Group Work and Juvenile Offences
| Published date | 01 September 1971 |
| Date | 01 September 1971 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/026455057101700305 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
81
GROUP
WORK
AND
JUVENILE
OFFENCES
Zalman
Gordon
Haifa
University
AN
important
part
of
a
probation
officer’s
job
in
Israel
is
investigating
the
circumstances
of
the
offence,
the
background
of
the
child
and
his
family,
his
attitudes
and
motivation.
The
findings
influence
the
type
of
treatment
to
be
implemented.
Normally
such
investigations
consist
of
a
discussion
between
the
accused
youth
and
a
social
caseworker,
but
in
some
cases
group
discussions
seem
to
be
more
revealing
and
more
helpful.
It
is
the
purpose
of
this
article
to
describe
the
use
of
such
group
discussions
in
Jerusalem
and
their
possibilities
and
problems.
In
Israel,
every
juvenile
offender
registered
at
the
Police
Juvenile
Division,
is
sent
to
the
probation
service,
which
is
part
of
the
Ministry
of
Social
Welfare
and
not
connected
with
the
police
or
the
Ministry
of
Justice..
A
juvenile
under
Israeli
law
is
any
child
above
the
age
of
nine
and
under
the
age
of
sixteen
for
boys,
eighteen
for
girls.
After
an
intake
interview,
the
juvenile
is
assigned
to
a
probation
officer
to
conduct
the
investigation,
whose
aim
is
to
supply
the
Police
Juvenile
Division
and
the
Juvenile
Court
with
material
about
him
and
his
background
and
to
recommend
suitable
treatment.
In
the
past,
the
investigation
in
Jerusalem
was
done
on
an
individual
basis.
The
probation
officer
made
the
investigation,
which
included
home
visits
and
contacts
with
other
agencies.
Even
in
those
cases
where
more
than
one
juvenile
was
involved
in
the
same
offence,
the
tendency
was
to
assign
each
to
a
different
probation
officer.
It
was
felt
that
separating
the
members
would
tend
to
-lessen
the
mutual
influence
of
members
of
the
group,
which
was
seen
as
inimical.
It
is
also
possible
that
probation
officers
-
mostly
trained
as
caseworkers
-
had
feelings
of
insecurity
and
inexperience
in
working
with
a
group.
However,
there
had
been
a
growing
feeling
that
this
individual-oriented
approach
often
ignored
the
importance
of
the
peer
group
and
the
possibilities
existing
of
making
positive
use
of
this
influence
in
investigation
and
treatment.
It
was
felt
that for
some
of
the
juveniles
a
group
setting
might
be
less
threatening
than
the
traditional
individual
interview,
and
that
the
group
situation
itself
might
make
it
possible
to
see
the
juvenile
in
a
more
natural
setting.
The
group
might
also
add
dimensions
to
the
investigator’s
understanding,
by
seeing
the
client
in
interaction
with
others.
In
January,
1969,
a
social
group
worker
joined
the
staff
of
the
juvenile
probation
service
on
a
half-time
basis
and
began
working
with
two
diflerenl
types
of
groups.
One
was
made
up
of
members
who
had
together
committed
an
offence,
and
the
other
of
youngsters
accused
of
unrelated
crimes,
whose
members
were
selected
~by
the
worker.
In
addition,
one
group
of
parents
devel-
oped.
Until
the
present
time,
twenty-four
groups
have
been
utilised.
Three
were
led
jointly
by
the
male
group
worker
and
a
female
probation
officer
and
the
rest
were
led
by
the
male
group
worker
alone.
In
the
&dquo;accomplices&dquo;
type
of
group,
the
number
of
members
ranged
from
three
to
twelve.
The
offences
were
all
against
property,
ranging
from
causing
To continue reading
Request your trial