The three main components of the welfare state architecture are: (i) a comprehensive social insurance system, (ii) social services targeting individuals and families in vulnerable conditions, and (iii) an accessible and diverse social assistance system for those in need. In societies where these components are effectively and balanced structure, both the social welfare level and the national identity and belonging of the society are strengthened. Apart from individual, cultural, and biological origins, belonging also has social and sociopolitical roots, and it is evident that preserving and enhancing belonging has become a policy area that requires much more systematic and effective work in today’s social policies than in the past.
In post-pandemic Türkiye, as in many countries, there have emerged certain challenges and new solution strategies in the fields of social services and social assistance. To review the previous year’s developments in the field of social services in our country, we need to consider two contexts: (I) the global context and changes in social welfare policies during the COVID-19 period, and (ii) the national context and the expanding position and provision of social services within the public administration system in Türkiye.
Global Context
The COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020 and lasted until the end of 2021 had a litmus effect on countries’ health and welfare systems, revealing that even advanced welfare regimes were not as resilient as believed. The virus exposed not only the weaknesses in our bodies but also in our societal structures. The need for crisis management and crisis communication skills by public actors was strongly felt. Many countries identified areas where the quantity and quality of healthcare and social service workforce needed improvement. It became evident that vulnerable groups such as children and women in precarious conditions, people with disabilities, the elderly, and those subject to forced migration lacked effective family-oriented early warning mechanisms.
Contrasting Notions of Welfare
In the post-World War II bipolar world, the social cohesion of societies was generally strengthened. The welfare state model was designed as a buffer mechanism against the socialist political pole. Here, the state assumed the role of a parent in meeting social needs while being built upon the principles of a market economy in the economic sphere. During this period, social services had a crucial function not only in meeting basic needs but also in ensuring full participation of citizens in society; providing sensitive services to population groups at risk of marginalization such as people with disabilities, the elderly, and immigrants.
However, during this period, two contrasting notions of welfare emerged depending on the political orientations of countries in the democratic pole: The first is the collectivist notion of welfare. This is closer to the socialist understanding.1 The fundamental principle is equality arranged according to needs. It prefers an attitude that recognizes collective identity rather than individual identity. The primary source of social welfare is the state. It operates based on social planning. Its dangerous aspect is the loss of the freedom of individual choice, or in other words, the loss of subject identity in the face of state patronage and the collectivist ethos that says, ‘I don’t exist, you don’t exist, we exist!’ It is the totalitarianization of the welfare regime.
The second notion developed as market welfare. The fundamental principle is the freedom arranged according to individuals’ capabilities rather than needs. It prefers an attitude that recognizes individual identity and rationality over collective identity. The primary source of market welfare is the individual. It operates based on the market. Its dangerous aspect is the deepening gaps between social classes. While collectivist welfare is focused on protection, market welfare (more individualized) is focused on empowerment.
Two Versions of the Welfare State
Debates on the welfare state heavily occupied the 20th century. The actors of welfare were traditionally families or religious institutions. However, in the modern era, civil society (including the state as the most powerful actor, along with the UN and related transnational organizations) and the market were added to these actors. Thus, the first version of the welfare state emerged. In essence, the welfare state was designed to address the disasters faced by the industrial society. The key components of the first version of the welfare state included a social insurance system with a premium-based social protection, social assistance focusing on women and children, public social policies encompassing education, housing, healthcare, childcare, public transportation, legal aid, and other social work and social services including vocational and evidence-based social support, education, and counseling services for groups such as children, elderly, disabled, women, chronically ill, families of prisoners, refugees, and others.
By the end of the first version of the welfare state, the picture that emerged was clear: this system improved the rights of workers, particularly laborers.2 The state developed a sensitivity towards rights from needs. The system contributed to the formation of a prosperous middle class and reduced the gap between social classes, relative equality gained strength. Ultimately, a significant feature of the first version of the welfare state was its regulation of the social sphere, thus giving rise to a dominant societal architecture controlled by the state.
However, as we reached the 1980s, the discourse of a strong welfare state began to be replaced by the discourse of a responsible society. Criticisms from two major sources rapidly transformed the structure of the welfare state. The first source came from advocates of liberal economy. Rapidly rising center-right discourses favored reducing the state’s effectiveness in the social sphere. The second source was the criticism of managerialism by postmodern thinkers, particularly Michel Foucault. It was argued that protection and closure created a mentality of othering people for social hygiene. The first source of criticism constantly listed limited growth, intractable inflation, excessive bureaucracy, and the persistence of poverty and unemployment. On the other hand, reference was made to the abundance of individuals who deceived the system under the guise of ‘welfare abuse’ in social services.
The debate on whether the distribution of social welfare should be considered a ‘right or charity’ also continued. Concerns were raised about whether strong public social services harmed informal solidarity and shared responsibility. The second source of criticism emphasized the conservative and oppressive nature of social services maintaining mainstream values. In the end, there was a rapid shift from societal welfare to market welfare. The welfare state entered a significant transformation process under the dominance of right-wing critics who found the state’s authority too generous and undisciplined, causing an unfair tax burden on taxpayers and morally corrupting welfare recipients. A typical neoliberal understanding of welfare began to prevail.
The second version of the welfare state can be summarized as a ‘non-employment-focused, conditional and limited social expenditure package.’ In previous models, social assistance, which was a powerful tool has been largely redesigned as ‘conditional social assistance.’ Tax exemptions that ease the burden on the market are frequently encountered. Various adjustments are made to unemployment benefits, and instead of job-seeking allowances with shorter durations and limited amounts, welfare is maintained at a certain level by expanding income-debt stocks (through individuals being indebted).3 Governance, efficiency, and total quality management, which were previously limited to businesses, began to be effective in social services.
After these developments, the changing welfare regimes of the West, which were positioned politically, can be theoretically examined and compared. The most well-known study on this subject was conducted by Danish researcher Gosta Esping Andersen in his book ‘The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism’ published in 1990.4 According to Andersen, the West has been classified into three comparable welfare regimes: liberal, conservative (corporatist), and social democratic. Especially in the Anglophone welfare regimes of the 1990s (US, UK, Australia, etc.) the neo-liberal discourse of ‘workfare not welfare’ deeply questioned the public’s responsibility and authority in the social field. Unconditional cash/material and programs provided for non-workers received intense criticism. As a result, conditional cash transfer programs began to be used more in welfare assistance in the 2000s. Instead of seeing working people in the welfare system, there emerged an image of working people who remained poor.
Welfare regimes undergo changes in times of crisis. We experienced a period where the second version of the welfare state was strong during the pandemic. COVID-19 contributed to the slowing down of this neo-liberal transition, even deviation. Social welfare discussions and practices re-emerged as the first societal reactions. A return to the initial version of the welfare state began. Conventional instruments of the social state started to be used again. Initiatives such as hospitals built in a few weeks, monetary expansions, tax exemptions for small businesses, support for children, disabled individuals, and families, and increasing widespread social assistance were undertaken. Healthcare and social service workers were elevated to the status of ‘angels’ once again. On the other hand, there was an increased risk of beneficiaries becoming a dependent population. In Türkiye, the social work force has been actively involved in social investigation and field surveys within the ‘loyal social support groups,’ even during the most challenging periods of the pandemic. They have also frequently been praised alongside healthcare workers in the public eye.5
During the pandemic, an important issue regarding the nature of social services emerged: the ‘protection versus empowerment dilemma.’ In this period, the social world had to shift its focus from market welfare to social welfare, moving from empowerment to protection-oriented social services and assistance. In essence, the ultimate goal of social services is to protect individuals, families, and the community as a whole against social risks and to strengthen their autonomy and self-help capacities. During the pandemic, there was a greater emphasis on protection-oriented programs and services rather than empowerment. The mandatory isolation experienced by children, people with disabilities, and especially the elderly resulted in some undesirable health and behavioral consequences. While the vulnerability of children and women to domestic abuse increased under these sensitive conditions, preventive functions of public spaces such as schools and hospitals were neglected. These developments have highlighted the need for a greater focus on preventive interventions and early warning tools in social services in 2021 and beyond.
National Context
The distribution of social welfare in Türkiye is naturally influenced by the global dynamics reshaped by the pandemic. Social services and assistance with a social orientation, which have been strong since the Republican era in the delivery of social services, continue to expand. The responsibility for ensuring the protection and welfare of vulnerable population groups such as children, disabled individuals, the elderly, and women, has been shared between state and family institutions. The contribution and participation of civil society and the market, however, are limited.
Explaining the trends in social services in our county solely based on dominant state patronage and a social orientation may not be sufficient. According to Andersen’s classifications, it is not possible to fit Türkiye into any specific group.6 Türkiye represents a typical welfare mix in social welfare services. Our country reflects the need-based service and social assistance practices of liberal welfare regimes, the transfer payments of conservative regimes, policies that uphold and sustain the norms and values of mainstream society, to some extent, and the effective public services of social democratic regimes.
While reviewing the previous year of social services on a national scale, we need to trace the traces of ongoing structural changes in social services in Türkiye in recent years. In the early Republican period, social services were left in the responsibility area of non-state actors, particularly foundations and association organizations, by maintaining ancient traditions. From the 1960s onwards, based on our cultural identity of Turkish solidarity, it became institutionalized and joined the bureaucratic system.7 Social welfare was largely shared within the traditional family-kinship system and the bureaucratic state structure until the 2010s. It provided limited services with an organization called the General Directorate of Social Services and Child Protection under the Prime Ministry. The establishment of the Ministry of Family and Social Policies in 2011 resulted in rapid bureaucratic growth and expansion of social services.8 This transformation was the first step towards the transition of social services in Türkiye from reactive service models (demand-oriented and institutional care-oriented) to proactive service models (supply and preventive-focused). In parallel with this step and the subsequent development, the implementation of the ‘Family Social Support Program (ASDEP)’ and its presentation through the social service center establishment model took place. However, the identified social problems diversified, and there was a parallel increase in service capacity. A situation emerged where the number of individuals and families benefiting from social services was constantly increasing. Naturally, there has been a significant increase in demand for social services and the social work force.
Orientation towards Proactive Services
A development that sheds light on the changes in the delivery of social services in Türkiye, showing parallelism with the flow of history and the global context, is the transformation of the bureaucratic design of social services to focus on efficiency and accessibility. There is an increase in umbrella organizations that provide multiple services based on principles of governance, efficiency, and quality. One of the typical examples of this in Türkiye is the ‘Social Service Centers,’ whose numbers reached 377 as of January 2023.9 In these centers,10 the service units of the directorates affiliated with the Ministry of Family and Social Services provide services under the same day-care organization structure. Unlike in Türkiye, service intermediaries (companies providing social services) have become widespread in the West. Although not widespread in Türkiye, nurseries and early childhood programs have remained outside public services. Brief mention is made of current developments in social services for children, women, people with disabilities, the elderly, veterans, relatives of martyrs, and families under the following headings.
Children
In Türkiye, the primary population group in the provision of social services is children. The Turkish child protection reform, which began with the Child Protection Law in 2005, has significantly changed the structure of the child protection system over the past 15 years. In 2005, the number of children residing in residential and institutional care facilities was over 20,000, but by 2017, all of these facilities were closed, and the ‘family-style group homes’ model, consisting of 6-7 children, was adopted. According to official data at the end of 2021, the total number of children in family-style group homes and children’s village sites (formerly known as foster homes) decreased to 13,302.11 At this stage, both the type of institution has changed and the number of children has decreased by more than two-thirds. The most suitable alternative care model for children who are deprived of parental care is undoubtedly foster care. Currently, the total number of children being cared for in foster families is 8,459.12 One promising practice is the initiation of a social and economic support program (SED) that includes supporting families to prevent children from entering or remaining in institutional care due to socio-economic reasons. From 2005 to the present, the number of beneficiaries has shown a rapid increase, starting with 10,000 children in 2005 and reaching up to 140,000 by the end of 2021. It is expected that the decreasing institutional care model and the increasing foster care and SED services will continue in the child protection system. The development of preventive mechanisms and early warning tools is a prioritized need for the child protection system.
Women
The initiative at the center of women’s protection and empowerment services in Türkiye is the Violence Prevention and Monitoring Centers (ŞÖNİM).13 ŞÖNİM centers are field organizations that provide support and prevention services operating on a 24/7 basis. As of 2022, the number of ŞÖNİM centers has reached 81, covering all provinces. The annual number of service recipients has reached hundreds of thousands.
Another key element of social services for women applicants is women’s shelters. These establishments are residential social service organizations where women who have experienced physical, emotional, sexual, economic, or verbal abuse or violence can stay temporarily while being protected from violence, resolving their psychosocial and economic problems, and empowering themselves. If they have children, their children’s needs are also met. By 2022, 112 women’s shelters have been opened in all 81 provinces to expand the services. Women’s shelters are also established and operated by municipal governments in many provinces (33 women’s shelters in 11 provinces). Together with shelters operated by other institutions, a total of 149 women and their children receive residential protection and care support. Approximately 60,000 women have stayed in these institutions with around 25,000 accompanying children. In fact, the fundamental characteristic of these units, often referred to as ‘women shelters’ in many countries, is that they provide temporary protection and accommodation until the acute crisis period is over. However, due to concerns for their personal safety, economic dependency, and responsibilities towards their young children, women may stay longer in these facilities. There is a clear need to enhance the women’s shelter services with complementary psychosocial services that promote women’s independence. On the other hand, social service interventions should prioritize meeting the needs and welfare of children who stay with their families in these facilities and who are exposed to the risk of isolation.
Elderly Population
The population of Türkiye is rapidly aging.14 The proportion of the elderly population within the total population increased from 8.3% in 2016 to 9.7% in 2021. When the proportion of the elderly population exceeds 10%, it is an indicator of population aging. One of the priority services for the elderly is residential care. In 2022, approximately 12,000 people received services from 263 private nursing homes in 23 provinces. Approximately, 13,000 people benefited from 165 nursing homes affiliated with the Ministry of Family and Social Services. It is possible to say that around 25,000 people receive this service and the number is increasing.
In addition to residential care and support services for the elderly, preventive daytime services have also been preferred in recent years. The ministry aims to improve the quality, capacity, and prevalence of home social services and daytime elderly living centers by creating a model to support active aging by increasing the institutional capacity of central and local organizations in the coming years. However, today, elderly care and support services continue to be centered around conventional care models rather than primary care services.
In recent years, macro initiatives that have drawn public attention to the issue of aging have also taken place in Türkiye. A National Aging Country Report was prepared in connection with the UN Madrid International Plan of Action on Aging and the regional implementation strategy.15
People with Disabilities
People with disabilities in Türkiye are a population group considered together with elderly services in the provision of public social services. According to the ASHB Disabled and Elderly Statistics Bulletin 2022 data16, the number of people with at least one disability is approximately 5 million, constituting almost 7% of the population. It is also reported that this rate is showing a steady increase trend. One of the reform areas of social services in Türkiye has been disabled individuals, and the Disabled Persons Law came into effect in 2005. Thus, a fundamental law has been established that facilitates the access of disabled individuals to services and rights in the public domain.
The priority practice in social services for people with disabilities is ‘home care assistance.’ By the end of 2021, the number of individuals receiving home care assistance payments was around 530,000, which corresponds to more than one-tenth of the disabled population.
The second important aspect of social services for people with disabilities is institutionalized day care services. The main goal in ensuring the care of disabled individuals is to provide this service without separating them from their families and the social environment they live in. With this aim, care services provided to disabled individuals in need of care focus on family and rights-based care services. Priority is given to the provision of care within the family, and if it is not suitable within the family, importance is given to the provision of care services in barrier-free living centers and ‘hope houses,’ which are the household-type social service institutions. In 2017, 459 disabled individuals benefited from day care services in 6 day living centers. This number increased to 1,233 disabled individuals being served in 129 day living centers in 2021.17
In addition, residential care services for people with disabilities are also provided. There are 51 ‘Barrier-Free Living Care and Rehabilitation Centers’ nationwide. In 2018, 7,745 disabled individuals benefited from 97 residential care and rehabilitation centers (including barrier-free living centers), while by the end of 2021, services were provided to 7,211 disabled individuals in 104 residential care and rehabilitation centers (including 51 Barrier-Free Living Centers). Another service in residential care is hope houses. Hope houses, resembling children’s homes, are social service institutions opened in independent houses or apartment buildings for disabled individuals to integrate with the society they live in and to ensure their active participation in social life. In ‘Hope Houses,’ the care of 4 to 6 disabled individuals is provided in a house under the supervision of a caregiver and the supervision of professional staff. By the end of 2021, there were 152 hope houses. In 2022, the efforts for the National Action Plan for Disability Rights to strengthen the rights of disabled individuals in Türkiye also continued.
Veterans and Martyrs’ Families
Veterans and martyrs’ families services are a special area of service structured within the organizational framework of social services in Türkiye. According to the ASHB 2021 Activity Report published in 2022, psychosocial support services are provided to the families of martyrs during the mourning process through crisis interventions initiated after receiving the news of martyrdom. At the end of 2021, work was conducted for 117 martyr families.
Employment support is also available as another aspect of service for martyrs’ families and veterans. Recommendations for appointment to public institutions and organizations are made for martyrs’ families, veterans, their families, civilian victims of terrorism, war and duty-disabled individuals of their families. Around 1,600 people were provided with this service in 2020.18
Family
The Turkish family continues to dissolve and shrink. The expectation of a ‘minimum of three children,’ emphasized by all political authorities for over twenty years, is necessary from a demographic perspective. According to the latest national data on Family Statistics published by the Turkish Statistical Institute in May 2022, the average household size, which was 4 people in 2008, has shown a decreasing trend and dropped to 3.2 people in 2021.19 Interestingly, the percentage of single-person households consisting of individuals living alone, which was 13.9% in 2014 increased to 18.9% in 2021. The proportion of nuclear families, which accounted for 67.4% in 2014, decreased to 64.4% in 2021. While nuclear families are shrinking, single-parent families are increasing, and a family system that is modernizing and shrinking is becoming more widespread.
According to the same data, the poverty rate has also risen to one in five. Particularly within larger families, this rate has reached close to one in three people living in poverty. It is evident that we are facing a Turkish family that is generally shrinking and experiencing a decrease in economic power.
Being an advocate for policies that focus on the family, preserve and strengthen the family system has always been on the agenda of the social work profession since its inception. However, placing the family at the center and putting the responsibility of the problems on the family is not the same as putting the family at the center of social policy intervention. Therefore, when creating family-oriented policies, it is essential to prioritize programs that balance the objective burden of social welfare on the family. One of these programs is undoubtedly early childhood education and daycare programs. In order to promote the early development of children and increase women’s participation in the workforce, it is necessary to prioritize the reintroduction of nursery schools, daycare centers, and preschool services into the agenda of social policies. As mentioned earlier, in the 90s when the state limited its responsibility in the social field, the first area left to the private sector was nursey schools and daycare centers. Today, among the population of approximately 25 million children in Türkiye, the number of children under the age of 5 is around 6 million. In 2021, about 100,000 children between the ages of 0-5 benefited from 2,305 nursery schools and daycare services affiliated with ASHB (Preschool Education and Daycare Services General Directorate). According to the 2021-2022 statistics of the Ministry of National Education (MEB) on formal education, the total number of children enrolled in official/private kindergartens and pre-primary programs for children aged 4-6 is approximately 1 million 885 thousand.20 These figures indicate that a significant proportion of children under the age of 5 do not have access to early childhood education. According to MEB’s 2021 data, the enrollment rate for 5 year olds is only 56.9%.
Social Assistance
According to the results of the income and living conditions survey published by the Turkish Statistical Institute in May 2022, relative poverty was reported as 28.7% (based on 70% of the median income).21 It is observed that one out of every three families is below the poverty line. The rate of material deprivation in the survey was 27.2% and the rate of those living in rented accommodation, which is similar to poverty, was 26.8%.
In 2021, social assistance, which amounted to around 100 billion Turkish Lira in GDP, had a rate of 1.74% for eligible recipients. It is also reported that this rate has shown a rapid increase compared to previous years. The range of social assistance has been expanding every year. 53 different social assistance models have continued to be used in nine categories (family assistance, housing-food assistance, disability-elderly assistance, health assistance, education assistance, project support).
In Türkiye, an important practice initiated in the field of social assistance in 2022 was the ‘Family Support Program.’ This program is designed as an application that includes cash payment support for low-income families, even if they are in the workforce. Regular payments are made in varying amounts based on the total amount of income per person in the household (salary, wages, daily wages, and regular social assistance income).22
Social assistance programs that include both in-kind and cash transfers are an indispensable instrument of social protection. However, when used as the sole means of combating poverty, they can have both inadequate and harmful effects. They are inadequate because they provide temporary compensation for deprivation rather than addressing economic poverty. They are harmful because they create a risk of dependency on the part of beneficiaries and service providers. They are harmful because they create a risk of dependency on the part of beneficiaries and service providers that is detrimental to the beneficiaries’ interests. From a social services perspective, it is clear that providing assistance entails generating services that strike a balance between autonomy and equality.
Conclusion
Social work is deeply embedded in social policies. The effectiveness of social services is among the key determinants of social cohesion. While the world focuses on the challenges of the ‘post-COVID’ era, we should continue to focus on the structural changes in the architecture of social services in our Republic’s new century.
OECD data shows that Türkiye’s social expenditure as a percentage of national income is eight points below the OECD average of 12% to 20%. It is inevitable that social services continue to rapidly develop in terms of quality and quantity and be further developed with a professional notion.23 In Türkiye’s second century, the social welfare system should be designed in a context that is compatible with the global community architecture and showcases our country’s role as an actor in international social policies24 while serving as an example to neighboring countries in the social service model it implements. Additionally, our social welfare system should be organized at the local level as it is global. To be able to respond to complex social problems with local and regional human and material resources, there should be a transformation in the delivery of social services according to the principles of decentralization.
Conceptual designs that can turn the beneficiaries of social services, including children, the elderly, people with disabilities, women, and at-risk families, into moral shields of real politics should be avoided. For example, while analyzing the problem of poverty, while designing forms of poverty such as ‘child poverty,’ ‘woman poverty,’ ‘disability poverty’ may have operational reasons, these subgroups definitions should also be fundamentally prevented from being used as moral tools by rival politicians in real politics.
It may be necessary to recognize that the weight of social assistance formulated as conditional cash transfers may lead to conditionality in belonging. In addition, it would be beneficial to review the much-debated ‘universal basic income’ model in recent years. Undoubtedly, people should be active, and there should be criteria that discourage a passive-dependent life and hinder the formation of a mentality that creates demand for such a life when considering the universal income model.
The discipline of social work has an academic mission to identify, classify, analyze, and solve social problems. A strategy should be adopted that recognizes the social work workforce and the structuring of social services as both bureaucratic and professional fields. In Türkiye, where the central-local organizational structure has been transformed into an executive ministry in the last decade, it is necessary to develop our social services system based on professional principles and methods, which continue to grow and expand rapidly.
The fundamental orientation of social welfare policies should be protective and empowering. Service models that uphold the delicate balance between the two should be developed. Instead of individualistic and collectivist service oppositions arising from the polarization of welfare notions, a welfare concept should be constructed based on the ancient African philosophy of ‘ubuntu,’ which is expressed as ‘I am because we are.’ For this purpose, a system should be established where the responsible actors of welfare, namely the family, state, civil society, and market are balanced. It should be recognized that we need a welfare distribution system where the dominance of any one or few of these actors is mitigated, and the culture of solidarity within society is preserved. All our efforts should contribute to an inclusive social transformation and the collective construction of the future.
1. Lorenz, W. A. (1994). Social work in a changing Europe. Routledge.
Reference ↑
2. Garland, D. (1016). The Welfare State: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press
Reference ↑
3. The Income and Living Conditions Survey 2021 data from TÜİK (Turkish Statistical Institute) reported the percentage of people with installment payments or debts as 63.7%.
Reference ↑
4. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton University Press.
Reference ↑
5. It is reported that while various payment incentives are provided to healthcare workers, the payments that protect their rights and entitlements are limited for this group of employees.
Reference ↑
6. There are studies that classify Türkiye as the fourth group within the Southern Europe Welfare state model, which includes Greece, Portugal and Italy. See. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13608749608454714?journalCode=fses20
Reference ↑
7. The General Directorate of Social Services was established in 1963.
Reference ↑
8. The transformation from a General Directorate under the Prime Ministry to an executive ministry can be considered as the most significant step taken for the development and expansion of social services within the public administration system.
Reference ↑
9. https://www.aile.gov.tr/athgm/kuruluslarimiz/sosyal-hizmet-merkezleri/
Reference ↑
10. Daycare social service organizations are responsible for identifying the needs of individuals and providing social service interventions, follow-ups, protective, preventive, supportive, developmental services to children, young people, women, men, persons with disabilities, elderly individuals, and families. These services also include guidance and counseling services, provided in collaboration with public institutions and organizations, local governments, universities, non-governmental organizations, and volunteers, in an integrated and easily accessible manner. Daycare social service organizations are also responsible for coordinating these services.
Reference ↑
11. Ministry of Family and Social Services (2021)https://www.aile. gov.tr/media/108736/kurumsal-istatistikler.pdf
Reference ↑
12. Turkish Statistical Institute (2022). İstatistiklerle Çocuk, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Istatistiklerle-Cocuk-2021-45633#:~:text=Aile%20ve%20Sosyal%20Hizmetler%20Bakanl%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1n%C4%B1n,ise%208%20bin%20 459%20oldu.
Reference ↑
13. Ministry of Family and Social Services (2022). 2021 Yılı Faaliyet Raporu, https:// www.aile.gov.tr/media/100242/2021-yili-faaliyet-raporu.pdf
Reference ↑
14. Turkish Statistical Institute (2022). İstatistiklerle Yaşlılar, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Istatistiklerle-Yaslilar-2021-45636#:~:text=T%C3%9C%C4%B0K%20Kurumsal&text=Ya%C5%9Fl%C4%B1%20n%C3%BCfus%20olarak%20kabul%20 edilen,9%2C7’ye%20y%C3%BCkseldi.
Reference ↑
15. Ministry of Family and Social Services (2022). Ulusal Yaşlanma Raporu, https:// www.aile.gov.tr/media/94685/ulusal_yaslanma_raporu_2018-2022.pdf
Reference ↑
16. Ministry of Family and Social Services (2022). Engelli ve Yaşlı İstatistik Bülteni, https://www.aile.gov.tr/media/98625/eyhgm_istatistik_bulteni_ocak_2022.pdf
Reference ↑
17. Ministry of Family and Social Services (2022). 2021 Yılı Faaliyet Raporu, https:// www.aile.gov.tr/media/100242/2021-yili-faaliyet-raporu.pdf
Reference ↑
18. Ministry of Family and Social Services (2020). Şehit-Gazi İstatistik Bülteni, https:// www.aile.gov.tr/media/60037/istatistik-bulteni-eylul.pdf
Reference ↑
19. Turkish Statistical Institute (2022). İstatistiklerle Aile, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Istatistiklerle-Aile-2021-45632
Reference ↑
20. Ministry of National Education. (2022). Millî eğitim İstatistikleri. https://sgb.meb.gov. tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2022_09/15142558_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2021_2022.pdf
Reference ↑
21. Turkish Statistical Institute (2022). Gelir ve Yaşam Koşulları Araştırması. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/ Bulten/Index?p=Gelir-ve-Yasam-Kosullari-Arastirmasi-2021-45581
Reference ↑
22. Ministry of Family and Social Services (2022). Aile Destek Programı, https://www. aile.gov.tr/sygm/sayfalar/aile-destek-programi/
Reference ↑
23. OECD. (2022). Social Spending, https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm
Reference ↑
24. Türkiye has the potential to be a pioneer in many social issue areas, as demonstrated by its pioneering role in the Istanbul Convention, which came into effect in 2011 and includes inclusive mechanisms for combating violence.
Reference ↑