THE KINDERSCHUTZZENTRUM OF MUNICH:AN INTIMATE VIEW*

Charles L. McGehee**

*Originally published in German as "Das Kinderschutzzentrum-Munchen. Ein Erfahrungsbericht." in W. Brinkmann and M. Honig (eds.) Kinderschutz als sozialpolitische Praxis. Munich: Kosel Verlag.

This study was funded in part by grants from the German Academic Exchange Service and the Faculty Research Committee of Central Washington University.

**Professor of Sociology, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington 98926

.

Abstract

The Kinderschutzzentrum (Child Protection Center) of Munich is an innovative, private child protection agency which seeks to aid abusive families as an alternative to state intervention. Following the principle of "help, don't punish," the Center provides telephone counseling and individual and family therapy utilizing professional therapists as well as lay family aide/therapists, a controversial program. Problems of organizing such a program are discussed, such as, conflict between ideals and real-world !problems, between old and new staff and between professional and lay workers.

Keywords: child abuse, child protection, child welfare, West Germany

The Kinderschutzzentrum of Munich:

Introduction

During the summer of 1980 I traveled extensively in West Germany

interviewing numerous persons involved in child abuse programs in order to

familiarize myself with the problem of child abuse in that country. While

contact with academicians and others involved in publically recognized social

service organizations was relatively easy to establish, contact with child

abuse at the grassroots eluded me for quite some time. Quite perchance through

a newspaper article I came across a most remarkable organization which was

operating under the name of the Beratungsstelle fur Kinderschutzarbeit (Child

Protection Counseling Center). I knew at first glance that this was the sort

of operation that I had been seeking. And indeed several hours of conversation

with the staff convinced me that "this was the place." So impressed was I, and

so chagrined was I that the time was so short, that I vowed to return to learn

more about this project. This I did. In the following summer (1981) I

returned to observe first-hand for two weeks the internal functioning of this

place which, by now, bore the name Kinderschutzzentrum-Munchen (Munich Child

Protection Center). Following are a few observations through the eyes of an

outsider of life in a developing grass-roots child protection center in

Germany.

I. History and activities of the KSZ-Munchen.

In 1972 the Munich branch of the German Child Protection Federation (Deutscher Kinderschutzbund) made the decision to change its program to the Area of family counseling. With the help of the German Youth Institute (Deutsches Jugendinstitut), a plan was prepared which was submitted in 1977 to the City of Munich for financial support. In 1978 financial aid was granted for space and a project director.

The project, originally called the Beratungsstelle fur Kinderschutzarbeit but now called the Kinderschutzzentrum of Munich, to establish an identity with the Berlin center, was intended to deal with those child abuse cases which never come to light (die Dunkelziffer). It began with the assumption that increased public reporting to authorities would only serve (l) to increase the isolation of already isolated families, (2) to encourage families to hide even more their neglect and abuse from neighbors and relatives, and (3) cause even more harm to the children involved through the additional economic and social problems caused by criminal punishment for parents and institutionalization for children. While it was not intended to replace state action in those cases reported to the authorities, its specific task was to provide families with an alternative to state intervention. It is for this reason that the group has intentionally kept a certain distance from

the authorities.

Breaking with the widespread psychodynamic model of child abuse that said that child abuse was the product of individual pathology and which seemed to call for confinement and removal of the child from the home, the counselling center basically followed the principle that child abuse was the product of social change as it affected the daily lives of individuals. What parents needed, it followed, was help in coping rather than criminalization. Much of the theory was based on the research done on the everyday lives of "little people" by the German Youth Institute [1,3].

The center is intentionally located in the inner city in an old building and near public transportation to facilitate contact with its target population which is, by and large, working class. It has a small paid staff but relies primarily on a cadre of volunteers who are recruited through newspaper advertisements. The primary requirements for the volunteers are that they have had some personal experience with child abuse in their own pasts and, if possible, have had some training related to counseling. Applicants are further screened to insure their ability to work with people.

Through public advertisements persons are encouraged to call the center for advice or help to report themselves or others as having a problem with child-rearing. Confidentiality is assured. The program is oriented around a number of activities: (1) telephone counseling, (2) crisis intervention and family counseling, (3) homemaking and parenting aid, (4) in-center counseling and long-term family therapy, and (5) training for both in-house staff and outside interest groups.

The guiding organizational principle of the center is that of the interdisciplinary team. The team is made up of personnel trained in sociology, psychology, and education and is organized in an interdisciplinary structure differing in form and concept from that practiced elsewhere in that medical and social welfare agency personnel are not directly included. That they are not included seems less to do with the concept than the general difficulties of achieving cooperation with these sectors as a whole.

By 1979, the second year of its existence, the center was handling 7,500 short telephone contacts, 1,000 more intensive telephone counseling sessions, and 1,250 lay therapist actions. The center also dealt with 66 families intensively. By 1981 the center staff had expanded to six full-time professional staff employees as well as four administrative and adjunct staff. Medical and legal advice are provided on a consultation basis, and lay family aides assist the staff in handling specific cases.

In 1980, 415 cases were handled. These were predominantly parents with a variety of problems, neighbors reporting abuse, or persons from other institutions seeking support with abuse cases they had encountered. Of this number, 70 client families were carried over from the previous year, 345 were new, and 344 consultation/therapies were completed during the year. 614 children were involved, of which 296 were boys and 318 girls (0-5 years of age, 238; 6-10, 179; 11-14, 136; and over 15, 61). Parents, children or other important family members from 276 families were counseled in person or by telephone during that year. 185 cases were handled through brief consultation while 91 were treated intensively over a long period of time (more than eight contacts) in the Kinderschutzzentrum in the center's own facilities. This amounted to an increase of almost 50% over the previous year.

A waiting period of one to eight weeks exists between initial contact and actual therapy or consultation. However, requests for telephone consultation, spontaneous consultation and crisis intervention are handled immediately.

In 1980 reports were received from the following sources:

Parents 43%

Children 3

Relatives 5

Neighbors, acquaintances 27

Dept. of Social Services 7

Physicians, hospitals 4

Schools 5

Other institutions 6

____

100%

Conditions contributing to abuse which have been noted are: child-rearing difficulties; behavioral problems of the child; parents' emotional problems (e. g., anxiety, insomnia, thoughts of suicide, death threats, rejection of the child); guilt feelings about the child; violent domestic conflicts; excessive psycho-social demands on the parents (resulting from difficult children, social isolation, relational problems between the parents, money problems, housing, work, neighborhood); child custody questions, and general problems of child-rearing.

Client counseling

Client counseling includes several activities depending on the specific social situation of the families in question. They are:

1. Immediate crisis intervention in emergencies (e.g., "I'll stay with you until the children are asleep if you are really afraid you may do something to them yet today,") followed up by appropriate investigations (Klärung) of the situation.

2. Intake and diagnostic interviews, personal development oriented individual counseling, and family therapy.

3. Long term companionship for the parents by a family helper.

4. The offer of availability of someone to talk to if needed in the future.

5. Arranging contacts with other social service agencies or in the family's neighborhood as well as the emergency care and housing of children.

6. Contacting clients.

There is a problem of contacting clients when the report is from other than the client. In such cases the family must be contacted personally, even though it is often difficult to find anyone at home. The most difficult initial contacts are undertaken by the professional staff. Often the families adamantly reject any suggestion that they need outside help, and a great deal of time, effort and experience is needed to reduce their fears and make the offer of help acceptable.

7. Diagnostic and case analysis.

In all of the initial interviews with family members who have a special problem with domestic violence, it is necessary to determine if the family is being affected by a syndrome of violence. It is especially necessary to clarify which problem area is most likely to respond to a specific treatment. An attempt is made to determine whether supplemental psychiatric or medical therapy for children or parents is necessary.

8. Telephone counseling.

Various members of affected families take advantage of the availability of the staff of the Kinderschutzzentrum by telephone, especially in crisis situations. In addition, the staff maintains regular contact with high risk families who are more intensively counselled. These telephone contacts usually last 30-90 minutes. Further, many parents and children call anonymously -- sometimes over an extended period of time, just to be able to talk and to get advice. Following are statements by parents which exemplify the types of problems experienced:

"Should, can, may I put my retarded child in an institution? I just can't take it anymore! Am I a bad mother?"

"Who can help me keep from having to give up my foster child to its parents? I've had it since it was two weeks old, and now the parent has been released from a mental hospital after five years and wants custody again."

"It's Friday morning and I have only 70 pfennigs. My husband won't give me any money. What should I do? The children are hungry!"

Since a leaflet which speaks directly to the problem of abuse was prepared and distributed, an increasing number of clients (often anonymously at the outset) are coming with problems of the following kind:

"My 2 year old daughter is simply wicked. I hit her with a wooden spoon, and locked her in her room, but nothing does any good. Are there children that are simply wicked? What should I do? I don't want to beat her all the time." My life was a lot different before this kid came. It ruined everything, my figure, my career. Since then I've been so depressed -- if this kid weren't there . . . I get so angry -- and then when I see those thin arms and legs . . ."

"I don't know why. I scream the whole day. My little boy even has had screaming tantrums in kindergarten."

"I'm afraid to go home. My father beat me this afternoon with his belt. And now there's this letter from the teacher about my grades . . ."

9. Individual and family counseling.

Personal counseling sessions are held for more than 200 families a year, frequently in which several family members or other persons of importance to the family participate. Depending on the situation, these sessions are held at the Center, the family's home, or other locations. Following is an example of one crisis and its disposition:

A mother, Frau B., called the telephone crisis line of the Kinderschutzzentrum during a night-time crisis. "I'm afraid I'm going to do something to my baby. My husband beat me again; the baby cried the whole night, and that's been going on for five months. I can't take it any more."

In the course of a 1 hour telephone conversation a member of the professional staff provided support for Frau B. such that she was able to calm down and make it through the night. On the next day the family was visited in their home, and it was possible to talk about the problems which had brought about the crisis. It was determined that Frau B. needed help in the home and some time for herself away from the baby. The staff counselor helped Frau B. by arranging to have the baby cared for by neighbors at night for the next two weeks. Further counseling at home and in the Kinderschutzzentrum itself was concerned with the prospective divorce of the parents, conflict with the mother-in-law, the physical and psychological exhaustion of the mother, and special difficulties with the children.

After two weeks Frau B. was stable enough that she was able to care for the baby by herself. The counseling continued.

10. Counseling of children.

Counseling is also provided children who have contacted the Kinderschutzzentrum independently or when their situations are otherwise difficult, especially when the issue concerns the advisability of the child leaving home in the face of abuse or other family crisis.

11. Psychotherapy.

Many individual therapy sessions are conducted involving individual parents (52 by 1980), and many families (36 in 1980) took part in the family therapy (some involving only couples and some involving parents with a problem child but without including their other children). The therapeutic methods used are conversational therapy, Gestalt therapy, psychodrama and family therapy, all of which are adapted to the specific needs of the client.

12. Social services.

In order to deal with special problematic situations and psychic conditions, special support services are developed, arranged, encouraged or initiated for many families. Specially arranged services are concerned with practical activities of everyday life such as housing, work, school, illness, health, debts, police, and social activities. Generally these are accomplished by telephone and involved a great deal of time, especially when concerned with severely isolated and marginal families. Since families from a lower socio-economic class often have had bad experiences with social agencies and are threatened with criminalization and stigmatization, such intervention and long term counseling and therapy may be the only possible way to deal with their problems.

13. Family aides.

In the summer of 1980 new volunteers were recruited and the existing group of family aides was expanded to 35. During that year 48 families were assisted involving more than 11,000 aide-hours. This figure represents the total hours actually spent with the families, travel time, telephone time, training, and consultation with the staff.

Experience has shown that it is better to train aides who have some social science training and/or can demonstrate practical experience with children. Co-workers who themselves have more or less successfully gone through family crises generally bring to the needy family a certain sensitivity and humility which, in conjunction with further training, permits development of a long-term and intense relationship without moral judgement or disappointment. This process of professionalization of such lay workers has been encouraged through the symbolic payment of DM 5 (West German marks) per hour spent on the family, although recently financial problems have caused this practice to be curtailed.

The basic requirement for a family aide is a willingness to provide a supportive socio-emotional role/relationship for abusive parents. The guiding principle is that through trust and confidence, parents may find a way to overcome their crises. The relationship between the family aide and the family must continue over a long enough period of time so that not only the actual crisis situation is overcome, but also the parents have found a functioning support system, be it with friends or institutional. Such is the example of Family R.:

Family R. was looked after by a family aide for an extended period $of time. At the beginning of the contact period, the parents lived with their small children (1, 2, and 4 years) in emergency housing and under very cramped conditions. Their financial situation was extremely grave because of unemployment of the father. There was a complete absence of support from friends, neighbors or relatives. Both parents were very young and were completely overburdened with the three children. The children were neglected and showed evidence of mistreatment. The most important task of the family aide was to develop a relationship of trust to the family, to care for them and give them a great deal of attention and recognition, qualities neither parent had ever known in their childhood and, therefore, could never give to their own children.

The family aide helped the parents while they looked for housing and when going to the doctor, as well as while seeking space in a child care facility. In the meantime the social situation of the family is substantially improved and the parents feel better able to take care of their children.

14. Cooperation with other agencies.

In cases involving families with which other agencies have been working, there is a great deal of cooperation with the staffs of these agencies (such as the Department of Social Services of the City of Munich and area schools) which necessarily requires coordination, often with regular meetings. Ein 1980 this was the case in 69 families. For example, in one such case the social worker in a children's hospital contacted the Kinderschutzzentrum about a family whose child had been admitted to the hospital with injuries which were possibly the result of child abuse. After a thorough discussion of the best course of action for this family, an agreement was reached with the family. The parents agreed to send the child to its grandmother for a few weeks after being released from the hospital. In the meantime they were prepared to enter into therapy with the other children in the family at the Kinderschutzzentrum. After a few sessions it was learned that the family had already been in contact with a social worker in the Department of Social Services and one child even had been granted special educational help. In order to help the family workout its problems, as well as to coordinate the various forms of assistance, regular contacts with the staff of the KSZ were established. Through the cooperation of the various assisting institutions the stress in a family is substantially reduced, so much so even that in one stressful situation the family was able, on its own, to bring an actually endangered child to the hospital (with no injuries) for a short, protective stay. The hospital staff cooperated in an unbureacratic fashion by admitting the child for what amounted to social welfare reasons. This is a dramatic departure from days gone by.

15. Interviews of reporting parties.

A total of 207 cases of suspected child abuse were reported to the Kinderschutzzentrum in 1980. 138 of the reports were from private parties and 69 from agencies. Through intensive questioning of the person making the report at the time of the report an attempt is made to determine what observations gave rise to the report and what, if any, psycho-social factors may have been involved, that is, whether the report is based on genuine, grounded suspicion of child abuse or neglect or is the result of other factors, such as neighborhood conflict or child custody conflict. It must further be determined at this time whether the Kinderschutzzentrum should take the case or offer the caller (in the case of reporting institutions) consultation, or cooperation. In the case mentioned above there were often many staff consultations about that particular family.

Public service and public relations.

A family counseling center which concentrates on violent families need, on the one hand, special public relations work to be able to reach its clientele, and, on the other hand, cooperation with other agencies involved in psycho-social work. Brochures and leaflets, posters, three radio and one television broadcast by the Bavarian Broadcasting Network as well as articles about the Kinderschutzzentrum in the Munich daily newspaper, all have helped reach the target group. Agencies such as the Social Psychiatric Services (Sozialpsychiatrische Dienste), Child and Mother Protective Association (Verein Kinderschutz- und Mutterschutz), Armed Forces Social Services (Bundeswehr-Sozialwerk), Pro-Familia and the the Special Educational Center (Heilpadagogisches Zentrum), and the district councils of the Social Democratic Party of Munich, among others, have received special attention by fthe Center. Public service with the Department of Social Services is performed gin the context of actual practical interagency cooperation.

The Kinderschutzzentrum also provides advice and consultation for training for agency social workers (in cooperation with Bavarian Youth Protection Action (Aktion Jugendschutz Bayern)) for conferences of juvenile court supervisors conducted by the Bavarian Ministry of Social Services, for the Memorial Institute for Social Affairs, and for the German Child Protection Conference.

Relations with other institutions.

The Kinderschutzzentrum operates cooperatively with the Municipal Juvenile Office (Stadtjugendamt), the Department of Social Services (Allgemeine Sozialdienst), the Children's Clinic of the University of Munich, the Special Educational Center (Heilpadagogisches Zentrum), the Youth Counselling Center of Maria-Hilfsplatz, the child-psychiatric Hecksche Clinic, the Socialpsychiatric Service, the Municipal Housing Office (Amt fuer Wohnungswesen), and the German Youth Institute (Deutsche Jugendinstitut), among others.

The network of contacts with educational institutions in the Munich area has been expanded through discussions about their services with the professional educational staff. Further, contact is maintained with hospital {physicians, the juvenile office, police, family court, Department of Social |Services, motherhood counseling center, and hospital social service through }regular visits of Kinderschutzzentrum representatives [2].

II. Problems of organizing a grass-roots child abuse treatment center in Germany.

The Kinderschutzzentrum of Munich is without a doubt a key element in the development of the new direction in child abuse treatment in the Federal Republic of Germany. I have been advised, however, not to over-estimate naively the success of the organization and its activities. It is, after all, a living, developing activity, and, as such, subject to a variety of developmental problems. The better such problems are understood, the better the future will be for them and other such organizations.

There are a number of problems such organizations in Germany must face which Americans, for example, may find hard to understand. In the U. S., grass-roots self-help organizations are not at all uncommon and are widely accepted as valid treatment in a wide range of areas of social concern. As an important cultural difference, Americans tend to be less reliant on government, professions and formal organizations than do older, more developed cultures such as Germany.

Germans, I have observed and have been told, are not only very respectful of trained professionals and authority, they are also very dependent on them. In this regard, the belief seems to be that if something is not done by professionals, it ought not, cannot and will not be done; it simply is not the place of laymen to be undertaking that which, by definition, only "Fachleute" (trained specialists) do. This applies to all activities from auto repair to medicine, for example. The idea of unschooled parents sitting down and helping each other, as in the case of the American "Parents Anonymous," is a totally alien concept, and, as such, I was told, it would not work in Germany -- at least not easily. Not only is there a tendency to resist self-help, there is also a tendency to anticipate and explain failure in these terms. Germans need professionals, I was told.

Recently, for example, the Munich Kinderschutzzentrum planned to introduce a Parents-Anonymous-like program for parents having difficulty with child rearing. This they attempted, but with little success. They advertised by leafleting the area, but only a few people came.

As a result, the "Anonyme-Eltern-Gruppen" were abandoned in favor of parents' groups led by members of the professional staff. This seems to be more successful. A variety of people from all walks of life have been coming who have problems with their children and their lives. They feel comfortable with the professional staff, and the group discussion which takes place, they report, allows them more release than in a more formalized professional counseling session. A number of participants in the group have had previous experience with professionals and therefore have a basis for judgement. The groups are continuing to meet regularly with the staff While this was understandably disappointing, I have the feeling that they somehow saw this as being less successful than the American model they were following and more evidence of the "German problem." When I told them of the difficulties in founding Parents Anonymous chapters in the U.S., they seemed surprised. (In our small town we waited eight months before the first parent came to a Parents Anonymous meeting! This is not uncommon.) Germans often overestimate the success of American programs and underestimate how difficult they may be for Americans to implement. If problems occur, they often self-consciously attribute the difficulties to "the Germans."

A primary conceptual aspect of the center, which makes it unique among those involved in child abuse work in Germany, is the use of "lay therapists" as parent aides. The intent is for these aides to become companions, confidants, helpers, counselors, etc., for families having domestic problems.

As indicated above, those recruited have personal backgrounds involving domestic strife and, hence, presumably understand the problems of the family better. In theory, too, they are better able to communicate with other laymen than are the professionals since, German respect for professionals notwithstanding, a distance and alienation always exists between professional and layman. "Lay therapists," it is hoped, will overcome this distance and provide better therapy.

Yet, as suggested above, Germans do not readily accept help from laymen as an alternative to professionals and might be expected to resist the therapy. On the other hand, I was told, if lay volunteers were given a certain status which served to separate them from their clients and elevate them somewhat, then one might suspect that they would be taken more seriously. Whereas Americans would regard freely given service in a social service agency as simply voluntary, Germans would have to make a distinction between voluntary in the sense of freely given services (freiwillig) and voluntary in the sense of a qualified person holding an unpaid, honorary position (ehrenamtlich). It is in this latter manner that the workers in the child protection center are conceived, and it is in this manner that it is hoped that the skepticism of is to be overcome.

The idea of "ehrenamtlich," on the other hand, causes some philosophical problems among the early founders. "Ehrenamtlich," in their view, carries the additional connotation of charitable in the traditional middle class (bürgerlich) sense. According to this view the "Ehrenamtlicher" wants to help but only on his or her own terms, thus forcing the object of help to conform to a possibly alien lifestyle and value system, the lifestyle and values of the helper. This has specifically ^&not\& been the goal of the Munich center. Indeed, from the beginning the intent has been specifically to break with such an approach by encouraging troubled families to work out their problems for themselves. The Center stands as a facilitator rather than coercer of change.

Also a problem for Germans is the relationship between such an organization and the State. While this is a problem in America, too, it is particularly difficult for Germans. At the beginning of any contact, most people are very suspicious of the Center's staff. It is almost inconceivable that an organization investigate deviant behavior without being a function of the state, and the State is feared even more than it is in America. All the staff can do is to assure them that they have no ties with the law and then to demonstrate their trustworthiness. It often takes a long time before a client's confidence is won. Sometimes it never is.

The practical application of this theory of lay therapy has not been without problems. Although the Kinderschutzzentrum has a policy of egalitarianism -- that is, no status difference between staff and aides -- the aides perceive that such a distinction does in fact exist, a belief which tends to generate comments among them. The problem seem to be in two primary areas: decision-making and function. Generally speaking, all matters of policy and planning are decided by the professional staff. As a matter of practicality this should not be surprising since the staff is responsible to the sponsoring agency and also provides the continuity of the organization. Nevertheless, since the theory emphasizes "lay therapy" as the conceptual backbone of the program, the apparent inconsistency is noticed. The aides, recruited with this policy in mind, have accepted the proposition that their view of the world, if not the key, at least should be considered in the policies of the center. This, in their opinion, is not the case -- at least not enough.

The second problem with aides has to do with the nature of their task: what is it they are supposed to be doing? The theory states that they are "lay therapists" a la Carl Rogers. Actually, though, they are called family aides. They are specifically told that they are not to attempt therapy or counseling (Beratung). But, as they have observed vocally, what is it they do if not counseling and what is their presence if not therapeutic? They try not to give advice as such, at least not in a domineering fashion, but they listen non-judgementally (usually) and draw out their client, thereby facilitating the resolution of problems by the family itself. From my experience with the aides, they are, for the most part, most perceptive people, who can and do ask penetrating, insightful questions in a manner not unlike a therapist. What, then, are they doing if not therapy? The question nags the aides and the staff alike and underlies much of the debate in the Center.

As far as I can tell, the fundamental issue lies in the question of control -- who is to determine the direction of the program and the destinies of the participants? Understandably, the professional staff have committed long years of training and effort to the program and have a clear, vested interest in it and its direction. To allow others lacking such background, commitment and investment to dictate the future is a clear negation of that which has been invested -- the intent, the will, and the product of the investors.

What is not adequately acknowledged by the staff, in my opinion, is that the aides, too, have a great commitment in the program. Even though they have not spent the years in professional training (for this work), they have developed a large reservoir of experience as well as an intense emotional investment. As such it is impractical to limit their participation in decision-making and unfair not to take them seriously.

Part of the problem lies in the origin of the project itself. The Center itself was spawned in the values and perspectives of the university reform and social criticism of the 1970's. As such, the project, as were many activities of the time, was not only a response to child abuse, it was also -- and even especially -- a response ^&against\& the middle class (der bürgerliche Stand) and its traditional values and relationships as well as against those corresponding and prevailing bureaucratic values and organization. According to the critique, which incidently, is an advanced form of that which has preoccupied much of Germany since the early 1900's, these values reflect a certain world-taken-for-granted view of parents, children, and society which labels parents who deviated from their traditional role expectations as bad and which, at the same time, expects parents to control their children, using force if necessary, and expects children to submit to such control. If things in the family go wrong, it follows, the truth of the matter can only be dealt with appropriately by the "authorities," the representatives of the legitimate order.

In modern Germany such social criticism is very wide spread and to be found in virtually all areas of the society in one form or another. While the American social criticism of the 1960's and 1970's was rather short-lived, ending generally with the Vietnam war, German social criticism is alive and becoming more entrenched as the students of the 1960's and 1970's enter the society.

Much of this criticism is directed against traditional professionals who are often regarded as tools of an oppressive past. Traditional professionals, therefore, tend to be seen by those who accept the social criticism of the 1970's as representatives of the establishment, and are, therefore, suspect. Hence a certain "anti-professional professionalism" has characterized the philosophy of programs critical of the traditional social order since the beginning -- not an uncontradictory situation.

The organizing principle of the Kinderschutzzentrum has been that parents experience misery and serious problems in contemporary society and are not necessarily evil if they cause harm to their children in response to these conditions. "Helfen, nicht strafen," (Help, don't punish) is a commonly heard slogan. Although not new, this perspective applied in the area of child abuse has been nothing less than revolutionary. Add to it the idea that help could)be provided not only outside -- indeed, in opposition to -- "The System" and*from relatively untrained persons at that, and one has a radically different approach to child abuse treatment. The willingness to use the authority of the law even to coerce parents into therapy has been described to me as a "perversion." .

But implementing the dreams of revolutionaries is not without difficulties. And it is in this regard that many of the internal stresses of the Kinderschutzzentrum may be understood.

Simply stated, problems demand solutions, and in solving their problems the "old guard" has had to opt for solutions which often seem to reflect the values and structures they have opposed. For example, the hard reality that good will, talk, love and "help" do not make all problems go away has forced some to the conclusion that for the sake of the child it may well be necessary, in some instances, to call in the authorities before it is too late. In this sense it is sometimes difficult for the "old guard" to keep in mind that the interest of children should be of greater importance than showing the "establishment" whatever it is that it needs to be shown.

In addition to this, members of the "old guard" leave to be replaced by new staff who may share the ideology but do not share the history of struggle, success, failure, and frustration. Moreover, the new staff bring with them other insights, experiences, etc., such that the program necessarily will take, to some extent, a different direction. Thus, it is understandable, if disturbing, to witness decisions being made, however subtly, along lines of old vs. new as well as professional vs. lay, the old viewing with misgiving the direction of the new and fearing the program will become bureaucratized, and hence the antithesis of what was envisioned, while the new chafe at the restrictions "imposed" by the old which do not fit reality as the new understand it. These stresses are, of course, not unique to the Munich center. They are characteristic of all developing organizations, and those involved with similar programs would do well to keep that in mind.

While I do not wish to convey the image of a battlefield -- the center is anything but that -- there is, nevertheless, a certain preoccupation with internal affairs which reflect these issues. This preoccupation borders on dominating the primary mission of child protection and points up an issue which must be overcome before the program will be completely successful.

One factor, however, bids well for the ability of the center to resolve its problems -- its mechanisms of internal communication, feedback and self-criticism. This occurs in several ways: (l) Once a week all family aides meet in one of four groups with a staff member who supervises their activities. The purpose of the sessions is to allow the participants to discuss their cases, their personal problems with their cases or otherwise, problems with the agency, etc. Relations are quite informal and at time intense. All participants use the familiar "du" form of address regardless of age or status. There seem to be no reservations about raising issues critical of the staff or family helpers. Comments and criticism can be extremely biting, although a great deal of sensitivity and concern is shown and care taken to make sure that any damage caused is healed before the session is over. In this manner sensitive issues of confidentiality, changing leadership, personal affronts to the group, as well as problems of personal style with families and the public can be, and are, discussed openly and candidly.

(2) Something called at a "Supervision" (noun) is practiced. A Supervision is a case analysis, the point of which is to allow the person involved in the case to examine his or her own problems with the case. A Supervision is something that is conducted by one person for another. It is frequently done by a superior for a subordinate, but may also take place among status equals. In the latter case, for the duration of the Supervision the person seeking feedback voluntarily submits to the insight, critique and feedback of the other.

A Supervision seems to have therapeutic qualities for the person supervised. This may be anticipated and even be the reason for having one. Not uncommonly does one hear, "I need a Supervision," and another may be asked to conduct one at an arranged time and place.

A Supervision is more than a mere case analysis and more than a gripe session. It has more the quality of a verbal diary, that is, the person is in a position to be able to express the deepest frustrations about the case in point, or any other aspect of the work for that matter. While the subject is nominally work, personal matters can and will also be introduced, especially to the extent they affect work. Through such deep, often introspective analyses the person is able to gain new perspectives on the work at hand. The method is dialogic and frequently involves role-playing and psycho-drama-like expression as adjuncts to the analysis.

(3) Staff meetings also are an important mechanism of internal communication. Staff meetings, of course, are not unusual in such organizations. The unusual aspect of these staff meetings is the manner and the extent of the communication which flows between the staff members. It is quite remarkable. Although staff meetings exclude aides and are presumably concerned with policy, cases and personal problems may also come up. The attitude toward others may at times be biting, but concern is demonstrated not to let one leave with open wounds. I could only admire their ability to communicate, and wish a similar atmosphere prevailed among my colleagues.

The separation of the aides from the staff is, at times, a problem in the staff meeting. While it is clear that staff and aide interests do not always coincide, and for some purposes will and should remain separate, matters concerning the welfare of and activities involving aides do come up. Solutions to problems are bound to suffer in the absence of their participation at this level. The other sessions mentioned are no substitute for participation at this level.

That such problems are not easily dealt with is indicated by the following passage from the 1982 annual report:

Since the conflict between family aides and the professional staff, which was becoming increasingly sharp and obvious, was not to be resolved, a weekend meeting was held, with the help of the German Youth Institute, in order to seek a mutually acceptable solution to the problem. This meeting, however, produced only a partial resolution. Agreements were reached concerning the responsibilities and relationship between the aides and the paid staff. But in spite of great effort, the tensions within the group could not be completely resolved, and part of the family aides left the Kinderschutzzentrum. In general, the agreements have not yet been implemented, since the remaining and new family aides want to clarify, at the regular meetings of their own groups, their own conception of who they are as family aides within the broader framework of the program of the German Child Protection Federation. This is necessary in case the agreements made with the professional staff, i.e., the participation of both groups in conferences in which cases are assigned to the family aides and meeting together regularly to discuss and develop policies and perspectives, need to be re-evaluated." [2:54]

Conclusion

In sum, the Kinderschutzzentrum of Munich is a remarkable experiment, one which has clearly demonstrated its viability and has established itself as a model for and integral part of the growing child abuse treatment network in Germany. It has and will continue to experience "growing pains." For this is should not be condemned but studied and praised for its openness and candor. All who wish to develop similar programs will experience the same problems if they do not profit by the Munich center's experience.

While the group has drawn much from the American experience with volunteers and self-help programs, they have not created an American program. They have developed a program truly in response to German needs and one from which Americans have something to learn. The idea of a program totally separate from state authorities is one which has not been developed very far in the U. S., and is something quite difficult for Americans to conceive of. This German model deserves more attention.

Finally, I wish to thank my sponsors for their confidence and my hosts and friends at the Kinderschutzzentrum. I shall never forget the warmth and openness with which they received and accepted me, a stranger, into their midst and how they treated me as one of their own. My heartfelt appreciation goes out to them.

REFERENCES

1. HONIG, M., Welcher Tropfen bringt das Fass zum Überlaufen? In: "...auch wenn das Kind schon blau geschlagen ist...", Wolf Sartorius (Ed.). Munchen: Beratungsstelle fur Kinderschutzarbeit des Deutschen Kinderschutzbundes OV-Munchen e. V. (1979).

2. Jahresbericht des Kinderschutzzentrum-Munchens (1979-1982).

3. WAHL, KLAUS et al. Familien Sind Anders! Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rohwolt Taschenbuch Verlag (1980).

Return to Publications

Home page