Social work in Israel: professional ... - Wiley Online Library

I N T E R NAT I O NA L J O U R NA L O F SOCIAL WELFARE

Int J Soc Welfare 2004: 13: 287– 296

ISSN 1369-6866

Social work in Israel: professional characteristics in an international comparative perspective Weiss I, Spiro S, Sherer M, Korin-Langer N. Social work in Israel: professional characteristics in an international comparative perspective Int J Soc Welfare 2004: 13: 287–296 © Blackwell Publishing, 2004. This article employs a comparative framework in the analysis of the professional characteristics of social work in Israel. Using the attributes and the power approaches to professions, Israeli social work is analysed according to eight variables: a protected ‘trademark’, monopoly over social care and delivery of services within state welfare systems, occupational autonomy, length of training and control over training, internal differentiation by levels of expertise and competence, professional organisation, a sanction-backed code of ethics, and material and symbolic rewards. The analysis reveals that Israeli social work has undergone an extensive professionalisation process and that it has characteristics that are not common in other countries. Initial explanations for this process are offered and discussed.

Introduction Social work is currently practised in at least 114 countries throughout the world (IASSW, 2002). An analysis of the profession in various countries indicates that, alongside the existing commonalities, social work has specific characteristics in each of the countries in which it is practised (LM Healy, 2001; Hokenstad, Khinduka & Midgley, 1992; Mayadas, Watts & Elliott, 1997; Midgley, 2001; Payne & Shardlow, 2002). In some countries, social work has failed to achieve professional formation or has undergone a process of de-professionalisation (Aldridge, 1996; Giarchi & Lankshear, 1998). By contrast, in other national contexts, social work has achieved considerable professional advances (Leighninger & Midgley, 1997). Based on these observations, researchers have concluded that social work is a ‘socially constructed’ or ‘contextual’ profession. Its form, characteristics and modes of operation are very much dependent on the political, economic, social and cultural context within which it emerged and exists (Elliott, 1997; Parsloe, 1997). This article employs a comparative conceptual framework in the analysis of the professional characteristics of social work in one country, Israel. Compared with many other countries, Israeli social work appears to have achieved a level of professionalism that is closer to that of the more established professions. Thus, an analysis of this case may be beneficial to an understanding of the rich diversity of professional

Idit Weiss, Shimon Spiro, Moshe Sherer, Nora Korin-Langer Bob Shapell School of Social Work, Tel-Aviv University, Israel

Key words: social work, profession, Israel, comparative perspective Idit Weiss, Bob Shapell School of Social Work, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, 69978, POB 39040, Israel E-mail: [email protected] Accepted for publication August 11, 2003

processes that have characterised social work in different countries over the last century. It also offers some initial directions for analysis of the factors that influence the process of professional formation of social work globally. The first section in this four-part article contains a discussion of the nature of professions and of approaches to their study and analysis. This provides the theoretical framework for the remainder of the article. A brief description of social work in Israel, which serves to contextualise the discussion, follows. The next part consists of a description of the professional characteristics of social work in Israel in a comparative international perspective. Variables identified by various sociological approaches as useful in the study of professions are employed in this section. The fourth and final section of the article formulates a number of arguments with regard to the mechanisms that shaped the development of the social work profession in Israel. The analysis is based on five primary types of sources: (1) a review of publications relating to the professional aspects of social work in Israel and elsewhere; (2) a content analysis of laws, regulations and other official publications; (3) a secondary analysis of data from various sources, among them the Israeli Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs; (4) personal communications with social work researchers in different countries; (5) personal experience and observations by the authors within local frameworks of professional practice and education.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 2004. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

287

Weiss et al.

A theoretical framework for describing and analysing professions A clear and consistent definition for the term profession is still lacking in the sociological literature (Aldridge, 1996; Hopps & Collins, 1995; Popple, 1985). Over the years numerous attempts have been made to develop a theoretical framework that can be employed to describe professions, to distinguish between them and other occupations, and to identify the factors that determine their development. Competing approaches to the definition of a profession have emerged in the literature. Two prominent perspectives are the ‘attributes (or trait) approach’ and the ‘power (or control) approach’ (Hall, 1994). These approaches differ not only in their definition of profession but also in their methods of analysis, their explanation of the variance in hierarchies of professions, and their response to the question why certain occupations have professionalised while others have not.

The attributes approach This approach, emerging from within the structuralfunctional perspective, underscores the function of professions in a modern social structure. Its explanation of the development of professions and their specific characteristics emerged from functionalist assumptions regarding the social contribution of professions and the role of their unique characteristics as a means of ensuring their continued existence or of enabling them to attain their goals (Wenocur & Reisch, 1983). The attributes approach operationalises the term ‘professions’ by identifying critical attributes or core traits. It views ‘profession’ as a descriptive term comprising a list of identifying characteristics that unequivocally differentiate between professions and other occupations (Hall, 1994; Hugman, 1996; Popple, 1985). Though not its first proponent, Ernest Greenwood is regarded as the most prominent representative of this approach. His list of five key professional attributes (Greenwood, 1957) is pivotal to the attributes approach (Abbott, 1995; Hall, 1994). It consists of the following: (1) a systematic body of theory; (2) professional authority; (3) sanction of the community; (4) regulative code of ethics; and (5) a professional culture. Over the years, other scholars have added traits or changed Greenwood’s original list. These include a wide range of essential attributes, among them possession of a distinguishing set of esoteric skills, the existence of a long period of training and socialisation within the higher education system, the profession’s control over entrance into the training process, the establishment of a professional association with the authority to judge competence, a commitment to service, the undertaking of public service, autonomy of action,

288

prestige and remuneration, and fiduciary relations with clients (Abbott, 1995; Hugman, 1996; Wenocur & Reisch, 1983). Nevertheless, there is no agreement over a binding list of traits that distinguish between professions and other occupations (Millerson, 1973; Popple, 1985). The attributes approach served as a popular theoretical framework for the discussion of the professional status of social work for a long period of time. In his classic analysis of social work, which preceded the formal emergence of the attributes approach, Flexner rejected the claim that social work was a profession, arguing that it lacked crucial traits of a profession (Flexner, 1915; see also Flexner, 2001). Greenwood (1957) took a contradictory position, claiming that social work did indeed meet the criteria of professionalism. Studies undertaken at the end of the 1960s described social work as a semi-profession: either because it lacked some of the traits essential to a full-fledged profession, such as professional autonomy, or because these traits had not reached their full potential (Etzioni, 1969; Toren, 1972). The attributes approach has remained a basis for the analysis of social work as a profession (Hugman, 1991; Shetty, 1996). Introductory textbooks to social work continue to employ this approach (LC Johnson & Yanca, 2001; Skidmore, Thackeray & Farley, 1991; Specht, 1988) and a recent issue of the journal Research on Social Work Practice (11(2), 2001) was devoted to an examination of the professional state of social work, based on the criteria or traits defined early in the twentieth century by Flexner.

The power approach The power approach emerged within the sociological discussion of the nature of professions in the 1970s (Cullen, 1978; Friedson, 1970a, 1970b, 1972; T Johnson, 1972), and still dominates research in this field (Hall, 1994). Ignoring the question as to which traits characterise a profession, it focuses upon the issue of how occupations manage to dominate areas of practice when confronted with threats by competing professional groups, government, clients and the bureaucracies that employ them (Popple, 1985). This approach posits that the basis for understanding the professional status of professions and the position of occupational groups in the professional hierarchy is the power wielded by the group. Professions struggle for an exclusive right to perform a certain type of work and are in constant conflict with other groups over issues of boundaries, clients, resources and licensing (Abbott, 1995; Hall, 1994). Central to this analysis are questions regarding the actions undertaken by professions to gain and to maintain their domain. Friedson (1970b) asserts that the term ‘profession’ is a description of certain patterns of occupational control. Professions are occupations © Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 2004

Social work in Israel

that have a dominant position of power regarding division of labour and thus have control over the contents of their work. The key to understanding professional status is power, not a list of traits. Similarly, Wenocur and Reisch (1983: 698) define profession as a quasi-corporate entity or enterprise whose members have obtained a substantial degree of control over the production, distribution, and consumption of a needed commodity. T. Johnson (1972) claims that a professional process is one which achieves – through a variety of circumstances and the links between them – the ability to control key components of work, to determine techniques and develop them, to carry out training and selection procedures, to grant or revoke licences and to determine the nature of a service and who is entitled to receive it. The power approach has been central to the study of social work in recent decades (Abbott, 1995; Hopps & Collins, 1995). In particular, the degree to which social work has achieved a monopoly over the delivery of services was a crucial variable in studies addressing the professionalisation of social work (Giarchi & Lankshear, 1998; LC Johnson & Yanca, 2001; Popple, 1995). These studies indicated that considerable differences exist between the degrees of monopoly enjoyed by social work in various countries. This article seeks to discuss the professional status of social work in Israel by adopting a combination of the attributes approach and the power approach. The attributes approach will provide the basic framework for the analysis which will examine Israeli social work using variables identified in the literature as traits or attributes of established professions. The power approach enriches this analysis both through the variables that it contributes, in particular the degree of autonomy and monopoly over service delivery, and its ability to provide a more satisfactory explanation for the professional development of social work. Specifically, on the basis of these approaches eight variables will be discussed with regard to social work in Israel: (1) a protected ‘trademark’; (2) monopoly over social care and delivery of services within state welfare systems; (3) occupational autonomy; (4) control over professional education; (5) internal differentiation by levels of expertise and competence; (6) professional organisation; (7) a sanction-backed code of ethics; and (8) material and symbolic rewards.

These consisted of a legislative body, the Assembly of Deputies, and an executive body, the National Committee. One of the first decisions of the National Committee was to set up a Social Work Department (Deutsch, 1970; Spiro, Sherer, Korin-Langer & Weiss, 1997). The new department established local public welfare offices in Jewish towns and cities, based upon principles dominant in American social work. Accordingly, welfare services were to be provided by trained professionals, the welfare of the needy was regarded as a responsibility of the local authorities and the family was regarded as a target unit of intervention (Lowenberg, 1993). In the decades that followed, and particularly after the establishment of the state in 1948, social work in Israel has undergone rapid growth and change. There are currently over 10,000 social workers in Israel, a proportion of one per 652 inhabitants of the country. This proportion of social workers per inhabitants is similar to that in the United States, and high in comparison with most other countries, for example Canada and Australia (Hutchinson, Lund & Oltedal, 2001a). Social workers are employed in various settings in central and local government, as well as in the non-profit and for-profit sectors. The proportion of social workers employed outside the state sector has increased over the years. Social workers in Israel engage in a variety of practice areas such as: family services, children and youth, services to the aged, health, mental health, corrections, alcohol and substance abuse, development disabilities, community organisation and development, the military and occupational social work. Within the various fields and organisations, social workers perform individual counselling, group work, family counselling, case management, community organisation and development, policy practice and advocacy (Spiro et al., 1997). The vast majority of Israeli social workers provide direct services to individuals. Policy practice and community organisation and development remain relatively rare foci of practice (Sharlin, 1988; Weiss, 2001). As is the case in most other countries, a majority of social workers in Israel are women.

Professional traits of social work in Israel: a description across eight dimensions Protected trademark

The formal beginning of the social work profession in Israel can be traced back to 1931, when the Jewish community in Palestine, under the rule of the British mandate, established its own political organisations.

Both the attributes and the power approaches perceive a profession as an occupational group that defines its domain, determines entitlement to its name, limits practice to members of the group and ultimately receives public recognition of its domain (Greenwood, 1957). Four decades ago, many individuals lacking social work qualifications were employed as social workers, mostly in municipal welfare bureaux, and no legal

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 2004

289

Social work in Israel: a brief history and major characteristics

Weiss et al.

arrangement existed for licensing social workers. Gradually, with the expansion of social work education and the growing power of the social workers’ association, almost all positions defined as ‘social work’ were taken over by qualified social workers. With the enactment of the Social Workers Law in 1996, the exclusive use of the title by professional social workers became legally recognised and protected. The law requires that the Minister of Social Affairs maintain a register of social workers, and limit registration to individuals holding a Bachelor of Arts degree in social work, granted by an institute of higher education. As in the case of longerestablished professions, such as law and medicine, the new law prohibits unlicensed individuals to be called ‘social workers’ and to practice social work (Shnit, 1998). Israel is similar to certain provinces in Canada (Carey-Bélanger, 2001), Denmark (LM Healy, 2001), Italy (Cavallone & Ferrario, 1998), France (Shardlow, 2001) and, recently, Britain, in that use of the title ‘social work’ and employment as a social worker is regulated and conditional upon completion of a certification procedure. By contrast, in Australia (Ife, 1998), Sweden (Hort & McMurphy, 1997) and a number of other countries (Hokenstad, Khinduka & Midgley, 1992) social work is a non-licensed profession, lacking formal mechanisms to prevent non-qualified persons holding social work positions. While licensing legislation of social workers exists in the United States, this varies between states (Compton & Galaway, 1999), and a requirement that individuals wishing to call themselves ‘social workers’ hold BSW or MSW degrees is not universal (Brown, 2001). Indeed, in the United States, only about half of all posts formally defined as ‘social work’ are filled by qualified social workers (Ginsberg, 1992; LC Johnson & Yanca, 2001).

Monopoly over social care and delivery of services within state welfare systems A protected ‘trademark’ in itself does not ensure a profession’s monopoly over significant domains of professional practice. An analysis of this component in the Israeli context reveals that in the social welfare sector there are domains within which employment is restricted to registered social workers, thereby preventing other social service disciplines from competing over positions. There are two legal mechanisms of control through which social work enjoys exclusivity in various domains. In some fields, social work is accorded a monopoly on the basis of specific laws that assign tasks, duties and responsibilities to social workers. For example, laws for the protection of children, juveniles and helpless individuals require social workers to investigate, intervene and, when necessary, initiate court proceedings. The adoption law decrees that only qualified social workers

290

can do the required investigations and counselling. Similarly, the law relating to nursing care requires social workers to chair the interdisciplinary committees that establish the degree of dependence of claimants and develop home care plans (Shnit, 1988). In others fields, where no specific laws require intervention by social workers, the monopoly of the profession is assured by the 1996 Social Workers Law, which authorises the Minister of Social Affairs to issue regulations that identify positions which may be filled only by qualified social workers. Indeed, a large number of positions in local welfare bureaux, hospitals, adult and juvenile probation and a number of other services have been decreed to be the exclusive domain of registered social workers. Though a gradual process of phasing out of non-social workers has taken place in all of these agencies over the last four decades, the 1996 Social Workers Law provided this process with formal recognition and legal backing. This process did not go unchallenged. Requests for a monopoly over certain professional roles within the welfare system were denied. These include work with youth and occupational welfare roles. During this period, there were also attempts on the part of various professional groups to penetrate into those fields in which social work enjoyed a monopoly. For example, clinical criminologists sought to challenge the social work monopoly over treatment of substance abusers and indeed, in one case, an appeal to the Labor Court was submitted by a criminologist denied a position as head of the addiction treatment department in the local welfare office in Tel Aviv. However, these attempts did not lead to an undermining of the social work monopoly in this field. While in Israel social work’s monopoly appears to be growing, in Australia, the United States and in a number of European countries, among them Norway, the profession’s monopoly in many areas of health and social care is not universally recognised and competition with members of other professions is common (Giarchi & Lankshear, 1998; K Healy, 2001; Hopps & Collins, 1995; Hutchinson, Lund & Oltedal, 2001b; LC Johnson & Yanca, 2001; Popple, 1995). Probation services can serve as an example of this. In both the United States and England social work is being edged out of these services, having lost its previous monopoly (Abbott, 1995; Payne & Shardlow, 2002).

Occupational autonomy Achievement of occupational autonomy and its maintenance is perceived as a starting point for higher status in the occupational hierarchy (Reisch & Wenocur, 1986). A common claim in the literature is that social work is practised mainly within formal organisations or agencies, many of which are parts of local or central © Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 2004


government. In these settings the autonomy of an occupation is considered to be limited, with bureaucratic or political authorities determining many components of practice (Abbott, 1995; Hugman, 1996; Hopps & Collins, 1995; Reisch & Wenocur, 1986). However, an argument can be made that even within this seemingly nonautonomous context degrees of professional autonomy can, and often do, exist. This can be reflected in the professional identity of the individuals holding managerial and supervisory positions in the organisations within which social work is practised. It can be argued that social work enjoys a greater degree of professional autonomy in organisations in which members of the profession are not only subordinates but play major roles in the decision-making and policy formulation processes. A study of the professional profile of the heads of local social services departments in Israel reveals that today the vast majority of managers are social workers (Spiro et al., 1997). This was not the case in the past. Although the 1958 Welfare Services Law decreed that qualified social workers be appointed head of a welfare office, the law granted the Minister of Social Affairs a degree of discretion resulting in the appointment of non-social workers to most senior and middle-level positions. This has changed to the extent that nowadays only 18 of the 280 heads of local social services departments are not qualified social workers (The Research Department, Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, January 2001, personal communication). In fields in which social work is a secondary profession, in the past social workers were under the control of senior personnel from other professions. Thus in hospitals, social workers were attached to wards and were subordinated to senior physicians or to head nurses. The establishment of social service departments within health services provided these social workers with professional backing, and a measure of professional autonomy. These developments are not universal. In the United States social workers do not head the public agencies that employ the largest numbers of social workers (Wong, 2001). Similarly, in Australia more and more managers of social services where social work is practised have no background in social work (Ife, 1998).

Control over social work education A widely acknowledged attribute of a profession is lengthy occupational training in institutions of higher learning. However, studies associated with the power approach emphasise not the mere existence of this type of training, but the issue of control over it (Friedson, 1972). Social work education in Israel has undergone a long process of upgrading. The first course for welfare workers was established in 1934, and gradually developed © Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 2004

into a two-year programme (Deutsch, 1970). In 1958 the first university school of social work was established, offering a three-year programme towards a Bachelor’s degree. Five more university-based schools followed, and in the 1970s, advanced degrees were offered for the first time. The training required by law for the practice of social work in Israel is an undergraduate programme (a Bachelor of Arts degree), which is offered by five universities and a number of colleges. Jointly these institutions now produce 600 graduates annually. Since 1990, 40 per cent of these graduates have continued to study for a Masters degree. Third degree (PhD) programmes are also growing steadily, and some 100 candidates are currently enrolled in them. Long periods of professional education (of at least two years) are the norm in many countries today. The training usually takes place in institutions of higher education, though not necessarily in universities. Less common is the option of studying for advanced degrees in social work. The combination of a lengthy universitybased training process and the widespread option of advanced degrees in social work, which characterises the Israeli case, exists in number of countries throughout the world, among them Australia, Canada and the United States. With regard to control over the content of social work education, the Israeli pattern differs from that common in other countries. In Britain (Aldridge, 1996; Payne, 1997), Norway and Russia (Hutchinson, Lund & Oltedal, 2001a) there are state-dominated bodies that set social work training curricula. In other cases, the content of the training process is determined by professional bodies, such as the US Council on Social Work Education, the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work and the Australian Association of Social Workers (K Healy, 2001). As is the case in Germany (Kramer, 1998), in Israel there is no central mechanism of control over institutions of social work education. Studies show that the various schools have indeed adopted different training programmes (Gal & Weiss, 2000; Sherer & Peleg-Oren, 2001). The faculties of the schools of social work enjoy a large degree of autonomy with regard to criteria for admissions and to the contents of the training programme. They are subject only to academic standards and control by their universities, and by the council of higher education. These rarely interfere in issues of content and methods of instruction, but do determine standards for admissions, qualifications of academic staff, number of credits required for graduation, etc.

Differentiation by levels of expertise This attribute, although it does not appear in any of the lists encountered in a review of the literature, is an

291

Weiss et al.

important aspect of established professions such as medicine and law. These professions have developed mechanisms to assure differential rewards based on specialisations and levels of competence. Individual practitioners can be formally recognised as experts on the basis of widely accepted criteria such as experience, reputation, advanced education and formal examinations. In 1989 the Social Work Council, a body comprised of representatives of the social workers association, the schools of social work, social service agencies and client groups, was established. This body acquired legal status with the enactment of the 1996 Social Workers Law. Following a lengthy process of study and consultation, the council gave formal recognition to three levels of professional competence (regular, advanced and senior), and to a number of areas of expertise, such as health, aging, rehabilitation of the disabled and community organisation. Social workers can apply for formal recognition as senior practitioners or/and as experts if they meet a number of stringent criteria. These include an advanced academic degree in social work, an accumulation of graduate-level courses relevant to an area of expertise, a period of supervised experience, evidence of competence and of special contributions to practice. Efforts on the part of the Israeli Association of Social Workers (ISASW) and the Social Worker’s Council to grant a statutory standing for levels of competence and areas of expertise in the framework of the 1996 law were unsuccessful. Levels of competence and areas of expertise have not become part of the 1996 law or of the regulations based on it, nor do they serve as a basis for differential material rewards. The only rewards so far are certification, enhanced prestige and an improved position in the labour market. Not surprisingly, relatively few social workers actually seek recognition of expertise or levels of competence. Thus, only 167 social workers have been recognised as experts in various fields during the seven years since passage of the law (Shmuel Goldstein, personal communication, 10th June 2003). We are not aware of similar developments in other countries, except for the accreditation of social workers with different levels of expertise in the USA. Here too the profession recognises advanced levels of competence beyond basic professional training and limits certain professional activities to those who have achieved set levels of expertise (Hopps & Collins, 1995).

By contrast, a national association of social workers was established in Britain in the 1970s, nearly a century after the emergence of social work in that country (Payne, 2002). In some countries, such as Australia (K Healy, 2001), Britain (Payne, 2002), Canada (Carey-Bélanger, 2001) and the USA (Leighninger & Midgley, 1997), the representative body of social workers is purely a professional association and does not fulfil a trade union function. In Israel the ISASW serves as a professional association, a trade union and a social welfare lobby. In addition to its professional role, the Israeli association represents its members in employment issues, such as pay and work conditions. Moreover, unlike the situation in Germany (Otte, 1997), Sweden (Hort & McMurphy, 1997) and Japan (Kitajima & Fujibayashi, 2002), in Israel the occupational diversity that exists within the profession has not led to the formation of different, specialised social work organisations or trade unions. Though membership of the association is not a condition for engaging in social work, and social workers employed by the military, the police and the prison system are legally prohibited from joining a union, about 75 per cent of all active and retired social workers are members of the ISASW. This is a high level of membership density when compared with the United States (Hopps & Collins, 1995), Germany (Otte, 1997) or Britain (Payne, 2002; Shardlow, 2001). During critical periods in the evolution of Israeli social work the association sought to replace non-professional workers in the social services with trained social workers and to create a monopoly in these fields. While it was willing to make temporary compromises regarding the duration of training, it refused to concede ground with regard to the principle that professional training be required as a condition to practice social work. Over the years, the association has also played a key role in the struggle for monopoly of social workers over various areas of practice and for the upgrading of social work education. It was the association that led the struggle for the enactment of the Social Workers Law and the establishment of the Social Work Council. As part of its activities, the association ratified a code of ethics and set up mechanisms for dealing with complaints by the public and by social workers. At the same time, the ISASW engaged in a militant struggle for the improvement of the salary levels of social workers and for an expanded welfare state.

Professional organisation The capacity of an occupational group to establish an organisation is seen by the attributes approach as a fundamental trait of a profession (Greenwood, 1957). Indeed, social workers in most countries are organised in some manner. The ISASW was established in 1937 at a very early stage in the development of the profession.

292

A sanction-backed code of ethics The attributes approach regards a code of ethics as an essential feature of a profession (Greenwood, 1957). However, it is not only the existence of an ethical code but also its degree of enforceability that distinguishes between professions and other occupations. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 2004


The Israeli Association of Social Workers adopted a code of ethics for the first time in 1978. While this code was backed by organisational sanctions, it lacked a statutory foundation. The 1996 Social Workers Law brought about a major change in the status of the code of ethics in that it created, for the first time, a legal mechanism for enforcing ethical rules. The law authorised the Minister of Labor and Social Affairs to promulgate ethical principles and to institute a mechanism for their enforcement. The law determined that breach of these ethical regulations would be punishable. Penalties can take the form of a warning, reprimand, fine, suspension of registration in the Social Workers’ Registry and even revoking a licence to practice social work. While the existence of codes of ethics is common to social work in many countries (Banks, 2001), though not yet universal (Gunavathy, 2002), the statutory status of the Israeli code of ethics is relatively rare. Indeed, in many countries the codes are non-mandatory and there is no mechanism to enforce compliance. Britain (Shardlow, 2001) and Germany (Giarchi & Lankshear, 1998) are two countries in which the codes of ethics are neither binding nor is there any official body apart from employers capable of enforcing desirable practice.

Discussion

The attributes discussed above, most of all extended education and monopoly over an area of practice, may lead to rewards in the form of enhanced public esteem and level of income. However, in the literature we find accounts of the relatively low wages earned by social work practitioners (Hokensta, Khinduka & Midgley, 1992), a phenomenon that is perceived as indicative of the low level of prestige of the profession. An examination of the remuneration of social workers in Israel indicates that the levels of salaries, initially quite low, have risen to a certain extent over the years, and are now higher than those of public-sector teachers and psychologists, and similar to those of nurses. As for occupational prestige, social work was ranked in an intermediate position in a prestige scale published in Israel in the 1980s (Kraus & Hartman, 1994). Though the profession was ranked above teachers and nurses, it was regarded as less prestigious than a judge, a physician or a psychologist. While no equivalent studies have been undertaken since, it would appear that there has been a rise in the prestige of social work in the last decade. Indicative of this is a secular increase in the number of social work students in the last decades. From a low of 796 first-degree students in the early 1970s, the number reached 2,397 in the mid 1990s and grew to 2,513 by the end of the decade (Central Bureau of Statistics, various years).

This article described the social work profession in Israel in a comparative international perspective. Since its beginnings in the 1930s, Israeli social work has undergone a constant process of professionalisation. The occupation has received public recognition as a unique profession and ‘social work’ has become a protected trademark. The exclusive domains of social work within the Israeli welfare state have expanded and the level of professional autonomy has increased, with most social workers employed in social services headed by social workers. The profession has undergone a process of academisation, reflected in the transition of training to universities and the introduction of advanced degrees. Levels of professional competence and expertise are being formalised, although they do not yet enjoy statutory recognition and do not result in differential material rewards. The great majority of Israeli social workers are members of an active and strong association. The 1996 Social Workers Law has formalised most of these achievements, and has provided the professional code of ethics with a mechanism of enforcement. The profession’s prestige ranking remains moderate, although it is higher than that of other helping professions. These developments are not universal. In quite a few countries the term ‘social work’ is not a protected title, the occupation has no monopoly over fields of activity and practice, and social work practice may be subordinate to other professions or to bureaucratic controls. In a number of countries, training for social work is not undertaken within universities, and opportunities for advanced degrees are limited. Others have no enforceable code of ethics, and social workers are not organised in a single association that can effectively represent their interests and concerns. The extensive professionalisation of social work in Israel may be a consequence of a number of interconnected factors. External influences were particularly potent at critical junctures (Collier & Collier, 1991; Rokkan, 1970) in the development of the profession. During the formative years, the contours of the profession and of the local welfare system were shaped by models imported from countries that had achieved a relatively advanced level of professionalisation at the time. When it first emerged in 1931, social work was organised according to principles and regulations then dominant in the United States. In the following years, the influx of Jewish social work professionals fleeing the Nazi regime led to the introduction of German professional and academic standards to Israeli social work (Konrad, 1993). In the 1950s and 1960s, when social work expanded into new fields and social work became accepted as an academic discipline, much of the financial support for these developments and its professional leadership came from North American sources (Neipres, 1992; Spiro, 2001).


293

Material and symbolic rewards

Weiss et al.

An additional explanation draws on the power approach. The relatively rapid professionalisation of social work in Israel can be linked to the impact of the profession’s representative association (ISASW) and its pivotal role in furthering the professional status of social work over time. An important source of power and influence was the association’s affiliation with the Histadrut, Israel’s powerful trade union federation. During the pre-state period and the first decades after statehood, the Histadrut enjoyed a great degree of influence over the economy and the labour market due to its affiliation with the dominant Mapai political party, its status as the sole trade union federation and its large membership (Glatt, 1976; Preuss, 1965). The ISASW could thus utilise this as a source of power in its encounters with the state and rival professions. Organisational unity is often perceived as a contributory factor to the professionalisation of occupations (Hall, 1994; Styles, 1982). Unlike other countries (such as Britain), there has never been an organisational split within Israeli social work, and the association’s membership has always comprised a majority among practitioners. This can be regarded as another source of power. From its inception, the ISASW has served both as a professional organisation and trade union, thus enabling it to utilise its organizational assets as a trade union as a means of furthering professional goals. The Israeli association’s organisational standing enabled it to engage in an on-going and ultimately successful struggle to ensure the profession’s monopoly and to protect its trademark. A high point of this struggle was the adoption of the 1996 Social Work Law despite opposition to its passage by officials within the Justice Ministry and the Treasury, who were concerned with possible adverse effects on the freedom of occupation and expected costs resulting from rigidities in the labour market. Lastly, Israeli social work and the social services have always been perceived as a crucial means of furthering the goals of the welfare state. Unlike countries such as Australia and the United States (McDonald, Harris & Wintersteen, 2003), ever since its establishment, the Israeli state has employed social workers as a means of operationalising the welfare state and as a primary tool for furthering collective goals. The state offered social work legitimacy and provided it with the statutory framework and sources of employment that it sought. This remains the case today, even though contemporary changes in the welfare state, such as privatisation and retrenchment, may eventually undermine the profession’s standing. Moreover, social workers in Israel were never targets of the type of intense and enduring criticism that has characterised the profession in other countries, such as Britain (Jones, 1992; Reid & Misener, 2001). Despite a recent investigation by a state commission into the work of welfare officers in the field of child protection,

Abbott A (1995). Boundaries of social work or social work of boundaries? Social Service Review 69: 545– 562. Aldridge M (1996). Dragged to market: Being a profession in the postmodern world. British Journal of Social Work 26: 177–194. Bamford T (1990). The future of social work. Basingstoke, Macmillan. Banks S (2001). Ethics and values in social work (2nd edn). Houndmills, Macmillan. Brown P (2001). Social work in USA. In: Hutchinson GS, Lund L, Lyngstad R, Oltedal S, eds. Social work in five countries: Professional, educational and social policy context for social work in Australia, Canada, Norway, Russia and USA, pp. 211– 261. HBO-report 25/2001. Carey-Bélanger E (2001). Social work in Canada. In: Hutchinson GS, Lund L, Lyngstad R, Oltedal S, eds. Social work in five countries: Professional, educational and social policy context for social work in Australia, Canada, Norway, Russia and USA, pp. 47– 113. HBO-report 25/2001.

294


criticism of the profession in Israel by the government, the press or consumer groups has generally been limited, thereby diminishing a major threat to professional power (Hull, 1994). Similarly, there has been no substantial body of thought within Israeli social work that has argued against a professional model of social work. In other countries, this type of resistance has been put forward as an explanation for slow advances toward the professionalisation of social work (Bamford, 1990). The various forces that shaped the profession were mutually reinforcing. The prestige acquired through academic affiliation helped ensure a monopoly over areas of practice, which in turn strengthened the professional organisation, which could use its power to protect professional domains and the trademark, and to promote legislation that formalised the status of the profession and provided legal backing to its code of ethics. This, in turn, enhanced the prestige of the profession and facilitated internal differentiation and further academisation. The observations recorded above can generate hypotheses for comparative research on the profession in different countries. Researchers may want to investigate the impact of external influences at critical junctures in the development of the profession in a given country. Another possible direction for research would be the impact of power relations upon the process of professionalisation of social work in different contexts. These would include the relationship between the levels of unity, density, integration and organisational affiliation, and the professional development of social work. A final avenue for future investigation could focus upon the extent to which the development of the professions is influenced by the degree of external criticism and internal opposition to the process of professionalisation. Comparative studies of these and similar issues may lead to a better understanding of the factors affecting the development of social work in different countries, and the challenges facing it as a profession.

References

Social work in Israel Cavallone AN, Ferrario F (1998). Social work in Italy. In: Shardlow S, Payne M, eds. Contemporary issues in social work, pp. 57–75. Aldershot, UK, Arena. Central Bureau of Statistics (various years). Students in universities and other institutions of higher learning. Jerusalem, Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Collier RB, Collier D (1991). Shaping the political arena. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. Compton BR, Galaway B (1999). Social work processes (6th edn). California, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Cullen JB (1978). The structure of professionalism: A quantitative examination. New York, Petrocelli. Deutsch A (1970). The development of social work as a profession in the Jewish community in the Land of Israel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Jerusalem, The Hebrew University (in Hebrew). Elliott D (1997). Conclusion. In: Mayadas NS, Watts TD, Elliott D, eds. International handbook on social work theory and practice, pp. 441– 449. Westport, Greenwood. Etzioni A (1969). The semi-professions and their organization. New York, NY, Free Press. Flexner A (1915). Is social work a profession? In: national conference of charities and corrections, Proceedings of the national conference of charities and corrections at the fortysecond annual session, May, Baltimore, Maryland. Flexner A (2001). Is social work a profession? Research on Social Work Practice 11: 152 –165. Friedson E (1970a). Profession of medicine: A study of the sociology of applied knowledge. New York, Dodd Mead. Friedson E (1970b). Professional dominance: The social structure of medical care. New York, Atherton Press. Freidson E (1972). The profession of medicine. New York, Dodd Mead. Gal J, Weiss I (2000). Policy-practice in social work and social work education in Israel. Social Work Education 19: 485– 499. Giarchi GG, Lankshear G (1998). The eclipse of social work in Europe. Social Work in Europe 5(3): 25– 36. Ginsberg L (1992). Social work almanac. Washington DC, NASW Press. Glatt J (1976). The historical development of Histadrut. Ann Arbor, MI, Xerox University Microfilms. Greenwood E (1957). Attributes of a profession. Social Work 2: 5– 45. Gunavathy JS (2002). Social work code of ethics – Now and henceforth. Paper presented at the conference of the International Association of Schools of Social Work, July. Montpellier, France. Hall R (1994). Sociology of work. California, Pine Forge Press. Healy K (2001). Social work in Australia. In: Hutchinson GS, Lund L, Lyngstad R, Oltedal S, eds. Social work in five countries: Professional, educational and social policy context for social work in Australia, Canada, Norway, Russia and USA, pp. 15– 46. HBO-report 25/2001. Healy LM (2001). International social work: Professional action in an interdependent world. New York, Oxford University Press. Hokenstad MC, Khinduka SK, Midgley J, eds. (1992). Profiles in international social work. Washington DC, NASW Press. Hopps JG, Collins PM (1995). Social work profession overview. In: Edwards RL, ed. Encyclopedia of social work, 19th edn, pp. 2266– 2281. Washington, DC, NASW. Hort SEO, McMurphy, SC (1997). Sweden. In: Mayadas NS, Watts TD, Elliott D, eds. International handbook on social work theory and practice, pp. 144 –160. Westport, CN, Greenwood. Hugman R (1991). Power in caring professions. Basingstoke, Macmillan. Hugman R (1996). Professionalization in social work: the challenge of diversity. International Social Work 39: 131–147.

Hutchinson GS, Lund L, Oltedal S (2001a). Summar y. In: Hutchinson GS, Lund L, Lyngstad R, Oltedal S, eds. Social work in five countries: Professional, educational and social policy context for social work in Australia, Canada, Norway, Russia and USA, pp. 263 –295. HBO-report 25/2001. Hutchinson GS, Lund L, Oltedal, S (2001b). Social work in Norway. In: Hutchinson GS, Lund L, Lyngstad R, Oltedal S, eds. Social work in five countries: Professional, educational and social policy context for social work in Australia, Canada, Norway, Russia and USA, pp. 115 –157. HBO-report 25/2001. IASSW (2002). Directory. Southampton, UK, IASSW. Ife J (1998). Australia. In: Mayadas NS, Watts TD, Elliott D, eds. International handbook on social work theory and practice, pp. 383– 407. Westport, CN, Greenwood. Johnson LC, Yanca SJ (2001). Social work practice: A generalist approach, 7th edn. Boston, MA, Allyn & Bacon. Johnson T (1972). Professions and power. London, UK, Macmillan. Jones C (1992). Social work in Great Britain: Surviving the challenge of conservative ideology. In: Hokenstad MC, Khinduka SK, Midgley J, eds. Profiles in international social work, pp. 43– 57. Washington DC, NASW Press. Kitajima E, Fujibayashi K (2002). The common base of social work education in Japan and North America: A comparative study. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Association of Schools of Social Work, July, Montpellier, France. Konrad FM (1993). Wurzeln Jüdischer Sozialarbeit in Palästina. Weinheim: Juventa Verlag. Kramer D (1998) Social work in Germany. In: Shardlow S, Payne M, eds. Contemporary issues in social work, Western Europe, pp. 25– 38. Aldershot, UK, Arena. Kraus V, Hartman M (1994). Occupational prestige in Israel. Megamot 36: 78– 87 (in Hebrew). Leighninger L, Midgley J (1997). United State of America. In: Mayadas NS, Watts TD, Elliott D, eds. International handbook on social work theory and practice, pp. 9– 28. Westport, CN, Greenwood. Loewenberg FM (1993). Preparing for the welfare state? A reexamination of the decision to establish the social service department of the Vaad Leumi. Journal of Social Work and Social Policy in Israel 7(8): 21– 30. Mayadas NS, Watts TD, Elliott D, eds. (1997). International handbook on social work theory and practice. Westport, CN, Greenwood. McDonald C, Harris J, Wintersteen R (2003). Contingent on context? Social work and the state in Australia, Britain, and the USA. British Journal of Social Work 33: 191–208. Midgley J (2001). Issues in international social work: Resolving critical debates in the profession. Journal of Social Work 1: 21– 35. Millerson G (1973). The qualifying associations: A study in professionalization. New York, Humanistic Press. Neipres J (1992). The American Joint Distribution Committee and its contribution to social work education. Jerusalem, JDC. Otte C (1997). Germany. In: Mayadas NS, Watts TD, Elliott D, eds. International handbook on social work theory and practice, pp. 122 –143. Westport, CN, Greenwood. Parsloe P (1997). Introduction. In: Mayadas NS, Watts TD, Elliott D, eds. International handbook on social work theory and practice, pp. xi–xii. Westport, CN, Greenwood. Payne M (1997). United Kingdom. In: Mayadas NS, Watts TD, Elliott D, eds. International handbook on social work theory and practice, pp. 161–183. Westport, CN, Greenwood. Payne M (2002). The role and achievements of a professional association in the late twentieth century: The British association of social workers 1970– 2000. British Journal of Social Work 32: 969– 995. Payne M, Shardlow SM, ed. (2002). Social work in the British Isles. London, UK, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.


295

Weiss et al. Popple PR (1985). The social work profession: A reconceptualization. Social Service Review 59: 560– 577. Popple PR (1995). Social work profession: History. In: Encyclopedia of social work, 19th edn, pp. 2282– 2292. Washington DC, NASW Press. Preuss W (1965). The labour movement in Israel. Jerusalem, R. Mass. Reid WJ, Misener E (2001). Social work in the press: A cross-national study. International Journal of Social Welfare 10: 194– 201. Reisch M, Wenocur S (1986). The future of community organization in social work: Social activism and the politics of professional building. Social Service Review 60: 70– 93. Rokkan S (1970). Citizens elections parties. Oslo, Norway, Universitetforlaget. Shardlow SM (2001). Ethical aspects of social work. A common set of values and the regulation of practice: England an example. In: Adams A, Erath P, Shardlow SM, eds. Key themes in European social work: Theory, practice, perspectives, pp. 39– 46. Dorset, UK, Russell House Publishing. Sharlin S (1988). Social work in health systems. Society and Welfare 8: 209– 224 (in Hebrew). Sherer M, Peleg-Oren N (2001). Analysis of tasks and activities of Israeli social work students in the field work training program. Society and Welfare 21: 443– 488 (in Hebrew). Shetty L (1996). Professionalization of social work in the United State and India. Indian Journal of Social Work 57: 260– 275. Shnit D (1988). The law, the individual and the social services:

The legal basis for social work in Israel. Jerusalem, Magnes (in Hebrew). Shnit D (1998). The law and social work practice in Israel. In: Loewenberg FM, ed. Meeting the challenges of a changing society: Fifty years of social work in Israel, pp. 51–74. Jerusalem, Magnes. Skidmore RA, Thackeray MG, Farley OW (1991). Introduction to social work. New Jersey, Prentice Hall. Specht H (1988). New directions for social work practice. New York, Prentice Hall. Spiro SE, Sherer M, Korin-Langer N, Weiss I (1997). Israel. In: Mayadas NS, Watts TD, Elliott D, eds. International handbook on social work theory and practice, pp. 223– 244. Westport, CN, Greenwood. Spiro SE (2001). Social work education in Israel: trends and issues. Social Work Education 20: 89– 99. Styles MM (1982). Society and nursing: the new professionalism and the empowerment of nursing. Kansas City, MO, American Nurses’ Association. Toren N (1972). Social work: The case of a semi-profession. Beverley Hills, CA, Sage. Weiss I (2001). The ideology, policy and practice of adult probation service in Israel. British Journal of Social Work 31: 775 –789. Wenocur S, Reisch M (1983). The social work profession and the ideology of professionalization. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 10: 683 –732. Wong J (2001). The state of the profession. Research on Social Work Practice 11: 217– 222.

296
