Kurum Bakimindan Ai̇le Yanina Döndürülen 6-18 Yaş Çocuklarin Duygusal Ve Davraniş Sorunlari

Abstract

ÖZET Buaraştırmada, çoklu bilgi kaynakları kullanılarak kurum bakımından Sosyal ve Ekonomik Destekle (SED) ailesi yanına döndürülen 6-18 yaşları arasındaki çocukların davranış ve duygusal sorunlarını, koruma altında olmayıp SED ile ailesi yanında ve yuva-yurtta büyüyen çocuklarla karşılaştırılmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini, Kütahya İl Sosyal Hizmetler Müdürlüğü bünyesinde 6-18 yaşları arasındaki korunma altında olup aile yanına döndürülen 37,ayni nakdi yardımla ailesi yanında kalan 81 ve yuva-yurtta büyüyen 65 çocuk olmak üzere toplam 183 çocuk oluşturmuştur. Veri toplamada, Aile Bilgi Formu, CBCL/6-18, TRF/6-18 ve YSR/11-18 ölçekleri kullanılmıştır. Bulgular incelendiğinde, aile yanına döndürülen çocukların sorun davranışlarının diğer iki gruba göre daha fazla olduğu saptanmıştır (P<0.05).Anahtar Kelimeler: Aile Yanına Dönüş, Kurum Bakımı, Bakım Verenler, Gençler, Davranış Sorunları PROBLEM BEHAVIORS OF 6-18 YEAR OLD CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN MOVED FROM INSTITUTIONS TO THEIR BIOLOGICAL FAMILIES ABSTRACTThe aim of this study was to determine the problem behaviors of children aged 6-18, who have been moved from institutions to their biological families with the financial aid. The data were collected from caregivers, teachers and youth informants and compared of the same-aged children grown up by their families with the financial aid not being under protection and those who were grown up in institutional care. The sample of this study consisted of 37 children who were under protection and sent back to their families, 81 children who stayed with their families and 65 children who were grown up in institutional care. The total number of children was 183. Family Report Form, CBCL/6-18, TRF/6-18 and YSR/11-18 were used for data collection. The children who have been moved from institutions to their biological families had higher problem behaviors than the children who stayed with their families and those who grew up in institutional care (P<0.05).

Under poverty and conflict: Well-being of children living in the east of Turkey.

“…Compared with the institution-reared children, the children in our sample manifested significantly higher levels of internalizing problems, t(469) = 6.21, p < .001; externalizing problems, t(469) = 2.26, p = .02; and total problems, t(469) = 4.45, p < .001. Likewise, the scores of children sampled in the current study were also higher for internalizing problems, t(485) = 1.95, p = .05; externalizing problems, t(485) = 3.72, p < .001; and total problems, t(485) = 3.95, p < .001, in comparison to the scores of children from lowincome families living in the central part of Turkey in the study of Saçan et al (2014).…”

“…However, solely reporting the level of these problems in children who lived in cities where armed conflict was experienced would not be informative by itself. Therefore, we compared the level of emotional and behavioral problems in children living in the conflict zone with the results of another research study (i.e., Saçan, Artan, Erol, & Şimşek, 2014) that reported the level of these problems in children living in other disadvantaged contexts, such as child-rearing institutions and low-income families. Next, we aimed to explore the factors that were linked to emotional and behavioral problems in children.…”

“…For this, we obtained T scores for internalizing problems, externalizing problems, total problems, and PTSS, and we used these scores to determine whether children's score fell within the normal, subclinical or clinical range provided for a representative Turkish sample (Erol & Simsek, 2007). Next, we compared the emotional and behavioral problem scores of children sampled in this study with the scores of children sampled in another study from other disadvantaged contexts in Turkey (Saçan, Artan, Erol, & Şimşek, 2014) that used the same measurement tool (i.e., CBCL/6-18 parent form) and age range (6 to 18 years) as the current study. We used independent samples t-tests for this comparison.…”

“…Because we were interested in understanding the severity of emotional and behavioral problems experienced by children in our sample relative to those who experienced other forms of disadvantages, in the next step of our analysis, we compared the level of emotional and behavioral problems in children sampled in the present study with those of children sampled from child-rearing institutions in Turkey and children from low-income families (i.e., Saçan et al, 2014). Among children in institutions (n = 65), 3.1% were under institutional care from 13 to 36 months of age, 24.6% from 3 to 6 years of age, and 72.3% from 6 years of age and older because of disruption of family unit (58.5%), poverty (18.5%), abuse and neglect (13.8%), or other reasons (9.2%).…”

“…Children in the low-income group (n = 81) were living in the central part of Turkey, and their families were receiving financial aid. To compare problem scores of children in these groups, we used the mean and standard deviation scores reported for these samples (i.e., institution, low-income in Saçan et al, 2014) and the ones in our study and conducted independent samples t-test. Compared with the institution-reared children, the children in our sample manifested significantly higher levels of internalizing problems, t(469) = 6.21, p < .001; externalizing problems, t(469) = 2.26, p = .02; and total problems, t(469) = 4.45, p < .001.…”