Social workers’ constructions of child risk and protection in the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community

Abstract

Summary Social workers’ perceptions regarding child risk and protection tend to rely on universal criteria that may differ from the perceptions of minority groups. The Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in Israel is a strictly religious, segregated, close-knit community with idiosyncratic values and norms that differ from those of social workers in the country. This qualitative study aimed to explore social workers’ perceptions and ascribed meanings of child risk and protection in Israel’s Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community. To this end, 30 in-depth interviews were conducted with social workers working with this community. Findings The study identified four distinct primary areas of risk and protection for children in Israel’s Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community: spirituality, collectivism, segregation, and hierarchy. Each of these areas encompasses factors of both protection and risk. Applications The study’s findings highlight the gaps between the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community and social workers who adopt Western universal views regarding child risk and protection. This article advocates a context-informed approach when dealing with minority communities. Adopting such an approach can contribute to better cooperation between professionals and their clients from minority groups and advance the well-being of children.

A Context‐Informed Perspective of Child Risk and Protection: Deconstructing Myths in the Risk Discourse

“…Our findings indicate that the interviewees' perceptions regarding risk and protection affected their practice in essential areas, such as out‐of‐home placement, resource allocation, clinical intervention, and enforcing mandatory legislation. In all of these, although the client's opinion may have been considered, the final decision was in the hands of the social worker (Gemara et al, 2020). Enforcing mandatory legislation, for example, reflects the dynamics of power effecting social workers, who are called to implement laws of their employers—the state.…”

‘You need to understand the extent of the bubble we grew up in’: The religio‐cultural aspects of sibling's sexual dynamics—Perspectives of Orthodox Jewish adults

“…Similarly, socio‐cultural norms that are not rooted in religion may be adapted or discarded if they are found to advance risk for children. These changes in religion and culture are delicate, and the assistance and guidance of rabbis or other religious experts may be needed in order for them to be executed in a culturally competent manner (Freund & Band‐Winterstein, 2013; Gemara et al, 2020). This study thus promotes dialogue and cooperation between professionals and religious leaders in pursuit of a context‐informed practice in matters relating to SSA (Buchbinder & Shoob, 2013; Itzhaki‐Braun, 2021).…”

“…Prominent in this vein are common trends in the family structure: Orthodox (particularly ultra‐Orthodox) Jews cultivate large families (7.1 children on average among the ultra‐Orthodox), which seek to apply rigid discipline in all aspects of life, uphold a patriarchal hierarchy and value system and maintain clear gender roles (Cahaner & Malach, 2019; Friedman, 1991). In many Ultra‐Orthodox families, older siblings, primarily girls, assume responsibility for younger siblings and are perceived as parental figures of sorts (Bachner‐Melman & Zohar, 2019; Gemara et al, 2020). Patriarchal norms and confusion of parental roles, combined with limited parental supervision, constitute risk factors for sexual acts between siblings in large families (Etgar et al, 2018).…”

“It’s a Phenomenon in Our Community, a Phenomenon That Is Silenced”: Child Sexual Abuse and the Circles of Silence in the Jewish National Religious Community in Israel

“…It is language that allows thoughts to be shaped and, consequently, construct reality (Whorf 2012), which, in the national religious community, is closely connected to the high value placed on modesty in how one dresses, speaks, behaves, and is educated. Restrictions on sexuality (Katzenstein and Fontes 2017) are embedded in community norms, including the avoidance of words referring directly to sexuality or sexual organs (Gemara et al 2021). Although one of the educators in this study called for the use of "real words" regarding CSA, this may not be possible for most of the community, as they do not have the language or the words are too taboo.…”