption. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en
43. OECD. (2026). Measuring children’s subjective well-being: Rationale, empirical approaches and future directions. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a9b57ebc-en
44. Orúzar, H., Miranda, R., Oriol, X., & Montserrat, C. (2019). Self-control and subjective well-being of adolescents in residential care: The moderator role of experienced happiness and daily-life activities with caregivers. Children and Youth Services Review, 98, 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.12.021
45. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
46. Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.
47. Selwyn, J., Magnus, L. I., & Briheim-Crookall, L. (2017a). Our lives, our care: Looked after children’s views on their well-being. School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol. https://coramvoice.org.uk/latest/our-lives-our-care-looked-after-childrens-views-on-their-well-being/
48. Selwyn, J., Wood, M., & Newman, T. (2017b). Looked after children and young people in England: Developing measures of subjective well-being. Child Indicators Research, 10(2), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-016-9375-1
49. Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2014). Focus groups: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. Suh, E., & Selwyn, J. (2023). Exploring local authority variation in looked after young people’s subjective well-being. The British Journal of Social Work, 53(1), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcac117
50. UNICEF. (2020). The role of small-scale residential care for children in the transition from institutional to community-based care and in the continuum of care in the Europe and Central Asia Region. https://www.unicef.org/eca/media/13261/file
51. United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Nations Treaty Series, 1577, 3. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child
52. United Nations General Assembly. (2010). Guidelines for the alternative care of children (A/RES/64/142). United Nations. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n09/470/35/pdf/n0947035.pdf
53. Uyan Semerci, P., & Erdoğan, E. (2014). Defining and evaluating child well-being domains and indicators through the eyes of children in Turkey. UNICEF Turkey. https://www.unicef.org/turkiye/en/reports/defining-and-evaluating-child-well-being-domains-and-indicators-through-eyes-children
54. Uyan Semerci, P., & Erdoğan, E. (2017). Child well-being indicators through the eyes of children in Turkey: A happy child would be one who…. Child Indicators Research, 10(1), 267–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-016-9377-z
55. Uyan Semerci, P., Müderrisoğlu, S., Karatay, A., Ekim Akkan, B., Kılıç, Z., Oy, B., & Uran, Ş. (2012). Eşitsiz bir toplumda çocukluk: Çocuğun “iyi olma hali”ni anlamak, İstanbul örneği. İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları. https://bilgiyay.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/e%C5%9Fitsiz-bir-toplumda-%C3%A7ocukluk.pdf
56. Wood, M., & Selwyn, J. (2017). Looked after children and young people’s views on what matters to their subjective well-being. Adoption & Fostering, 41(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308575916686034
57. Zeyrek, İ., Tekeoğlu, U., & Tabara, M. F. (2025). An evaluation of psychological well-being, decision-making processes and self-esteem in adolescents in institutional care. Dicle Medical Journal, 52(4), 683–693. https://doi.org/10.5798/dicletip.1840641