discussion post

POVERTY-AWARE SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

M i c h a l Krumer-Nevo Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

I d i t W e i s s - G a l Tel Aviv University

M e n a c h e m Monnickendam Bar-lian University

Despite the profound commitment of social work toward people living in

poverty, the social work profession has failed to develop practice based on

awareness of poverty. This article shows the ways in which poverty became a

marginal issue in social work practice, reviews the literature on teaching pover-

ty in intemafional context, and then explicates the expected educational results

and the main course and fieldwork contents. The proposed framework for

poverty-aware social work education includes knowledge acquisition, structur-

ing of professional values, skills development, and experiencing. A considera-

tion of the ways in which this content may be integrated into the existing social

work curriculum concludes this article.

FROM ITS INCEPTION at the end of the 19th cen-

tury the social work profession has voiced a

long-term commitment to dealing with the

problem of poverty. The professional ethical

codes of the United States (National Asso-

ciation of Social Workers [NASW], 1999) and

Great Britain (British Association of Social

Workers [BASW], 1996) as well as the profes-

sion's self-definition as expressed by the

International Federation of Social Workers

(Hare, 2004) include unequivocal statements

regarding the role of social work in the allevi-

ation of poverty in addition to a specific com-

mitment to aid those living in poverty.

In accordance with this commitment, there

have been numerous pleas to place particvdar

emphasis on the issue of poverty within the

framework of social work training programs in

the United States (Council on Social Work

Education [CSWE], 2002), Great Britain (Green,

2000), Scotland (Ferry & Watson, 2001), South

Asia (Cox, Gamlath, & Pawar, 1997), Eastern

Europe (Landau, Guttman, & Talyigas, 1998),

South Africa (Gray & Mazibuko, 2002; Ntusi,

1998), and Canada (Larochelle & Campfens,

1992). These attempts may be a consequence

of social work scholars' concerns in the face of

rising poverty rates in different countries and

Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Spring/Summer). Copyright © 2009, Council on Social Work Education, inc. All rights roserved. 225

2 2 6 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

the concurrent strengtherung of neoconserva- tive social policy (Doron, 2001; Jones & Novak, 1993; Pierson, 2001).

Despite these appeals, existing social work education programs address problems of poverty and social exclusion in an extraor- dinarily superficial manner. A recent examina- tion of the curriculum of the graduate pro- grams at the top 50 schools of social work in the United States found that a mere 12 schools offered one or more courses in the field of poverty, and overall 15 courses existed on the topic (Harding, Ferguson, & Radey, 2005). In Israel, Guttmann and Cohen (1992), who examined bachelor of social work (BSW) pro- grams in the early 1990s found that the topic of poverty was hardly dealt with. Similarly, Davis and Wainwright (2005), addressing the training for Diploma in Social Work in Britain, criticized the tendency to avoid tackling the issue of poverty in the curriculum and claimed that, in essence, such evasion indi- cates estrangement from the inherent values of the profession.

Moreover, lecturers who wish to teach the topic of poverty, and parficularly practice with people living in poverty, find that the existing literature does not offer a comprehen- sive discussion of the issue. What are to be the goals of teaching poverty to social workers? What should be the contents of such a pro- gram? These questions are left without answers. This article strives to fill this knowl- edge gap by presenting a conceptual frame- work for the teaching of poverty in social work programs. Given the variety in the spe- cific socioeconomic and political contexts in various countries and of the requirements for professional social work certification (in Israel

and Britain a BSW degree is the only qualifica- tion required, in the United States a master's of social work (MSW) degree is required) (Spiro, Sherer, Korin-Langer, & Weiss, 1997; Weiss & Welboume, 2007), we conceptualize the framework in terms broad enough to serve various specific settings of social work programs. As such, we hope that adaptations of this framework will be of value for educa- tors seeking to develop and to strengthen the teaching of poverty within both BSW and MSW curricula.

The article is divided into five sections. The first section presents the ways by which poverty is converted into a rather vague, almost marginal, factor in social work practice and attempts to explain this phenomenon. The second section briefly reviews current trends in social work literature regarding poverty and focuses on the literature address- ing the teaching of poverty in social work pro- grams. These two sections provide the foun- dation for the development of the conceptual framework to be presented in the following three sections. The third section delineates the desired end and intermediate results of train- ing. The fourth section specifically focuses on the main contents and themes of the program, and the fifth section outlines the means by which the proposed contents may be integrat- ed into the course of study.

Blurring the Subject of Poverty in Sociai Worit Practice

Throughout the world, people living in pover- ty compose a major segment of social work- ers' clients (Healy, 2001; Hokenstad, Khin- duka, & Midgley, 1992). Although "poverty" may not be their overt problem, Waldegrave

POVERTY-AWARE SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 2 2 7

(2005) claims it is often the reason that clients turn to or are referred to social services. Despite this phenomenon, research indicates that working with people living in poverty is a significantly less popular career choice than working with other populations for social work students in a number of countries, including the United States and Israel (Limb & Organista, 2003; Perry, 2001; Weiss, 2005, Weiss, Gal, & Cnaan, 2004).

Moreover, those who do work with popu- lations living in poverty often do not adopt a "poverty-aware approach" (Davis & Wain- wright, 2005). Davis and Wainwright argue that social workers in Britain do not deem poverty to be a central factor affecting other hardships and do not focus on its mitigation. Similar criticism was voiced by Waldegrave (2005), who claims that personal social serv- ices in the United States are not suitable to the needs of families living in poverty, because they base their assessment on intrapsychic or family factors and fail to take into account socioeconomic and cultural factors such as unemployment or inadequate housing. Sim- ilar blurring of poverty exists also in Israel and is evident in the official definitions of pro- fessional specialties described by the Israeli Council of Social Work, in the discourse clas- sifying social service clients as well as in the discourse defining intervention's goals. The Coimcil of Social Work in Israel defines nine areas of specialization (health, rehabilitation, probation, work with communities, women, the elderly, families, children and youth, and mental health), none of which focuses on working with people living in poverty. Moreover, the discourse regarding clients' classifications is based on individual or famil-

ial pathologies ("people with addiction" or "people with mental illness," for example), whereas an equivalent definition that identi- fies poverty as a problem area does not exist. In a parallel fashion, it would appear that everyday interventions are not founded on the imderstanding that poverty is a predomi- nant cause of distress nor is the mitigation of poverty regarded as a goal of intervention in a similar way to "the alleviation of couple vio- lence" or "improving parental functioning,"

The flight of social work practice from the centrality of poverty stands in contrast to its centrality in the perspective of people living in poverty. Research comparing social work- ers' perceptions about their clients' sources of distress and the clients' own perceptions found that whereas the professionals believed that the core of existing problems were psy- chological and cognitive defects or functional- behavioral difficulties, the clients considered their economic distress as the root cause of their other problems (Krumer-Nevo, Slonim- Nevo, & Hirshenzon-Segev, 2006).

Several explanations are offered for the negation of poverty in social work practice. One such explanation is derived from the "normalization" of poverty in social work practice. Because such a large segment of social work clients live in poverty, poverty becomes "normal" or "natural," and is there- fore considered as belonging only to the con- text and not, in itself, as the problem (Jones, 2002; Walker & Walker, 2002). Another expla- nation is that social workers do not consider the supplying of material assistance to be "real" or "professional" social work (Kninver- Nevo & Lev-Wiesel, 2005). Furthermore, the strengthening of conservative or New Right

2 2 8 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

ideologies during the last three decades in dif-

ferent coimtries led to a shift in policy dis-

course from structural problems to problems

of individuals Qones & Novak, 1993; Katz,

1989). This discourse has encouraged individ-

ual methods of practice rather than social jus-

tice practice (Davis & Wainwright, 2005).

Teaching Poverty: Literature Review

Reviewing social work literature on poverty, one can recognize a tendency to criticize the functional and individualistic models of social work practice that perceive poverty as the result of individual or family problems and propose an alternative model that perceives poverty as a structural phenomenon (Rank, 2005) and a violation of human rights (Craig, 2002; Davis & Wainwright, 2005; Dowling, 1999; Lister, 1998; Lyons, 1992). This approach puts poverty in a broader context of exclusion, discrimination, and inequality. Instead of focusing on how poverty creates behavioral or emotional pathologies (such as substance abuse or the abuse of children), this approach focuses on the violation of rights connected with the material aspects of poverty (such as the right to housing, education, employment, or health) and the relational-symbolic aspects of poverty (such as the right to respect, the right for "voice," and to full citizenship) (Lister, 2004).

Social work practice, it is claimed, should replace the functionalist or system-based the- ories that dominate social work training with theories of conflict, similar to those guiding radical social work (Goroff, 1978; Keithly & Rombough, 2004). Scholars call for a change from traditional individual or family treat-

ment to community work and development (Green, 2000), community and political activism (Billups & Julia, 1991; Lord & Kennedy, 1992), systematic work that inte- grates intervention from the individual level to the global socioeconomic level (Vosler & Nair, 1993; Witkin, 1998), advocacy (Dowling, 1999), empowerment, networking, activist research (Gray & Mazibuko, 2002; Keithly & Rombough, 2004), policy practice (Ntusi, 1998), and partnerships founded on the partic- ipation of clients in the process of defining the intervention (Rosenfeld, 1993) and in the process of social change (Rosenfeld & Tardieu, 2000; Lister, 1998).

These recommendations focus on trans- formations in professional practice. However, there is no discussion of the means by which to integrate these changes into social work curricula. A literature survey on the teaching of poverty in social work foimd very few arti- cles that offered guidelines and general rec- ommendations regarding specific content of a professional training curriculum. For exam- ple, Tully, Nadel, and Lesser (2005) emphasize the importance of economics-related study to forge an understanding of the effects of eco- nomic characteristics on social problems, in general, and on poverty, in particular. Others (Mary, 1997; Sewpaul, 2001) emphasize the need to understand the local and national eco- nomic processes that affect and are affected by globalization, such as the creation of new pop- ulations that are exposed to poverty, the ways to cope with poverty on the individual and family levels, and the modes of battling poverty. Similarly, others recommend arming social work students with knowledge about

POVERTY-AWARE SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 2 2 9

the history of poverty and its mitigation (McLaughlin, 2005). In addition, there is a need to study the expressions of poverty and its causes, and in particular, to concentrate on the experience of the lack of power in relation to human rights and to emphasize methods of community work to overcome this experience (Lyons, 1992).

In addition to these recommendations, the literature addresses the need for training pro- grams to include an examination of the per- sonal attitudes of the students about poverty and people living in poverty. Faver, Cavazos, and Trachte (2005) emphasize the need to understand the students' beliefs as well as their community and cultural values to pro- mote a commitment to economic and social justice. The emphasis here is on strengthening structural analysis in lieu of individual expla- nations regarding the causes of poverty (Gasker & Vafeas, 2003; Perry, 2003; Weiss, 2006). Others point to the need to counter stu- dents' fatalistic perspective that poverty is insurmountable through a social justice-based curriculum (Gasker & Vafeas, 2003).

Likewise, it was recommended that dur- ing their training, students should undergo a participatory poverty experience. For exam- ple, during a period of 2 weeks, students would have to manage with a sum of money equivalent to that of those receiving food stamps or, alternatively, would have to under- go the experience of those applying for wel- fare assistance for the first üme (Harding et al., 2005).

Only one article provides a conceptual framework for social work trairüng on prac- tice with people living in poverty. It describes

a module for a postgraduate (MSW) program that includes frontal teaching, small group work, and class meetings with activists in local projects that fight poverty (Davis & Wainwright, 2005). This program is divided into three segments: The first focuses on poverty and social security, and in this frame- work the students learn about the social secu- rity system. The second section focuses on social work and social exclusion, and the third addresses methods of combating poverty. The arficle's major contribufion is that it coins the t e r m poverty-aware social work practice, a n d

thus defines the goal of social work education regarding poverty. Our proposed framework is constructed as a continuafion and further elaboration of this goal and the ways to achieve it through an integration of theorefical knowledge, exploraüon of values and skills, and acquisition of practical knowledge.

The Desired Training Resuits

We define the end result of teaching poverty as the development of social workers who (a) adopt a stand that opposes the existence of poverty and inequality in their work with and on behalf of people living in poverty; and (b) are able to provide "good enough" services to people in poverty based on the understanding of the centrality of poverty in people's lives and of the ways in which poverty, and its intersection with gender, age, disability, eth- nicity and race, affects diverse situations of distress that may have behavioral and emo- tional expressions. These end results are in line with the profession's values as well as with the knowledge and professional trends derived from the literature review.

2 3 0 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

To reach these end results, we defined four intermediate results:

1. Students will possess theoretical and

empirical knowledge about poverty—its

causes; expressions in everyday Hfe; its

effects and consequences; the experiences

entailed in poverty; the ways to extricate

oneself from poverty; and the combating of

poverty on both the policy level and the

individual, family, and community levels.

2. The students will identify and be aware, through a process of self-reflection, of their personal and cultural values regard- ing poverty, especially to avoid othering, that is, the perception of people living in poverty as having certain traits that dra- matically differ from the traits of other members of society (a discussion of oth- ering and its consequences is to be found in Lister, 2004; Krumer-Nevo, 2002).

3. The students will become acquainted with evidence-based as well as innovative practice with people living in poverty, their basic assumptions, the values they hold, and the specific strategies and methods that they use.

4. The students will experience working with people living in poverty on the indi- vidual, family, community, and policy practice levels.

It is important to note that we consider the first and second results to be interrelated. In other words, it is not our purpose that cer- tain lessons be dedicated exclusively to the acquisition of theoretical knowledge and oth- ers to the examination of personal values and attitudes. In our opinion, for students to trans-

form theoretical knowledge into practical knowledge, they need to examine the mean- ings of various poverty-related theories in regard to their personal and cultural values, that is, the examination of their emotional reactions in addition to their cognitive reac- tions to learned theories. Such examination is equally essential to the acquisition of formal knowledge. As described by Bullock (1995), empirical data alone does not necessarily undermine ideological and value-based beliefs. Therefore, for example, we recom- mend that students discuss questions such as "How does what I learn conform with what I feel/think about people in poverty?" or "In what way does the taught theory provide me with a better understanding of my personal position?"

Presenting the results in this section as if the first (the acquisition of knowledge) pre- cedes the second (the examination of values and standpoints) is for clarity only. However, these two objectives taken together precede the acquisition of the two other results. The following section presents the main themes of the proposed educational framework: The acquisition of theoretical knowledge, develop- ment of self-reflection, the acquisition of prac- tical knowledge, and the acquiring of practical experience.

The Main Themes of the Proposed Educational Frameworit

The Acquisition of Theoretical Knowiedge

The first intermediate result is the acquisition of theoretical knowledge and especially of the ability to approach this knowledge critically.

POVERTY-AWARE SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 2 3 1

that is, the ability to divide a theory into its components, to assess the practice implica- tions of a theory, and to evaluate it (Marie & Robert, 1997).

The theoretical knowledge recommended includes (a) current poverty theories and approaches deriving from a variety of disci- plines; (b) social and economic policy regard- ing poverty, its history, alternative models, and ramificafions; and (c) theorefical knowl- edge regarding the manifestaüons of poverty and of social policy on the everyday lives of people in poverty. This body of knowledge will derive from various disciplines, and spe- cial attention will be given to the learning of the perspective of those actually living in poverty.

To gain a critical standpoint regarding poverty theories, students will learn explicitly the differences between (a) conservative, individual-based explanations of poverty that associate poverty with individual behavioral or moral pathologies of the people, for exam- ple, as explained by Murray (1994) and (b) the structural analysis of the socioeconomic sys- tem (Rank, 2005; Wilson, 1987), which associ- ates poverty with social phenomena such as limited employment opportimifies; the capi- talist market economy; globalization; immi- gration, war, and political instability; and sys- temafic discriminafion based on race, ethnici- ty, religion, or gender (Alcock, 1997; Lister, 2004).

In addifion, students will acquire knowl- edge about social policy in relafion to poverty. This knowledge will include methods offered by various ideological perspectives (e.g., social democracy, neoliberalism, the Third Way, neo-Marxism, feminism) to cope with

poverty (Alcock, 1997; George & Wilding, 1994), the historical development of poverty- focused policies, the ways of defining and measuring poverty, and the means that gov- ernments in different countries undertake to cope with poverty. These themes will be stud- ied both in the international context and in the specific nafional context.

During the study program the correlation among etiological theories, ideologies and their policies, and practice-related ramifica- tions will be examined. In other words, the students will be able to identify how specific directions in policy and practice modes are correlated with theories, on the one hand, and ideologies, on the other. For instance, they will understand how conservative theories and a conservative political climate correlate with specific policies such as reducfions in benefits for single mothers that occurred in Israel dur- ing the last few years (see Achdut, 2005). Similarly, students will examine the various approaches to social work pracfice with peo- ple in poverty and recognize the link of these approaches to specific ideologies and theories. For example, with respect to children who are considered "at-risk" (a definition that is more often attributed to children in poverty) there are two approaches. One advocates the re- moval of children from their homes, and thus decontextualizes parents' behaviors and sepa- rates such behaviors from the conditions of poverty, bad housing, unemployment, and poor access to community resources. The other approach emphasizes the right of the child to her family and focuses on the need to develop community services to assist the fam- ilies (Ronen & Klein, 2007; Slonim-Nevo & Lander, 2004). It is very common to test such

2 3 2 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

approaches in terms of their immediate effec- tiveness for the child, but we point to the need to examine to what extent each approach takes into account the implications of poverty on everyday life and on the at-risk behavior. In other words, we stress the importance of equipping students with theoretical knowl- edge that will allow them to examine, in depth, the basic presumptions that form the foundation for development of various approaches of policy and practice.

The third content area involves knowl- edge acquisition regarding the manifestations of poverty in everyday life and its conse- quences on both those that experience it and on society in its entirety. The emphasis here is on the understanding of poverty within the context of inequality and exclusion and not in the limited context of psychopathology-based theory. Therefore, students will gain empiri- cally based knowledge about the effect of poverty on the earning of a high school matriculation certificate; on the nutritional state of those living in poverty; and on the link between poverty and housing, health, person- al/community security, and active participa- tion in civic life. Thus, students will be able to identify poverty's long reach and will learn to see poverty as a central instigator of various types of distress. Such a view will allow them to identify poverty's role in the creation of behaviors and conditions such as crime, parental failure, illness, and so forth.

In studying the themes reviewed, it is important to keep in mind two principles: the multidisciplinary nature of the body of knowledge regarding poverty and the uiüque contribution of the perspective of people in poverty to this body of knowledge. Regarding

the first principle, students will acquire multi- disciplinary knowledge drawn from fields such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, social policy, educafion, law, and gender stud- ies to gain a comprehensive understanding of the many ways in which inequality, marginal- ization, and exclusion impose and are imposed on by various life aspects (see Loury, 2001). For instance, ethnographers describe aspects of kinship of women living in poverty (Stack, 1974). Sociologists illustrate ecological- ly related aspects of poverty such as the influ- ence of unemployment and of public policy on marriage in poor communifies (Edin & Kefalas, 2005; Wilson, 1987,1997) or the finan- cial realifies of single mothers and their strate- gies to make ends meet (Edin & Lein, 1997). Educational scholars emphasize aspects of poverty within the educafional system. For example, they describe the experience of par- ents living in poverty with relafion to the schools where their children study (Bloom, 2001). Feminists point to the feminization of poverty (Abramovitz, 1995; Pearce, 1978) and explain how mulfiple marginalizafion based on gender, class, ethnicity, sexual preference, and so forth are intertwined (Krumer-Nevo, 2006). Legal scholars demonstrate how status- related inequality is manifested even in the jusfice system, which is the formal epitome of equality (Elbashàn, 2004; White, 1991; Ziv, 2004, 2005).

Regarding the second principle, we emphasize the importance of studying poverty through the perspecfive of those living in poverty. The knowledge of people UvLng in poverty, referred to as "life knowledge" (Krumer-Nevo, 2005), includes their perspec- fives, interpretations, meanings, hypotheses.

POVERTY-AWARE SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 2 3 3

analyses, and theories (Beresford, 2000). This knowledge includes reference to the experience of poverty, to the meariings of poverty and to the actions taken by people in poverty in their everyday struggles and their strategies to attempt to extricate themselves from its grip.

The perspective of people in poverty is crucial for several reasons: Observing poverty from the perspective of the people themselves helps students see specitic behavior not as merely basic survival or adaptation to the poverty's conditions, but rather as the experi- ence of resisting poverty (Lister, 2004, chapter 6; Krumer-Nevo, 2006). In addition, the knowl- edge of people living in poverty enables stu- dents to criticize social structure and institu- tions "from the margins" and to recognize the marginalized position of people in poverty in society. For example, when we ask people liv- ing in poverty for their opinions, viewpoints, and suggestions about social services such as the educational, welfare, or housing systems, the failures of these systems are exposed including their structural unsuitability to care for the people who most need them (Krumer- Nevo, 2003c, 2006; Krumer-Nevo & Barak, 2007). Moreover, acquaintance with the knowl- edge of people in poverty allows students not orüy a better understanding of the nature of poverty, but also enables the creation of partnership-based relationship. Such under- standing enables students to recognize the power, resources, and agency of people living in poverty and thus contributes to combating preconceived notions regarding people in poverty as "Others."

The study of the described themes from various disciplines and relating to the knowl- edge of people with direct experience of

poverty will enable the students to obtain a more complete picture that reflects the com- plexity of life in poverty. More specifically, this integrative knowledge wül allow stu- dents to connect between the suffering of the individual living in poverty and social prob- lems common to large groups of people. In addition, it will allow students to understand that poverty, rather than caused by economic lacking and manifesting itself mainly through pathological behaviors, is connected to poor access to social resources and opportimities, lack of social rights, and lack of symbolic cap- ital that are manifested in stigma, a lack of voice and discrimination (Lister, 2004).

Development of Self-Reflection to Avoid Othering

The second intermediate result is the develop- ment of the students' abilities to recognize their own attitudes and ideologies relating to people in poverty through self-reflection (Parsloe, 1990).

The importance of this goal is enhanced in research literature that examines pubUc stand- points toward poverty and their cormection to policy, oppression, and discrimination (Bul- lock, 1995; Groskind, 1994). Bullock (1995) asserts that the middle class perceive people in poverty through stereotypes and prejudices. Often, the middle class believe that women living in poverty bear children to increase their benefits, or that men do not want to work because they enjoy self-deprecation. These perceptions are discriminatory and oppressive because they create othering (Lister, 2004; Krumer-Nevo, 2002), a concrete and symbolic gap between those living in poverty (choosing the "immoral path") and the rest of the popu-

2 3 4 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

lation (choosing the "moral path") (Bullock, 1995). Thus, adopting a view that is opposed to othering is a prerequisite to creating part- nership with people in poverty.

As described earlier, the literature deals with the issue of attitudes toward people in poverty by recommending the increasing of students' understanding of the structural explanations for poverty instead of individu- alized explanations. However, our experience indicates that even students who understand the importance of structural factors in the cre- afion and preservafion of poverty have diffi- culties in "translating" their general analysis of the causes of poverty into an analysis of real clients' situafions. For instance, when present- ed with the case of a single mother, who does not participate in the labor market but rather relies on welfare benefits to provide for her children, often students will understand her behavior, first of all with respect to inherent weaknesses in the woman's personality or ego ("she isn't willing to try hard enough" or "she lacks energy"), distorted values ("she doesn't understand the importance of work"), or with respect to her moral weakness ("she takes advantage of the welfare system"). The stu- dents have difficulty comprehending how her employment status is affected by issues such as childcare during work hours, available modes of transportafion enabling travel to and from work, and confidence in her ability to obtain suitable employment.

BuUock (1995) explains the public's diffi- culty in understanding the significance of poverty by her asserfion that the experience of life bound in poverty challenges the accepted beliefs such as the existence of free will ("every-

one does what she wants and diooses"), per- sonal responsibility ("she needs to take respon- sibility and go to work/take better care of her children/leave her abusive husband"), and the view that the world is run in a just manner. To allow students to address such beliefs, they must leam to see how, in certain cases, poverty is created from situations that do not involve free choice, for example, "the choice" to perse- vere in studies when the family is in dire need of a wage earner, or "the choice" not to marry yoimg when a girl has no place to live, and how difficult it is to examine individual responsibili- ty when socioeconomic situations Umit choices and opportunifies in an extreme way.

Coping with such topics in the educafion- al framework presents many challenges. The power of personal and cultural attitudes derived from their "neutrality," which denies the ideological components that are concealed within them. Furthermore, the tendency of students to place blame on the decisions, choices, and preferences of those living in poverty prevents them from facing the anxi- efies associated with the thought that the world does not funcfion according to the principles of jusfice, and that the ability of the individual to determine her way in life, parficularly in the presence of inequality, is extremely limited (Rainwater, 1970). Nonethe- less, this is the challenge that pedagogy and training must meet, through providing stu- dents with opportunifies to comprehend their personal and social privilege, to examine their own life experiences, to express their individ- ual and professional ideological standpoints, and to examine the correlafion between the!m and between policies and pracfice.

POVERTY-AWARE SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 2 3 5

To allow students to examine their beliefs and attitudes, the classroom atmosphere should be open to different viewpoints and various pedagogical strategies such as discus- sions (see Quigley, 2003, pp. 33-36 for an example), simulations of poverty and inequal- ity (Wernet, 2003, describes such an example), and the writing of personal diaries. Another way to challenge individual attitudes and beliefs regarding poverty involves the direct exposure of students to the reality of living in poverty, perhaps even through residing with- in poverty-stricken neighborhoods and joint action with the people. In this regard it is worth mentioning the training program founded by ATD Fourth World Movement for social workers (ATD Fourth World, 2005). Within this framework, students and people living in poverty jointly participated in a series of discussions and developed a social work training program. In this way, students had the chance to see their previous stereo- types and prejudices in a new way.

As previously mentioned, we also recom- mend that students examine their emotional reactions to the learned theories by asking themselves the types of emotions that a specif- ic theory arouse in them and how the theory merges with their general life perspectives.

The Acquisition of Practical Knowledge

The realm of macro- and microlevel practice with people living in poverty is rich and dynamic. It is particularly important that stu- dents become acquainted with different prac- tices within the professional realm of govern- mental or municipal social services as well as

outside the established social work field, for example, within civil society orgamzafions.

Students will become acquainted with effecfive programs in their local context as well as in other contexts. They will examine the programs' radonale, their assumpfions, and the implemented methods and skills. They will also identify the working principles and guidelines of these programs, such as partnership, empowerment, and holisfic mod- els (Krumer-Nevo, 2003a; Schorr & Schorr, 1988; Shamai & Sharlin, 1996; Suartez, Smokowski & Wodarski, 1996).

The rapid development of civil society organizations during the last decade has pre- sented a variety of models for working with people living in poverty. For instance, in Israel, within the framework of Yedid— T̂he Association for Community Empowerment (http://www.yedid.org.il/english/); Itach— Women Lawyers for Social Justice (http:// www.itach.org.il/english/english.html); Community Advocacy/Genesis (Torezyner, 2001); in the United States, Beyond Welfare (Bloom & Kilgore, 2003); and internationally, the ATD Fourth World Movement (ATD Fourth Worid, 1995, 2004; Rosenfeld & Tar- dieu, 2000). These organizations developed innovafive models that integrate advocacy with the providing of individual legal coun- seling, group and commuruty projects based on empowerment, partnership, and the real- ization of rights as well as activities aimed at changing policy. These practice modes have similar characterisfics to those used in the welfare services, yet they also possess unique traits. For example, a woman whose electri- city was disconnected as a result of lack of

2 3 6 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

payment would be afforded, by the welfare

services, assistance to communicate with the

electric company, to work out a payment plan,

and perhaps to plan the family budget. In con-

trast, rights-focused organizations would

bring together a number of women in similar

situafions whose goals would include sup-

port, empowerment, and social acfion. As a

group, the women would acquire an under-

standing about the sources of their inability to

pay the bills, and as a group, they would

approach the electric company, the media, or

even the court system to prevent the cessafion

of electrical supply to families who are not

able to afford it.

In addifion, students will critically assess

the welfare service's organizafional system. In

other words, students will understand how

the social and organizafional context in which

they work affects intervenfion methods and

occasionally effects the alleviafion of poverty

and social marginalizafion.

The Acquiring of Practical Experience

Two principals wiU guide this secfion of the program: (a) fieldwork wül integrate micro and macro social work pracfice with and behalf of people living in poverty and (b) fieldwork experiences will adopt a "covenant of help" perspecfive (Krumer-Nevo, 2003b) in accordance with the principles of partnership and reciprocity (Rosenfeld, 1993).

Regarding the first principal, students will gain pracfical experience in working both in the social services and with organizahons for social change. Thus, they will acquire skills needed for the integrafion of various levels of work—from the individual to the policy level.

A special emphasis will be placed on the involvement of students in policy pracfice including the integration of working to change individuals' situatior\s with work to change policy (Jansson, 2003). More specifical- ly, students will acquire the tools, skills, and experience necessary to combine microlevel practice (e.g., reaching out, mediation, indi- vidual advocacy, partnership, providing sup- port, raising social awareness) with macrolev- el pracfice (e.g., social advocacy, community organizafion, social acfion, coalifion buuding with social organizafions, policy practice). For an example of such an approach recently implemented in Israel see Kaufman, 2005.

This integrafive work will be based on deep-rooted partnerships and reciprocity with people in poverty in what is referred to as a "covenant of help" relafion (Krumer-Nevo, 2003b). According to this perspecfive, social workers are allies of people in poverty. They reject the exclusivity of the role of the profes- sional as one who knows better and share this role with those living in poverty, who conse- quently are awarded the status of "knowers." Adopting this perspecfive will enable social workers to acknowledge their clients' struggle against poverty and to join them "where they are." It also emphasizes the joint creafion of goals and methods of achieving effecfive intervenfion and social change.

Integrating the Proposed Framework into Sociai Worit Curricuia

Three strategies for integrating the proposed framework in the curricula are recommended. Each strategy can be implemented individual- ly or together, according to the specific context

POVERTY-AWARE SOCrAL WORK PRACTICE 2 3 7

of the respecfive social work school. The first strategy is to integrate substantive study about poverty within existing coursework aimed at the general student populafion; the second is to develop specific courses on the topic of poverty geared toward the general student populafion; and the third strategy is to develop uiüque concentrafioris on the topic of poverty for students specializing in the field.

We see great importance in the integra- fion of substanfive study about poverty with- in existing coursework from the introductory to advanced levels. For example, such integra- fion would involve social policy courses as well as those addressing generic approaches to social work pracfice and courses specifical- ly focusing on individual, family, or commu- nity interventions and policy practice. In regard to pracfice-related courses, students will learn skills such as reaching out, the establishment of a relafionship in the context of social status disparifies, or models and methods founded on partnership, individual advocacy, and the reaUzafion of rights. In addition, content should include policy change pracfice embracing status-related and organizafional advocacy and their tacfics.

The development of courses dedicated to the topic of poverty would include topics that are not dealt with in the more general courses such as policy and pracfice courses. In addi- fion, we recommend the development of a concentrafion on the poverty track that wiU be directed to students intending to specialize in this field. Such a concentrafion will enhance poverty awareness and will create scholars who will lead the field, and it will continue to

generate social work knowledge about pover-

ty and about working with people in poverty.

Summary

This arficle presents a conceptual framework for educafion and training in the field of pover- ty and social work. Our purpose is to develop a framework that wül be broad enough to serve as a platform for local adaptafions according to the specific needs and characterisfics of various social work programs.

The proposed conceptual framework emphasizes the integration of theoretical knowledge, self-refiecfion, pracfical knowl- edge, and field training. The framework is based on a mulfidisciplinary approach and on the acknowledgment of the contribution made by the knowledge of people living in poverty. The program also emphasizes the integrafion of micro- and macrolevel pracfice, and especially of policy pracfice.

Although we do not address specific edu- cafional techniques to be applied in the class- room, such techniques may be elaborated on in a future arficle. Nevertheless, we believe that this current arficle will contribute to the increased integrafion of the topic of poverty within social work curricula on a global level.

References

Abramovitz, M. (1995). From tenement class to dangerous class to underclass: Blaming women for social problems. In N. Van Den Bergh (Ed.), Feminist practice in the 21st

century (pp. 211-231). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Achdut, L. (Ed.). (2005). Annual review—2004. Jerusalem, Israel: Social Security Insfitute.

2 3 8 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Alcock, P. (1997). Understanding poverty (2nd

ed.). New York: Palgrave.

ATD Fourth World. (1995). A learning experi-

ence and family project: An opening to the

future. Paris/London: ATD Fourth World

Movement.

ATD Fourth World. (2004). How poverty sepa-

rates parents and children: A challenge to

human rights. Mery-sur-Oise, France:

Fourth World Publications.

ATD Fourth World. (2005). Getting the right

trainers: Enabling service users to train social

work students and practitioners about the

realities of poverty in the UK. London: ATD

Fourth World Movement.

Beresford, P. (2000). Service users' knowl-

• edges and social work theory: Conflict or

collaboration? British Journal of Social

Work, 30,489-503.

Billups, J. O., & Julia, M. C. (1991). The Fourth

World in the USA: Need for convergent

generalist, feminist and social develop-

ment approaches. International Social

Work, 34, 325-337.

Bloom, L. R. (2001). "I'm poor, I'm single, I'm

a mom, and I deserve respect": Advo-

cating in schools as and with mothers in

poverty. Educational Studies, 32(3),

300-316.

Bloom, L. R., & Kilgore, D. (2003). The volun-

teer citizen after welfare reform in the

United States: An ethnographic study of

volunteerism in America. International

Journal of Voluntary Nonprofit Organiza-

tions, 14,431-454.

British Association of Social Workers. (1996).

The code of ethics for social work. Birming-

ham, UK: Author.

Bullock, H. E. (1995). Class acts: Middle-class

responses to their poor. In B. Lott & D.

Maluso (Eds.), The social psychology of

interpersonal discrimination (pp. 118-159).

New York: Guilford Press.

Council on Social Work Education. (2002).

Curriculum policy statement for bac-

calaureate degree programs. Retrieved

July 16, 2008, from http://www.cswe.org

Cox, D., Gamlath, S., & Pawar, M. (1997).

Social work and poverty alleviation in

South Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Social

Work, 7(2), 15-31.

Craig, G. (2002). Poverty, social work and

social justice. British Journal of Social Work,

32, 669-682.

Davis, A., & Wainwright, S. (2005). Combating

poverty and social exclusion: Implica-

tions for social work. Social Work Educa-

tion, 24, 259-273.

Doron, A. (2001). Social welfare policy in

Israel: Developments in the 1980s and

1990s. Israeli Affairs, 7(4), 153-180.

Dowling, M. (1999). Social exclusion, inequal-

ity and social work. Social Policy and

Administration, 33(3), 245-261.

Edin, K., & Kef alas, M. (2005). Promises I can

keep: Why poor women put motherhood before

marriage. Berkeley: University of Californ-

ia Press.

Edin, K., & Lein, L. (1997). Making ends meet: How

single mothers survive welfare and law-wage

work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Elbashan, Y. (2004). Strangers in the realm of the

law: Access to justice in Israel. Tel Aviv,

Israel: Hakibutz Hameuchad.

Faver, C. A., Cavazos, A. M., Jr., & Trachte, B.

L. (2005). Social work students at the bor-

POVERTY-AWARE SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 2 3 9

der: Religion, culture, and beliefs about

poverty. Journal of Baccalaureate Social

Work, 21(1), 1-15.

Ferry, A., & Watson, D. (2001). Developing

poverty teaching and practice for social

work students: A community profiling

approach. Journal of Practice Teaching in

Health and Social Work, 3(3), 41-56.

Gasker, J. A., & Vafeas, J. G. (2003). Starting

where the student is: Adapting social jus-

fice curricula to poverty atfitudes. Journal

of Baccalaureate Social Work, 9(1), 93-112.

George, V, & Wilding, P. (1994). Welfare and ide-

ology. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Goroff, N. N. (1978). Conflict theories and

social work educafion. Journal of Sociology

and Social Welfare, 5(4), 498-507.

Gray, M., & Mazibuko, R (2002). Social work

in South Africa at the dawn of the new

millennium. International Journal of Social

Welfare, 11,191-200.

Green, R. (2000). Applying a community

needs profiling approach to tackling serv-

ice user poverty. British Journal of Social

Work, 30, 287-303.

Groskind, F. (1994). Ideological influences on

public support for assistance to poor fam-

ilies. Social Work, 39, 81-89.

Guttmarm, D., & Cohen, B. (1992). Teaching

about poverty in Israeli schools of social

work. International Social Work, 35,49-63.

Harding, S., Ferguson, M., & Radey, M. (2005).

Does poverty matter? An analysis of

courses on poverty at the top 50 schools

of social work. Arete, 28(2), 39-53.

Hare, I. (2004). Defining social work for the

21st century. International Social Work, 47,

407-424.

Healy, L. M. (2001). International social work:

Professional action in an interdependent world.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Hokenstad, M. C , Khinduka, S. K., & Midg-

ley, J. (Eds.). (1992). Profiles in international

social work. Washington, DC: National

Associafion of Social Workers.

Jansson, B. S. (2003). Becoming an effective poli-

cy advocate: From policy practice to social jus-

tice (4th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/

Cole/Thomson Learning.

Jones, C. (2002). Social work and society. In R.

Adams, L. Dominelli, & M. Payne (Eds.),

Social work: Themes, issues and critical

debates (2nd ed; pp. 4 1 ^ 9 ) . Basingstoke,

UK: Palgrave.

Jones, C , & Novak, T. (1993). Social work

today. British Journal of Social Work, 23,

195-212.

Katz, M. B. (1989). The undeserving poor: From

the war on poverty to the war on welfare.

New York: Pantheon Books.

Kaufman, R. (2005). Involvement of faculty

and students in promoting the right to

food security: Lessons from a social

change project. Society and Welfare, 25(4),

511-532. (Hebrew)

Keithly, D., & Rombough, S. (2004). To lead or

to serve: Using theory to do both. The New

Social Worker, 11(4), 16-17.

Krumer-Nevo, M. (2002). The arena of

Othering: A narrative study with women

living in poverty and social marginality.

Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 303-318.

Krumer-Nevo, M. (2003a). What helps in help?

A new look at the issue of help for women

living in economic and social deprivafion.

Families in Society, 84(2), 169-178.

2 4 0 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Krumer-Nevo, M. (2003b). From "a coalition

of despair" to "a covenant of help" in

social work with families in distress. Euro-

pean Journal of Social Work, 6(3), 273-282.

Krumer-Nevo, M., (with Barak, A.) (2003c).

Welfare service users' perspectives on the wel-

fare, education and housing services: Three

position papers. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion

University, JIX!-Brookdale and Ashalim.

(Hebrew)

Krumer-Nevo, M. (2005). Listeninig to "life

knowledge": A new research direcfion in

poverty studies. International Journal of

Social Welfare, 14,99-106.

Krumer-Nevo, M. (2006). Women in poverty:

Life stories: Gender, pain, resistance. Tel

Aviv, Israel: Hakibutz Hameuchad Pub-

lications. (Hebrew)

Krumer-Nevo, M., & Barak, A. (2006). Service

users' perspectives on the benefits system

in Israel: A parficipatory action research.

Journal of Social Policy and Administration,

40(7), 774-790.

Krumer-Nevo, M., & Barak, A. (2007). Service

users and personal social services in

Israel: Are we ready to hear what clients

want to tell us? Journal of Social Service

Research, 34(1), 27-42.

Krumer-Nevo, M., & Lev-Wiesel, R. (2005).

Students' attitudes toward clients with

basic needs. Journal of Social Work Edu-

cation, 41, 545-556.

Krumer-Nevo, M., Slonim-Nevo, V., &

Hirshenzon-Segev, E. (2006). Social work-

ers and their long-term clients: The never

ending struggle. Journal of Social Service

Research, 33(1), 27-38.

Landau, R., Guttman, D., & Talyigas, K.

(1998). Eligibility criteria for cash assis-

tance for older and disabled people in

Himgary: A model for countries in pas-

sage from a planned to a market economy.

British Journal of Social Work, 28, 233-246.

Larochelle, C , & Campfens, H. (1992). The

structure of poverty: A challenge for the

training of social workers in the North

and South. International Social Work, 35,

105-119.

Limb, G. E., & Organista, K. C. (2003).

Comparisons between Caucasian stu-

dents, students of color, and American

Indian students on their views on social

work's tradifional mission, career mofiva-

tions, and pracfice preferences. Journal of

Social Work Education, 39, 91-109.

Lister, R. (1998). Cifizenship of the margins:

Cifizenship, social work and social acfion.

European Journal of Social Work, 2(1), 5-18.

Lister, R. (2004). Poverty. London: Polity Press.

Lord, S., & Kennedy, E. (1992). Intervening in

urban poverty at the grassroots level: A

school-community partnership in the

United States. International Social Work, 35,

255-266.

Loury, G. C. (2001). Polifics, race, and poverty

research. In S. H. Danziger & R. H.

Haveman (Eds.), Understanding poverty

(pp. 447- 453). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Lyons, K. (1992). An NGO's response to

poverty and powerlessness on a British

estate: Implicafions for social work edu-

cation. International Social Work, 32,

243-253.

Marie, M. A., & Robert, K. (1997). Teaching

crifical thinking in social work pracfice.

Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 75-84.

Mary, N. L. (1997). Linking social welfare pol-

POVBITY-AWARE SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 2 4 1

icy and global problems: Lessons learned

from an advanced seminar. Journal of

Social Work Education, 33,587-597.

McLaughlin, A. (2005). Intemafional social

work I: Poverty is a grind. The New Social

Worker, 22(4), 11-12.

Murray, C. (1994). Underclass: The crisis deep-

ens. London: IEA Health and Welfare Unit

and The Sunday Times.

National Association of Social Workers.

(1999). Code of ethics (Rev. ed.). Washing-

ton, DC: Author.

Ntusi, T. M. (1998). Professional challenges for

South African social workers: Response to

recent political changes. Maatskaplike

Werk/Social Work, 34(4), 380-388.

Parsloe, P. (1990). Social work educafion in the

year 2000. International Social Work, 33,

13-25.

Pearce, D. (1978). The feminizafion of poverty:

Women, work, and welfare. Urban and

Social Change Review, 3,1-4.

Perry, R. (2001). The classificafion, intercorre-

lafion, and dynamic nature of MSW stu-

dent pracfice preferences. Journal of Social

Work Education, 37, 523-542.

Perry, R. (2003). Who wants to work with the

poor and homeless? Journal of Social Work

Education, 39, 321-341.

Pierson, P. (2001). Coping with permanent

austerity: Welfare state restructuring in

affluent democracies. In P. Pierson (Ed.),

The new politics of the welfare state (pp.

410-456). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Quigley, W. P. (2003). Ending poverty as we

know it: Cuaranteeing a right to a job at a liv-

ing wage. Philadelphia: Temple University

Press.

Rainwater, L. (1970). Neutralizing the disin-

herited: Some psychological aspects of

understanding the poor. In V. L. Allen

(Ed.), Psychological factors in poverty (pp.

9-28). New York: Academic Press.

Rank, M. R. (2005). One nation, underprivileged:

Why American poverty affects us all. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Ronen, Y. & Klein, M. (2007). On child protec-

fion, hope and realism. Child Protection—

Challenges Worldwide, 29,96-109.

Rosenfeld, J. M. (1993). Parfiiership: Guide-

lines for social work pracfice with and on

. behalf of defeated populafions. Society

and Welfare, 13(3), 225-236.

Rosenfeld, J. M., & Tardieu, B. (2000). Artisans

of democracy: How ordinary people, families

in extreme poverty, and social institutions

become allies to overcome social exclusion

(pp. 207-226). Lanham, MD: University

Press of America.

Schorr, L. B., & Schorr, D. (1988). Within our

reach: -Breaking the cycle of disadvantage.

New York: Anchor Books.

Sewpaul, V. (2001). Economic globalizafion

and social policy reform: Social work cur-

ricula in the South African context.

Maatskaplike Werk/Social Work, 37(4),

309-323.

Shamai, M., & Sharlin, S. (1996). Who writes

the "therapeutic story" of families in

extreme distress: Overcoming the coali-

fion of despair. Journal of Family Social

Work, 1(4), 65-82.

Slonim-Nevo, V., & Lander, Y (2004). Can

child welfare and family welfare be sepa-

rated? Some thoughts and recontmenda-

fions for change. Society and Welfare, 24(4),

401-434.

2 4 2 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Spiro, S. E., Sherer, M., Korin-Langer, N., &

Weiss, I. (1997). Israel. In N. S. Mayadas,

T. D. Watts, & D. Elliot (Eds.), International

handbook on social work theory and practice

(pp. 223-244). Westport, CT: Greenwood

Press.

Stack, C. (1974). All our kin. New York: Basic

Books.

Suartez, K., Smokowski, P., & Wodarski, J. S.

(1996). The process of intervenfion with

mulfiproblem families: Theorefical and

pracfice guidelines. Pamily Therapy, 23(2),

117-134.

Torez)mer, J. (2001). The applicafion of human

rights advocacy theory to organizafional

innovation in Israel: The Community

Advocacy/Genesis Israel experience.

International Journal of Social Welfare, 10,

85-96.

Tully, G., Nadel, M., & Lesser, M. (2005).

Providing economics content for the 21st

century BSW student. Journal of Teaching

in Social Work, 25(3/4), 19-34. -

Vosler, N. R., & Nair, S. (1993). Families, chil-

dren, poverty: Educafion for social work

practice at multiple systems levels.

International Social Work, 36,159-172.

Waldegrave, C. (2005). "Just therapy" with

families on low incomes. Child Welfare,

84(2), 265-276.

Walker, C , & Walker, A. (2002). Social poUcy

and social work. In R. Adams, L. Donünelli,

& M. Payne (Eds.), Social work: Themes,

issues and critical debates (2nd ed; pp. 50-61).

Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.

Weiss, I. (2005). The service users groups pref-

erences of social work students in seven

countries. Journal of Social Work Research

and Evaluation, 6, 121-136.

Weiss, L (2006). Factors associated with inter-

est in working with the poor. Families in

Society 87, 385-394.

Weiss, L, Gal, J., & Cnaan, R. A. (2004). Social

work educafion as professional socializa-

fion: A study of the impact of social work

education upon the professional prefer-

ences of students. Journal of Social Service

Research, 31,13-31.

Weiss, L, & Welboume, P (Eds.). (2007). Social

work as a profession—A comparative cross-

national perspective. London: Brifish Asso-

ciafion of Social Workers/Venture Press.

Wemet, C. (2003, March). Innovative techniques

in teaching inequality. Paper presented at

the meeting of the Southern Sociological

Society, New Orleans, LA.

White, L. E. (1991). Subordinafion, rhetorical

survival skills, and Sunday shoes: Notes

on the hearing of Mrs. G. In K. T. Bartlett

and R. Kennedy (Eds.), Feminist legal theo-

ry: Reading in law and gender (pp. 404-Í30).

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged:

The inner city, the underclass, and public

policy. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Wilson, W. J. (1997). When work disappears: The

world of the new urban poor. New York: Vin-

tage Books.

Witkin, S. L. (1998). Is social work an adjec-

five? Social Work, 43, 483-Í86.

Ziv, N. (2004). The poor, the rich, and the

bridge. Retrieved on September 25, 2005,

from http://www.nfc.co.il/archive/003-

D-212-00.html?tag=734-54&an=True

Ziv, N. (2005). Law and poverty: A proposal

for law agenda for representing people

living in poverty. Alei Mishapt, 4,17-34.

POVERTY-AWARE SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 2 4 3

Accepted 0 4 / 0 8

Michal Krumer-Nevo is senior lecturer and director of the israeii Center for Qualitative Research of People and Society, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Idit Weiss-Gal is senior lecturer, Tel Aviv University. Menachem Monnickendam is senior lecturer and director of graduate studies, Bar-Han University.

Address correspondence to Michal Krumer-Nevo, Spitzer Department of Social WorK P.O. Box 653, Beer- Sheva, Israel 84105, Israel; e-mail: [email protected].