This article was downloaded by: [Baskent Universitesi]On: 06 May 2014, At: 02:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Social Service ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wssr20

“Are We Doing Fine?” The Views on Poverty ReductionStrategies Among Front-Line Workers in the Field ofSocial Assistance in TurkeyArzu İçağasıoğlu Çoban a , Seda Attepe a , Gonca Polat Uluocak a & Gizem Çelik a

a Baskent University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Social Work , Ankara, TurkeyPublished online: 28 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Arzu İçağasıoğlu Çoban , Seda Attepe , Gonca Polat Uluocak & Gizem Çelik (2011) “Are We Doing Fine?”The Views on Poverty Reduction Strategies Among Front-Line Workers in the Field of Social Assistance in Turkey, Journal ofSocial Service Research, 37:5, 469-480, DOI: 10.1080/01488376.2011.585332

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.585332

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Social Service Research, 37:469–480, 2011Copyright c© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0148-8376 print / 1540-7314 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01488376.2011.585332

“Are We Doing Fine?” The Views on Poverty ReductionStrategies Among Front-Line Workers in the Field of Social

Assistance in Turkey

Arzu Icagasıoglu CobanSeda Attepe

Gonca Polat UluocakGizem Celik

ABSTRACT. This research highlights the views of front-line workers in the social assistance system inTurkey about the strategies of poverty reduction and the effectiveness of the assistance given by SocialAssistance and Solidarity Foundations (SASFs) to the poor. The data were gathered from 33 employeesfrom the 8 SASF offices in Ankara, Turkey. The results show that the majority of the participants agreewith governmental efforts to create employment opportunities as the most important method. Althoughthe participants felt the services they provided were effective at the individual and family level, theythought such services were extremely insufficient in terms of poverty reduction on a macro scale. Thefindings were discussed within the framework of the changing nature of poverty and the recent agendaon poverty reduction in Turkey. Future research based upon larger samples from different parties in thefield of social assistance is needed to fully determine the positions taken by the agents.

KEYWORDS. Poverty, poverty reduction, social assistance

INTRODUCTION

Recent literature in Turkey and in other coun-tries has made a specific emphasis on the is-sue of poverty and its changing nature (Ersoy& Sengul, 1999; Kazgan, 2000; Ozdek, 2002;Nilsen, 2008; Pogge, 2008; Senses, 2002). Froma historical perspective, poverty has generally

Arzu Icagasıoglu Coban, PhD, MSW, is an Assistant Professor at Baskent University, Faculty of HealthSciences, Department of Social Work, Ankara, Turkey.

Seda Attepe is a Research Assistant at Baskent University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department ofSocial Work, Ankara, Turkey.

Gonca Polat Uluocak, MSW, is a Lecturer at Baskent University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Departmentof Social Work, Ankara, Turkey.

Gizem Celik is a Research Assistant at Baskent University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department ofSocial Work, Ankara, Turkey.

Address correspondence to: Arzu Icagasıoglu Coban, PhD, MSW, Baskent Universitesi Saglık BilimleriFakultesi Sosyal Hizmet Bolumu, Baglıca Kampusu, Eskisehir Yolu 20. Km. 06530, Ankara, Turkey (E-mail:aicoban@baskent.edu.tr).

been one of the most challenging problems inTurkey since the early Republican period in apostwar atmosphere. Recently, especially afterthe economic crises in 2001 and 2007, increas-ing unemployment rates and the changing natureof poverty have been highlighted, and the newform of poverty seen is an important problem inTurkey.

469

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

36 0

6 M

ay 2

014

470 A. I. Coban et al.

Poverty is not only defined based on the indi-cators of economical growth or individual levelof income but also evaluated with regard to theopportunities of the groups and individuals tofully use their potential to fulfill their needs andenhance well-being. After the 1980s, as a neg-ative consequence of the globalization process(Gitmez, Kasnakoglu, Yalman, Pınarcıoglu, &Anıl, 2001), there was a change in the role of thegovernment from the primary agent of providerto coordinator of basic social and human ser-vices. Since then, with a deeper and more per-manent face of poverty (Ersoy & Sengul, 1999),access to and affordability of these services hasbeen a major challenge for some of the socialgroups such as the poor, aged, disabled, and soon. In this case, poverty is regarded as the inabil-ity to reach such basic services as care, educa-tion, health care, participation in work life, andsocial security (Chambers, 1995). Poor individ-uals are in most cases alienated from decision-making mechanisms and from the society ingeneral (Icagasıoglu, 2003, p. 67). Soon afterthe economic crisis of February 2001, “poverty”ceased to be a distant phenomenon that is some-where out there and became a phenomenon thatis “experienced firsthand.” Urban poverty hasbecome more prominent, with its devastating ef-fect on children, women, and families. This newpoverty is characterized with unjust distributionof resources, unequal access to and utilizationof these resources, a relatively lower level ofassistance and social protection, and disengage-ment of traditional strong family and kinshipties. Employment policies in the country alsomake it more difficult for individuals to accessregular and satisfactory employment. Both situ-ations in question lead poverty to assume a per-manent characteristic rather than a temporaryone (being relieved from poverty after employ-ment). This situation is defined as the experienceof “new poverty” in Turkey (Bugra & Keyder,2003).

Two different strategies are emphasized inliterature, including indirect approaches to al-leviate poverty, such as enhancing economicgrowth and employment capacity, and directapproaches, such as social assistance and cashtransfers (Senses, 2002). Social assistance is away of poverty reduction in which governments

provide a guarantee of minimum resources to cit-izens who lack sufficient income so that they canlive a life in dignity (Eardley, Bradshaw, Ditch,Gough, & Whiteford, 1996; Holsch & Kraus,2004).

The form of new poverty in Turkey has givenimpetus to the development and implementationof poverty reduction strategies—mostly socialassistance programs—with its new and more ac-tive role within this transformation. Because so-cial assistance is not defined in a universallystandard manner (Eardley et al., 1996), it is im-portant to define the social assistance system inTurkey to clarify its components and structurebetter.

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THETURKISH SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

SYSTEM

The Southern European welfare regime(Ferrera, 1996), which is proposed as the fourthcategory of Esping-Andersen’s (1990) classicalwelfare regime description, is stressed to be as-sociated with the Turkish welfare system in gen-eral (Bugra & Keyder, 2003). The general fea-tures of the Southern European welfare regimeare characterized as informal, unrecorded em-ployment, corporatist tendencies in the socialsecurity system, a limited role of the state insocial security, lack of a universal health insur-ance system, and the important role of families,kinship relations, and religious or nonreligiouslocal institutions in dealing with risk situations(Bugra & Keyder, 2003; Ferrera, 1996).

Some features of the Turkish welfare regimecan be summarized by a health insurance system(General Health Insurance) based on paymentsof both employers and employees and a rela-tively strong and widespread social assistancesystem provided by the state.

According to a taxonomy made by Eardleyet al. (1996), social assistance systems in generalhave three basic mechanisms. The first categoryis “universal” or contingency benefits, whichare not related to income or employment sta-tus and are allocated to all citizens within acertain category. The second category is social

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

36 0

6 M

ay 2

014

Poverty Reduction Strategies 471

insurance, where benefit is related to employ-ment status and contributions paid. The thirdcategory is regarded as means-tested or income-related benefits, where eligibility is dependentupon the current or recent resources of the ben-eficiary. The social assistance system in Turkeymatches the third category of social assistance,which contains means-tested benefits for thepopulation excluded from regular employmentopportunities and minimum standard-of-livingconditions.

The social assistance system in Turkey is re-ferred to mainly as financial and other benefits,such as food, heating, etc., based on a meanstest. In this context, the social assistance pro-gram is run under different schemes, such asmaterial (cash) and nonmaterial (food, educa-tional materials, etc.) assistance given by theSocial Services and Child Protection Agency;a green card system for uninsured citizens toobtain health services; assistance for aged anddisabled citizens; assistance given by local au-thorities or nongovernmental organizations (re-ligious and/or secular); and last but not least,assistance given by Social Assistance and Soli-darity Foundations (SASFs).

The institution that implements social assis-tance programs in the most comprehensive andsystematic manner in Turkey is the General Di-rectorate of Social Assistance and Solidarity(GDSAS). The Social Assistance and Solidar-ity Fund was established in 1986 with Law No.3294, and GDSAS was established with LawNo. 5263, dated December 9, 2004. Thus, socialassistance services attained an institutionalizedstructure and their effectiveness was increased atan appreciable level. Social assistance programshave been implemented by GDSAS at the centrallevel and by SASFs in all provinces and countiesat the local level (GDSAS, 2009). The servicesoffered by SASFs are of great importance, notonly because of their well-organized structurethroughout the country, but also because theyserve as front-line institutions in poverty reduc-tion.

SASFs provide services to satisfy such ba-sic needs as heating, food, clothing, education,and health care for individuals and families wholack any affiliation with a social security institu-tion and are in socioeconomic deprivation; they

also provide services that contribute to educa-tion and rehabilitation expenditures of disabledindividuals and services for access to regularemployment. Conditional cash transfers (CCTs)and grants for social projects are conducted(GDSAS, 2009).

According to the latest statistics, the totalnumber of SASF offices across the country is973. In 2009, 80% of the benefits were cashtransfers, while 20% were nonmaterial benefitssuch as food, coal, and housing. The expendi-tures for food, housing, health, education, andhandicapped resources have increased dramati-cally. It can also be inferred from the budgetsof the Social Assistance and Solidarity Fund;while the budget in 2007 was US$2,353, it wasUS$66,617 in 2010.

The eligibility criteria for the benefits givenby SASFs are varied in terms of the needs andtypes of assistance. The material and nonmate-rial benefits require a means test for the appli-cants. The assessment process becomes an im-portant topic in this matter. Evaluation studieson the problem of criteria during the assessmentprocedure show that there is a general dissat-isfaction among applicants (Bugra & Keyder,2003; GDSAS, 2004; Ikizoglu, 2002). This ir-ritation is mostly reported as being caused bythe unprofessional attitudes of the investigatingpersonnel in deciding the “deserved” or “un-deserved” poor. The reason behind it can bestated as the unqualified personnel taking thisjob.

Alongside the findings about the negative at-titudes of SASF personnel, the effectiveness ofsocial assistance programs has also been evalu-ated in Turkey (Avsar Kurnaz, 2010; Karakoyun,2008; Sahin, 2007; A. Yılmaz, 2009; Zulfikar,2010), in other countries (Du & Park, 2006;Jung, 2005; Verme, 2007, 2008), and acrossEurope (Avram, 2009; Gough, 1996). Whilethere have been attempts to evaluate the socialassistance programs through the eyes of ben-efit users (GDSAS, 2004) and administrators(Sen, 2008), this research is designed to eval-uate the process from the perspective of the ben-efit providers in the field of social assistance inTurkey. These evaluations are in a critical po-sition to effect service and policies regardingpoverty.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

36 0

6 M

ay 2

014

472 A. I. Coban et al.

AIM OF THE STUDY

This research is conducted to shed light onthe views of front-line workers in SASFs inthe capital city in Turkey regarding the strate-gies of poverty reduction in the areas of pol-icy and practice. The front-line workers, whileconducting the means test, were chosen becauseof their important role during the assessmentand reporting process of the beneficiaries of so-cial assistance and their direct contact with poorpeople.

METHODOLOGY

Participants and Procedures

The research has a quantitative methodologyand a descriptive nature. The data were derivedfrom 33 employees from the branches of SASFsin the capital city of Turkey (Ankara); the em-ployees were working as “social investigationofficers” and/or were responsible for the inves-tigation procedure of the clients who applied forsocial assistance programs running in SASFs.Eight of the nine branches of SASFs in differentregions of the central area of Ankara agreed toparticipate in the study. The consent for the re-search was obtained from the administrators ofeach SASF and from the participants individu-ally. The data used in the study were collectedthrough face-to-face interviews and lasted ap-proximately 30 minutes for each worker. Thedata were collected during July and August of2010.

Instruments

Sociodemographic Questionnaire

The subjects were asked to fill out a demo-graphic questionnaire that consists of basic so-ciodemographic data (age, sex, educational sta-tus, marital status, level of income, etc.) andinformation about the work experience (occu-pation and job position, length of work experi-ence in the SASF, past in-service training expe-riences).

Questionnaire on Poverty ReductionStrategies and SASF Services

The questions on poverty reduction strate-gies and the effectiveness of SASF services(assistance) were developed by the researchersin a structured questionnaire. Participants wereasked to evaluate the poverty reduction meth-ods and SASF services on a scale that rangedfrom very effective to not effective at all. Addi-tional open-ended questions were asked to deter-mine further ideas and experiences in the fieldof social assistance. Participants were asked toanswer three open-ended questions about theirideas on the solution of the problem of poverty,the effectiveness of the current poverty reductionstrategies, and the problems they face duringthe provision of assistance. These open-endedquestions were analyzed as qualitative data, andthen were coded and categorized. To maintainanonymity of the answers to open-ended ques-tions, each quotation was coded as W1, W2, etc.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the basic sociodemographicdata for the study group. The mean age for thestudy group was 31.93 years (SD = 6.25). Theyoungest worker was 24 years old, while the old-est was 44 years old. Sixty-four percent of therespondents were married, and 49% of the wholegroup had at least one child. The mean numberof children was 1.44 for the group. Most of theparticipants were university graduates (76%).The perceived level of income was reported ata “medium” level by 61% of participants, fol-lowed by “enough” income by 24%, and “low”income by 12%. The perceived social class wasmostly reported as “middle class” in the studygroup. However, “upper-middle class” was alsofrequently reported by the subjects (36%). Al-though upper and lower class were two extremecategories, 12% of the respondents reported thattheir social class was “lower class.”

Table 2 presents the work-related data of thestudy group. It can be seen that social workersare in the first rank among other professionalgroups. However, the number of social workersis not more than the half of the professionals. It

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

36 0

6 M

ay 2

014

Poverty Reduction Strategies 473

TABLE 1. Basic Sociodemographic Data for theStudy Group

Variable N %

SexFemale 19 57.6Male 14 42.4Total 33 100

Educational StatusHigh School 7 21.2University 25 75.8Postgraduate 1 3.0Total 33 100

Marital StatusMarried 21 63.6Single 12 36.4Total 33 100

Having a ChildYes 16 48.5No 17 51.5Total 33 100

Long-Term ResidenceUrban area 25 75.8Rural area 8 24.2Total 33 100

Level of IncomeEnough 8 24.2Medium 20 60.6Low 4 12.1Total 32 97.0

Perceived Social ClassUpper class 1 3.0Upper-middle class 12 36.4Middle class 15 45.5Lower-middle class 4 12.1Lower class — —Total 32 97.0

should be noted that for the civil servant posi-tion, only a high school education is required,and these workers do not have a university de-gree related to human services and/or other dis-ciplines. Nearly 72% (71.9%) of the participantshad no in-service training for the assistance ser-vice. Those who responded positively to thisquestion stated that the titles or topics of trainingwere effective communication with service users(client-oriented communication); education onhealth and pregnancy (especially a program foradolescent pregnancy); and education on the So-cial Risk Mitigation Project and CCT, which isconducted by the World Bank.

The mean length of the participants’ workexperience was 76.5 months. The most expe-

TABLE 2. Work-Related Data for the StudyGroup

N %

Job title in the workplaceSocial Worker 10 30.3Bureau Attendant (Civil Servant) 8 24.2Sociologist 5 15.2Public Relations 3 9.1Economist 6 18.2IT Technician 1 3Total 33 100

Having in-service training experienceYes 9 27.3No 24 72.7Total 33 100

rienced worker worked in the same job for 22years, while the newest worker worked for 4months.

In relation to the problem of poverty inTurkey, nearly all participants (93.9%) statedthat they regarded the issue of poverty as a se-rious problem for Turkey. Table 3 presents theviews of participants on poverty reduction meth-ods generally conducted.

Participants reported the first three of the mosteffective methods of poverty reduction as provi-sion of economic growth, promotion of employ-ment possibilities by the government, and inclu-sion of more family members in the work life,which implies women and child labor.

The less effective methods mentioned wereinternal migration of the household, combi-nation of households to increase the generalincome level of the household and decreasethe household expenditures, self-restriction ofhealth care, education, and clothing expenses byhouseholds, and an increase in indirect assis-tance to the poor by the government.

These findings were supported by partici-pants’ answers to the open-ended questions. Theideas on alleviation of poverty are mentioned asbeing associated with economic growth, promot-ing employment opportunities, and improvingvocational trainings. A worker emphasized thatmore effective measures need to be taken by thegovernment, by saying:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

36 0

6 M

ay 2

014

474 A. I. Coban et al.

TABLE 3. Views of Participants on Poverty Reduction Methods

VeryEffective Effective

NoComment Ineffective

Not EffectiveAt All Total

Poverty Reduction Methods(Strategies) N % N % N % N % N % N %

Improvement of employmentopportunities by thegovernment

19 57.6 13 39.4 — — 1 3.0 — — 33 100

Participation of more members ofa family in the work life

17 51.5 14 42.4 1 3.0 1 3.0 — — 33 100

Strengthening of social securityand assistance system

13 39.4 13 39.4 4 12.1 3 9.1 — — 100

Orientation of households towardlivelihood activities as foodproduction or food collection

2 6.1 15 45.5 7 21.2 6 18.2 3 9.1 33 100

Combination of households toincrease the general incomelevel of the household

4 12.1 3 9.1 7 21.2 11 33.3 8 24.2 33 100

Equal distribution of income bythe government

16 48.5 8 24.2 4 12.1 3 9.1 2 6.1 33 100

Increase indirect assistance tothe poor by the government

4 12.1 11 33.3 2 6.1 12 36.4 4 12.1 33 100

Self-restriction of health care,education, and clothingexpenses by households

1 3.0 6 18.2 5 15.2 14 42.4 7 21.2 33 100

Provision for economic growth bythe government

16 48.5 10 30.3 3 9.1 4 12.1 — — 33 100

Migration of the household 3 9.1 3 9.1 5 15.2 11 33.3 11 33.3 33 100Provision of more support by the

government to infrastructureand service sectors to ensureequality

16 48.5 14 42.4 1 3.0 2 6.1 — — 33 100

Tax reduction 10 30.3 14 42.4 4 12.1 4 12.1 1 3.0 33 100

This problem cannot be resolved by dis-tributing benefits. If you blow a candle, thefire will die. But winds nurture the fire. Itjust makes you wonder how many facto-ries, how many businesses can be foundedwith the money distributed in assistance. . . and how many families can be savedfrom poverty . . . In short, we need toteach people how to fish rather than giv-ing them fish every day. Of course, we alsoneed to show them where to fish. (W6, ITtechnician)

Another worker recommended a differentmacro-level solution to the problem:

First of all, it is needed to end the Islamicway of charity . . . this can only be possible

when we find a solution to unemployment.(W5, social worker)

In addition, direct assistance for the familiesand unemployed people was emphasized, as canbe seen from the following sentences:

In coordination with the local governmentand neighborhood organizations, informa-tion should be gathered about the peopleliving here . . . in this frame, related agen-cies or foundations should meet the needsof these people . . . these people should bemonitored . . . (W2, social worker)

Moreover, a worker emphasized the functionof the assistance, by saying:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

36 0

6 M

ay 2

014

Poverty Reduction Strategies 475

The assistance should not be for the subsis-tence of the family, but should be a supportinstead. (W19, civil servant)

The participants stated that social assistancein struggling against poverty is usually notenough. The political drive behind the assistancewas underlined, and hometown solidarity wasstated as the effective factor in evaluating andgiving the assistance. These ideas can be seen inthe following quotation:

These aids are not only for meeting theneeds of people . . . it has a political aim . . .

because of that, the aids are not effective. . . (W2, social worker)

Another worker stated:

In the assistances, the political party, home-town of the participants, and favoritism riseout as important factors . . . (W28, sociol-ogist)

The majority of the workers claimed that theassistance makes people lazier:

I think it creates a charity culture and makespeople lazy. (W5, social worker)

The (assistance) receiver cannot recoverfrom the poverty . . . instead, like the strug-gling person in the swamp, he/she becomespoorer and poorer . . . (W6, IT technician)

One of the participants expressed his/her viewon this issue:

Poverty can never be eradicated by giv-ing money, giving food to people every 3months. Productivity is how people exist,develop, and succeed. (W9, civil servant)

Table 4 shows the views of participants onthe effect of SASF services on poverty reduc-tion. Social assistance programs implementedat SASFs include food, accommodation, heat-ing assistance, educational and health care as-sistance, CCT, and assistance for the disabled.Apart from these, special-purpose assistance,

project support, and clothing assistance are alsoamong the assistance types provided by the foun-dations. The participants were asked to evaluatethe extent to which these assistance programsare effective in the eradication of poverty.

The findings subsequently obtained indicatethat the participants regarded health care ser-vices as the most effective type of service. Thesecond position belonged to food and educationservices, and the third included services for thedisabled.

The problems encountered by the workerswere asked in the open-ended questions. Themost-stated problem was a “communicationproblem with the uneducated applicants.” Thisjudgment of one worker was interesting:

Unfortunately, most of the citizens (appli-cants) think that the assistance is their right,instead of just an aid . . . such that, they askif their “salary” is paid or not . . . (W6, ITtechnician)

Unjust delivery of assistance was also pointedout:

Especially special-purpose assistances andCCT [are] misused by many fami-lies/people who report themselves as poor. . . During the assessment and interview,you understand that this person is able tolive alone and support himself/herself . . .

but he/she still gets the money . . . then, ev-erything, and the assessment is for nothing!(W33, social worker)

DISCUSSION

This study aimed to determine the ideas offront-line workers in the field of social assistanceabout the methods of poverty reduction and theeffectiveness of services given in SASFs. Thesociodemographic characteristics of the work-ers showed that most of the workers are female,which is consistent with the high level of womenin the service sector in Turkey (Directorate Gen-eral on the Status of Women, 2008; Dedeoglu,2000) and in the world in general (Spector,Allen, Poelmans, & Cooper, 2005). This finding

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

36 0

6 M

ay 2

014

476 A. I. Coban et al.

TABLE 4. Views of Personnel on the Effect of Social Assistance and Solidarity FoundationServices on Poverty Reduction

AssistanceNot Not

No Effective Available atVery Effective Effective Comment Ineffective At All Foundation Total

Type ofAssistance N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

Food Assistance 5 15.2 14 42.4 — — 6 18.2 6 18.2 2 6.1 33 100Accommodation

Assistance6 18.2 16 48.5 2 6.1 1 3.0 6 18.2 2 6.1 33 100

Heating Assistance forthe House

6 18.2 17 51.5 1 3.0 3 9.1 5 15.2 1 3.0 33 100

EducationalAssistance

11 33.3 18 54.5 — — 1 3.0 3 9.1 — — 33 100

Health CareAssistance

10 30.3 20 60.6 1 3.0 — — 2 6.1 — — 33 100

Assistance for theDisabled

9 27.3 19 57.6 5 15.2 — — — — — — 33 100

Special-Purpose AssistanceDisaster Support 7 21.2 16 48.5 5 15.2 2 6.1 1 3.0 2 6.1 33 100Soup Kitchens 2 6.1 9 27.3 4 12.1 3 9.1 1 3.0 14 42.4 33 100

Conditional CashTransfer

8 24.2 13 39.4 1 3.0 4 12.1 5 15.2 2 6.1 33 100

Project Support 8 24.2 19 57.6 1 3.0 2 6.1 — — 3 9.1

of the research brings to the mind the idea thatthe gender roles may be influential on employ-ment in the field of social assistance.

The socioeconomic level of the workers wasmostly evaluated at a “medium” level of income,and most workers’ perceived social class wasmiddle and upper-middle class. These findingscan be associated with the income generated byprofessionals in the field of social assistance asreported by other studies (GDSAS, 2007).

The participants were mostly university andhigh school graduates. The educational back-ground gains importance during the investiga-tion and assessment process of the beneficiaries.While university graduates were mostly socialworkers, sociologists, economists, and public re-lations experts, the high school graduates werealso in the front line while investigating and re-porting the application. As stated in the literature(Eardley et al., 1996), in a number of countries,social workers play an important role in the as-sessment and delivery of social assistance ben-efits. Although it is observed that the majorityof participants were social workers, other pro-fessionals were on the front line. At this point,the in-service training need arises. However, theparticipants reported limited in-service training

opportunities for the means-testing procedure.This situation includes some risks about the as-sessment criteria. Social assistance should bedesigned according to certain criteria that guar-antee the standards for services. Additionally,while discussing the eligibility criteria for so-cial assistance, it should be kept in mind thatclients are regarded as a vulnerable group sothat the process needs sensitivity from the begin-ning to the end. As indicated in previous stud-ies (Bugra & Keyder, 2003; GDSAS, 2004; S.Yılmaz, 2006), service users are usually facedwith a sense of shame and guilt while applyingfor and receiving benefits.

Results on the effective poverty reductionstrategies showed that most of the participantsbelieved poverty reduction can be possible by in-direct means of economic growth and promotionof employment opportunities. From this pointof view, it is possible to state that the person-nel regarded poverty reduction as a function ofthe government. However, an interesting pointis that the idea of “inclusion of more membersof a family in the work life” was considered aneffective method of poverty reduction. This canbe regarded as a livelihood strategy (Chambers,1995) of families under the circumstances of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

36 0

6 M

ay 2

014

Poverty Reduction Strategies 477

poverty and is not a method of poverty reduc-tion, but rather, a result of poverty itself. In ad-dition, in cases of deepened poverty, the first ofthese “more members” included in the work lifeare mostly children, and this is synonymous withchild labor (mostly on the streets and/or unpro-tected work places; UNICEF, 2006).

This result stems also from traditional povertyreduction strategies and the welfare regime ofTurkey, which put forward the familial strategiesin struggling against poverty. This situation wasmore prevalent especially before the economiccrisis in 2001 (Bora, 2002; Zulfikar, 2010).

Regarding the ineffective ways of poverty re-duction, measures at the individual and/or familylevels are mostly stated by the participants. Con-sidering this point of view, it will not be wrong tostate that the participants associated the povertyreduction strategies more with macro factors.Research conducted among the SASF workersin the same area revealed that workers mostly as-sociate the causes of poverty with macro expla-nations (Polat-Uluocak, Celik, & Sahin, 2010).This finding of the research is consistent withthe literature in this manner and presents a co-herent thought between the causes of and strug-gle against poverty. However, the striking pointhere is that the participants did not find increasein the direct assistance to the poor by the gov-ernment as an effective tool of poverty reduc-tion, while assistance provided by SASFs rankedin the first place among these direct assistancetools (Middle East Technical University, 2000;Ozturk, 2009; Sahin, 2007; Senses, 2002).

Today, social assistance is accepted as a tool tocombat poverty with an emphasis on reconstruc-tion of the productive function of individuals.Nevertheless, some research studies on povertyinclude opinions arguing that social assistanceleads people to procrastination and dependencyand is used by undeserving individuals (Bugra& Keyder, 2003; GDSAS, 2009; Gul & SallanGul, 2008; Van Oorschot & Halman, 2000). In areport from Canada, it is noted that “fraud” is re-garded to be an important problem, and 0.1% ofthe case load was reported as fraud (Income Se-curity Advocacy Centre and Steering Commit-tee on Social Assistance, 2004, p. 8). Althoughthe central aim of the study was not determin-ing fraud, the same problem was reported by the

workers in the field of social assistance. In ad-dition to this, they stated that social assistancecreates a consumer society rather than a produc-tive one, and this leads to its transformation intoa society depending on charity. It is quite strik-ing that personnel providing direct services tothe poor view their own services in this manner.There can be cases where such views are ap-plicable. However, research studies have estab-lished the significant effect of social assistancein helping individuals satisfy their most essen-tial needs and even survive (Bugra & Keyder,2003; GDSAS, 2009; Gul & Sallan Gul, 2008).It should also be noted that these aids are nota permanent but a temporary means (Cengelci,1993, p. 22). In Turkey, it is mostly observedthat the social assistance mechanism is tendedto be used permanently because of the lack ofeffective macro strategies of poverty reduction(Bugra & Keyder, n.d.).

Another topic stressed was the political aimthat lies under the assistance. Poor people’s lackof social and political participation leads to thesocial policies emerging “for” them. Social as-sistance is usually seen as a means of gainingpolitical power over the disadvantaged groups(Filiz, 2009; Ozturk, 2009). In the research, itwas also indicated that the workers feel politi-cal pressure while determining and giving assis-tance. The root problem for this situation maybe the uncertainty of the determination process.The legislations on social assistance in Turkeyare usually complex. In regard to the assessmentprocess and eligibility criteria, there is usually alack of coordination and standard between dif-ferent agencies. So, the belief of “fraud” arisesas an important result.

The most effective type of social assistancewas reported as being health care assistance.This was followed by food and education as-sistance and assistance for the disabled. Thisfinding should be handled carefully. Because ofthe lack of resources of beneficiaries in meet-ing very basic needs, most of the applicationswere for health, food, and educational assis-tance. Although the applications for health assis-tance decreased after the regulation of the Gen-eral Health Insurance system, which covers allchildren under the age of 18 years regardless oftheir payments (GDSAS, 2010), there is still a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

36 0

6 M

ay 2

014

478 A. I. Coban et al.

question of accessibility of health servicesamong the poor population—especially amonginformal workers.

Educational assistance was another effec-tive service. According to research conductedin Turkey (Kaya, 2008), educational assistancesupports school-aged children and keeps themaway from street life. The concrete results ofthese aids were observed in the field of socialservices, with a decreasing number of street chil-dren and increased school participation amongthe poor children.

Interest in assistance for the disabled hasgrown in recent years. This is mostly becauseof the large population affected by the problem.In Turkey, 12.29% of the population is deter-mined to be disabled among the total population,which is equal to 8.5 million people (Turkish Re-public of Turkey, 2002). The informal numbersare estimated to be even greater, at nearly 10 to12 million. The services for the disabled popula-tion, similar to the field of social assistance, havea complex structure. While there is a variety inservices given by different parties, social assis-tance and home-care benefits for the caregiversof disabled individuals are mostly recognizedand are a used service in this field. As can beseen in our research findings, disability bene-fits for caregivers are stressed to be an effectiveassistance, among others.

CONCLUSION

To determine the views of front-line work-ers in the field of social assistance in Turkey,this study was conducted among a worker groupin the capital city of Turkey under the SASFbranches as the most important structure for thestruggle against poverty in the country.

The most important result in the research isthat personnel providing direct services to thepoor mostly evaluate the assistance they provideas effective at the individual/family level but findthem extremely insufficient in terms of povertyreduction. The participants were of the opinionthat poverty reduction should be undertaken bythe government and that the money spent forassistance programs may be used even more ef-fectively if it was used to improve employment

possibilities. Although there is a question as towhether social assistance leads people to pro-crastination and dependence, such assistance isof vital importance in the alleviation of the ef-fects of poverty.

The most often-stated problems experiencedby the workers were rooted in the policy andperspective of the organization of the social as-sistance system, which aims to make distinctionsbetween the deserving and undeserving poor.The workers’ problems during the assessmentprocess stemmed from the influence of politi-cally powerful actors in the decision. However,besides the problems, the workers also found iteffective to give nonmaterial but concrete ben-efits such as health, food, and disability assis-tances.

These results should be considered with someof the limitations of the research. First of all, al-though all of the workers in the SASF offices inAnkara were included in the study except one of-fice, the total number of participants was limitedto allow further statistical analysis.

Further research can focus on different par-ties (decision makers and policymakers) in thefield of social assistance and other poverty re-duction programs, with a deeper investigationof the process of assessment, to fully determinethe position taken by the agents and the policybehind the services.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the journaleditors, Sophia Dziegielewski, PhD, LISW andBarbara Maisevich, MSW, and two anonymousreviewers for their invaluable contribution to theformer version of this study.

REFERENCES

Avram, S. (2009, March). The impact of social assistanceschemes in Europe: A cross-national analysis in 26countries. Paper presented at the European Union Statis-tics on Income and Living Conditions User Conference,Mannheim, Germany.

Avsar Kurnaz, S. (2010). An assessment of conditionalcash transfer program in struggle with poverty Keciorenexample [in Turkish] (Unpublished master’s thesis).Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

36 0

6 M

ay 2

014

Poverty Reduction Strategies 479

Bora, A. (2002). Olmayanın nesini idare edeceksin?: yok-sulluk, kadınlar ve hane [How would you manage themissing?: Poverty, women and the household]. In N.Erdogan (Ed.), Yoksulluk halleri icinde (pp. 65–89).Istanbul, Turkey: Demokrasi Kitaplıgı Yayınları.

Bugra, A., & Keyder, C. (2003). New poverty and thechanging welfare regime of Turkey [Report prepared forthe United Nations Development Programme]. Ankara,Turkey: Ajans Turk A.S.

Bugra, A., & Keyder, C. (n.d.). Social assistance in Turkey:For a policy of minimum income support conditionalon socially beneficial activity [Report prepared for theUnited Nations Development Programme]. Istanbul,Turkey: UNDP.

Cengelci, E. (1993). The role and importance of social aidsin realization of social welfare [in Turkish]. Journal ofthe School of Social Work, 11(1/2/3), 9–35.

Chambers, R. (1995). Poverty and livelihoods: Whosereality counts? Environment and Urbanization, 7(1),173–204.

Dedeoglu, S. (2000). Terms of gender roles in the familyand women’s labor in Turkey [in Turkish]. Society andScience, 86, 139–170.

Directorate General on the Status of Women. (2008). Gen-der equality [in Turkish]. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Re-public Prime Ministry Directorate General on the Statusof Women Publication.

Du, Y., & Park, A. (2006). The effects of social assistanceon poverty reduction: Evidence from household sur-veys in Urban China. Retrieved from http://www.ideaswebsite.org/ideasact/jun07/Beijing Conference 07/DuYang.pdf

Eardley, T., Bradshaw, J., Ditch, J., Gough, I., & Whiteford,P. (1996). Social assistance in OECD countries. Lon-don, England: HMSO Books.

Ersoy, M., & Sengul, T. (1999). Urban poverty and sur-vival strategies: Ankara sample [in Turkish]. Ankara,Turkey: Middle East Technical University Urban Pol-icy Planning and Local Governments Department Stu-dio Work.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfarecapitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ferrera, M. (1996). The Southern model of welfare in socialEurope. Journal of Europe Social Policy, 6(1), 17–37.

Filiz, H. H. (2009). An example within the frame of local-ization and poverty: Social solidarity foundations [inTurkish] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Mugla Univer-sity, Mugla, Turkey.

General Directorate of Social Assistance and Solidarity.(2004). Public research: Final paper [in Turkish].Retrieved from http://www.sydgm.gov.tr/upload/mce/2008-2010/arastirma raporlari/2004 SYDTF nihairapor.pdf

General Directorate of Social Assistance and Solidarity.(2007). Education booklet for workers in social assis-tance and solidarity foundation, general directorate of

social assistance and solidarity [in Turkish]. Ankara,Turkey: Author.

General Directorate of Social Assistance and Solidar-ity. (2009). 2009 annual report [in Turkish]. Ankara,Turkey: Ismet Publications.

General Directorate of Social Assistance and Solidarity.(2010). Action report [in Turkish]. Ankara, Turkey: Au-thor.

Gitmez, A., Kasnakoglu, H., Yalman, G., Pınarcıoglu,M., & Anıl, B. (2001). Family structure, quality oflife, and poverty: The changing family structure effectsof urban life and living conditions [in Turkish]. Re-search Project. Ankara, Turkey: Middle East TechnicalUniversity.

Gough, I. (1996). Social assistance in Southern Europe.South European Society and Politics, 1(1), 1–23.

Gul, H., & Sallan Gul, S. (2008). Poverty, poverty as-sistance, and employment [in Turkish]. In N. Oktik(Ed.), Studies of poverty in Turkey (pp. 361–397). Izmir,Turkey: Yakın Kitabevi Yayınları.

Holsch, K., & Kraus, M. (2004). Poverty alleviation andthe degree of centralization in European schemes ofsocial assistance. Journal of European Social Policy,14, 143–164.

Icagasıoglu, A. (2003). Effects of poverty on family systemand social work intervention on poor families [in Turk-ish]. In U. Onat (Ed.), Social work symposium 2003:Poverty and social work (pp. 56–68). Ankara, Turkey:Hacettepe University School of Social Work Publica-tions.

Ikizoglu, M. (2002). Relationship between poverty and so-cial assistance: An empirical research in Mamak district,Ankara [in Turkish]. Society and Social Work, 13(1),86–112.

Income Security Advocacy Centre and Steering Committeeon Social Assistance Report. (2004). First steps: Rec-ommendations for social assistance reform. Retrievedfrom http://www.incomesecurity.org/documents/Firststeps-final2 000.pdf

Jung, Y. (2005, June/July). Poverty alleviation and the ef-fectiveness of the social assistance scheme in Korea. Pa-per presented at the East Asian Social Policy ResearchNetwork Second Conference: Pressure, Policymakingand Policy Outcome—Understanding East Asian Wel-fare Reforms, University of Kent, Kent, United King-dom.

Karakoyun, I. (2008). Poverty alleviation programs imple-mented after 1980 in Turkey: An example of Social RiskMitigation Programme (SRAP)—Implementation of theprovince of Aydin [in Turkish] (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). University of Adnan Menderes, Aydin,Turkey.

Kaya, I. (2008). The role of education in the struggleof poverty: Case of conditional cash transfer—CCT[in Turkish] (Unpublished master’s thesis). SuleymanDemirel University, Isparta, Turkey.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

36 0

6 M

ay 2

014

480 A. I. Coban et al.

Kazgan, G. (2000). Globalization and the nation-state neweconomic order [in Turkish]. Istanbul, Turkey: IstanbulBilgi University Publications.

Middle East Technical University. (2000). Urban povertyand livelihood strategies: Example of Ankara [in Turk-ish]. Kentsel Politika Planlaması ve Yerel YontemilerAnabilim Dalı, 1999 Studyo Calısması [Department ofUrban Policy Planning and Local Governance, 1999Studio Work]. Ankara, Turkey: Author.

Nilsen, A. G. (2008). Another world is possible: Globaliza-tion and anticapitalism. Capital & Class, 2008(Spring),146–152.

Ozdek, Y. (2002). Poverty, violence, and human rights [inTurkish]. In Y. Ozdek (Ed.), Global poverty and theglobal human rights in the grip of violence (pp. 1–22).Ankara, Turkey: TODAIE Publications.

Ozturk, Y. (2009). The role of social assistance and solidar-ity foundation in the context of the social state [in Turk-ish] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Cumhuriyet Univer-sity, Sivas, Turkey.

Pogge, T. (2008). Growth and inequality. Academic Re-search Library, 55(1), 66–71.

Polat-Uluocak, G., Celik, G., & Sahin, F. (2010, Octo-ber). Determining the perceptions of Ankara social as-sistance and solidarity fund personnel regarding thecauses of poverty. Paper presented at the InternationalSymposium on Poverty Alleviation Strategies, Istanbul,Turkey.

Sahin, A. (2007). Economic and social effects of socialassistance and solidarity funds in Turkey [in Turkish](Unpublished master’s thesis). Canakkale Onsekiz MartUniversity, Canakkale, Turkey.

Sen, S. (2008). The role and importance of nongovernmen-tal organizations to struggle with poverty: A study ofhelp organizations in Izmir [in Turkish] (Unpublishedmaster’s thesis). University of Adnan Menderes, Aydin,Turkey.

Senses, F. (2002). The other side of globalization poverty(2nd ed.) [in Turkish]. Istanbul, Turkey: IletisimPublications.

Spector, P., Allen, T., Poelmans, S., & Cooper, C.(2005). Work and family: An international perspec-tive. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and AssociatesPress.

Turkish Republic of Turkey, Administration for the Dis-abled. (2002). Research on disability in Turkey [in Turk-ish]. Ankara, Turkey: Publication of Administration forthe Disabled.

UNICEF. (2006). Children first: Children who areliving and/or working in streets. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unicef.org/turkey/dn 2006 cp43.html

Van Oorschot, W., & Halman, L. (2000). Blame or fate,individual or social? An international comparison ofpopular explanations of poverty. European Societies,2(1), 1–28.

Verme, P. (2007). Social assistance and poverty reductionduring the new Communist era. Retrieved from http://dspace-unipr.cilea.it/bitstream/1889/867/1/Verme%20SAPRT%20May%2007.pdf

Verme, P. (2008). Social assistance and poverty reductionin Moldova, 2001–2004: An impact evaluation [WorldBank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4658].Retrieved from http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/06/30/00015834920080630110202/Rendered/PDF/wps4658.pdf

Yılmaz, A. (2009). The impact of social assistance andsolidarity funds on poverty reduction: The province ofHilvan social assistance and solidarity fund [in Turk-ish] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kırıkkale Univer-sity, Kırıkkale, Turkey.

Yılmaz, S. (2006). The role of social assistance andsolidarity funds in fighting against poverty [in Turk-ish] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Anadolu University,Eskisehir, Turkey.

Zulfikar, B. S. (2010). Methods for struggling with thepoverty: By the participant approach, performancerating of Social Risk Mitigation Project [in Turkish](Unpublished master’s thesis). Hacettepe University,Ankara, Turkey.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

36 0

6 M

ay 2

014