Basics
Mobile Youth Work is an outreach youth council concept. It is being put into action of social work in the frame of group- and individual social-pedagogic and social work. Mobile Youth Work is district- respectively social-area-related and aims at preventing or cancelling exclusion processes of youths. Hereby, resources and self-aid powers towards the solution of social problems in the community are being used. Two forms of Mobile Youth Work can be differentiated at present: A community-based concept which arose in big housing areas (”dormitory towns”) and a rather scene- or target-group-related approach in the action centres of the big cities. Mobile Youth Work has its starting point in the community-based form.
Historic development
The concept of Mobile Youth Work emerged
from the discussion with American authors and projects in the field of
delinquently acting youngsters in street groups and street gangs (street
work, street corner work, street gang work, street club work) as well
as the community-based work (Shaw and McKay 1942, Spergel 1966, Miller
1986, detailed about that: Specht 1979, 1984). The beginning of professional
Mobile Youth Work in Germany in the nineteen-sixties goes back to the
Chicago School (Shaw and McKay) in the USA of the nineteen-twenties. In
Germany, Mobile Youth Work also stands in the tradition of a community-based
work in the Netherlands (cf. ”categorical” community-based
work by Bolz/Boulet 1973). Although rapidly growing new housing estates
arose at the periphery of the big cities in the nineteen-sixties, the
time of Western Germany urbanisation, the social infrastructure, mainly
for youths, was neglected to a far degree. The same was valid for many
other European countries during that period of time. Rockers, conspicuous
youth cliques and youth gangs who publicly caused problems and sensation
challenged not only the police and the youth courts but, increasingly,
social work and social pedagogic as well. It is for this reason that Mobile
Youth Work – adopted from the USA and adapted to German conditions,
having started in Stuttgart – is being applied as a successful concept
of practical youth- and social work concept since 1967. On the local area
of Stuttgart, local church parishes (ecumenical supporter-communities)
organised themselves with the aim to take up contact with these conspicuous
youths on the street in order to prevent them from being excluded from
their district and to try to reintegrate them into the community if necessary.
In the middle of the nineteen-seventies, further projects and institutions
of Mobile Youth Work arose outside the city of Stuttgart within Baden-Württemberg
(Keppeler 1997). Organisations of Mobile Youth Work exist in about 100
cities and communities in Baden-Württemberg at present, in the whole
country, this meaning, since the nineteen-nineties, in the old and the
new lands of the Federal Republic, there are as many as 1200. This development
was supported by relevant publications like for instance a standard paper
published by the federal society of local youth welfare departments outlining
the main points of the concept of Mobile Youth Work in a professional
way and referring to legal and organisational frame conditions (Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft
1986) as well as the 8th German Governmental Youth Report referring to
Mobile Youth Work as a specific approach of action in the context of outreach
youth work and youth council (cf. Federal Ministry 1990, 116 f).
In the nineteen-nineties, the approach was adopted in the fife ”new
federal lands”, mainly in connection with the action programme against
aggression and violence of the Federal Government (Action Programme 1992).
In the areas with a rural structure the concept gained importance too.
The reason for this was that more and more youths in rural areas had problems
concerning their life management which the modernised support systems
in the rural area could no longer meet (Böhnisch/Winter 1992). Wherever
it was possible toovercome the taboo concerning the problems, organisations
of Mobile Youth Work standing in the tradition of community-based youth
work established themselves (Groß/Schmitt 1997).
Since the beginning of the nineteen-nineties target-group- and scene-related
approaches within Mobile Youth Work play an increasingly important role.
The mobility of youths with their flexible change of scene and milieu
as well as their increasing youth-cultural rooting in their respective
areas of action lead to increasingly scene-specific forms of outreach
youth work. These forms of Mobile Youth Work have a room or rooms at their
disposal as a basis, but mainly follow the aspect of offering individually
oriented help and street work intensive shelter places in the inner city
areas. Contradictory to the rather district-based work, this approach
is less community-related, instead offers a concept of consequent support
to secure the survival on the street and of existential aid on the one
hand, on the other hand stabilises existing social networks and social
contacts (Lutz/Stickelmann 1999). Thus, Mobile Youth Work approaches other
concepts doing street work, like for instance drug aid or work with homeless
people (Steffan 1988). However, there is a difference as well concerning
the age of the target groups as the conceptional approach, which in Mobile
Youth Work almost always relates to groups. Depending on age and problem
situation, reintegration possibilities for individual youths as well as
for peer groups are
being searched within the district of origin, concerning the access to
schools and training possibilities as well as employment and housing.
In many cases, this differentiation also relates to those approaches of
outreach youth- and social work, which in some Federal Lands respectively
towns are being described with the terms ”street social work”
or ”street work” (Gusy 1994, Becker/Simon 1995). Meanwhile,
11 local associations respectively working groups exist, which gathered
to the Federal Association Street Work/Mobile Youth Work in 1997. The
International Society for Mobile Youth Work supports the international
experience exchange between theory and field work, among others by organising
international congresses (Specht 1987, 1991, ISMO 1999), workshops and
qualification seminars.
The reasons which lead to the foundation
of Mobile Youth Work are much the same at present as they were when the
first social-pedagogic steps were taken in the district Freiberg of the
city of Stuttgart 35 years ago (1967). The initial problem in almost each
community, in almost every city is always conspicuous, difficult, attention-demanding
or delinquent behaviour of young people. The main question always remained
the same and has, meanwhile, reached a global dimension: Shall we turn
towards these homeless, impoverished, delinquent, sick, underfed, despised,
drug-consuming, provoking, extremist-oriented children and youths or shall
we exclude them by lack of attention, punishment, repression and, increasingly,
legal sanctions?
Do we define the conspicuously acting youths (punks, skinheads, gangs,
cliques, youth gangs, street children, young drug-consumers, hooligans
etc.) as ”endangered” or as ”dangerous”? The decisive
factor for the choice of either a social-pedagogic or a repressive-controlling
approach is which definition is being enforced in the youth-political
public. Aid or control, attention or exclusion are the, often fiercely
discussed, counterpart positions. Frequently, a mixture of both approaches
is being applied, mainly when laws have been violated. The causes, however,
have always remained the same. Conspicuous youths provoke conflicts, but
also victims.The violence of youths, which has doubtlessly increased in
brutality, is also being reported by schools meanwhile. In the present
discussion, this leads to the demand of reinforcing school social work
and strengthening the co-operation of Mobile Youth Work with schools to
meet the common interest to prevent social exclusion of youths. Since
exclusion frequently goes along with stigmatising, it is also the aim
of Mobile Youth Work to prevent stigmatising processes or possibly to
initiate processes of de-stigmatisation. Hereby, Mobile Youth Work relies
on structures of trust and voluntariness of the youths by offering themdevelopment
options and chances of life management without violating laws. The main
age is between 12 and 19 years. Sometimes, however, younger or older youths
belong to the target group of Mobile Youth Work as well.
The concept of Mobile Youth Work is divided into four fields: Individual aid, street work, group work and community work which are being weighted according to the local situation. The characteristic of Mobile Youth Work is the fact that the concepts of all four working fields are connected with each other.
Individual Aid
Individual Aid means that Mobile
Youth Workers feel responsible for all the problems the youths they care
for have and approach them in the context of an understanding of council
towards pragmatic aid (cf. Thiersch 1977). This is the consequence drawn
from the experience that youths will only show trust when trust is being
shown towards them. Concerning solutions for their problems, youths will
not choose adults according to their official responsibility but have
to rely on opportunities available in their every-day-life. Thus, Mobile
Youth Workers are being confronted with a variety of issues and they can
only decide in a second step whether to take up contact for instance with
an organisation of debt- or drug council. This is being clarified in each
individual case in the course of the council process and according to
the wishes of the youths. Personal council includes crisis intervention
as well as long-term council if necessary. This means to look upon the
various problems of youths in their individual development as a whole
complex and to develop respective processes of aid. Other youths, friends,
pals, the clique, the gang, are being integrated systemically into the
aid process provided that they are influential and of importance for the
individual person. Club- and group work offers the necessary frame for
this kind of aid. This means that the acceptance of Mobile Youth Workers
as group-pedagogic persons of relationship makes the contact to the individual
youth possible or at least easier. The offer of individual and group-related
council relates to the following fields mainly: Family, school, training,
clique, work and unemployment, legal and illegal drug consume, regulation
of debts, sex and the threat of AIDS.
Additional is the field of dealing with authorities, doctors, hospitals,
financing institutions, police and justice, prisons and victims, which
is especially important for delinquently acting, ill or drug-addicted
youths (cf. Local Institution 1997).
Street Work – Outreach Youth Work
Street Work as a professional kind of social work and social pedagogic has its origin in the USA. Especially in the big cities respective social-pedagogic programmes have been developed in the view of increasing youth delinquency at the end of the nineteen-twenties. A typical target group of this approach oaf aid, which was established apart from the offices of youth authorities and council institutions on the street, were loose gangs (loosely structured youth street groups, cliques or youth gangs). The working place of social work was, so to speak, being transferred to the meeting points and living places of the youths. Over the years, the following terms were applied to social workers in this ambulant field of council: street corner worker, street gang worker, area youth worker, outreach youth worker, street club worker and field worker. Since World War II street work approaches have been practised in Western European countries, in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Australia as well. To name some European examples: In Great Britain the term is ”Detached Youth Work” or ”Outreach Youth Work” or Mobile Youth Work”, in the Netherlands it is ”Street Corner Work”, in Switzerland ”Gassenarbeit” or ”Mobile Youth Work”, France it is talking about ”Travaille de la Rue” and in Austria and Germany it is ”Street Work” as well as ”Mobile Youth Work”. Since the global political change of 1989/1990 there are approaches of Street Work in Central Europe as well. Street Work, in the Federal Republic of Germany being practised for 30 years (Kiebel 1996) seems to have advanced to some kind of all over weapon to deal with inner-city problem groups. Wherever the responsible persons no longer know how to cope, they establish street workers, frequently with temporary, employment contracts limited for 2 years. Time and again Mobile Youth Workers are being confronted with the expectation to function as a short-term task force to solve the problems. It is often not easy to communicate that Street Work represents merely one methodical concept within Mobile Youth Work (cf. Bopp a.o. 1997). Street Work is a methodical concept which, on one hand, needs the local, community-based rooting and, on the other, has got concrete offers for youths: People who have time for them, a telephone in order to contact authorities or to ask for employment, a cup of coffee, a shower, a place of rest, a refuge for the management of crisis, but also a place where ideas for leisure-time activities, support for the realisation of the wish for an individual space within the district or offers for social experience with other youths can be realised (detailed information: Keppeler 1988).
Group Work – Work with Cliques
Mobile Youth Work was also
initiated as a pragmatic critic of merely individualising approaches within
Youth Aid. The role of peers, as being helpful for the socialisation next
to parents and school, has not been integrated in a productive way into
their forms of reaction by Youth Aid. Mobile Youth Work approaches existing
cliques and informal groups, because these groups have an important part
in the building of views and attitudes of children and youths, but for
their management of development challenges as well. Youth research has
proved this to be a result of societal developments within the last 40
years in the Federal Republic of Germany (first: Allerbeck/Hoag 1985).
The term clique is frequently being used as a synonym related to the terms
peer or peer group and indicates a type of informal groups which can be
described as ”comprehensible construction, in which every-day-needs
and adventures are the main thing. The belonging has a rather fleeting
character and is not bound to formal regulations. The informal structures
may show hierarchic characteristics sometimes, however, they are subject
to the direct influence of those belonging to the clique” (Liebel
1991, p. 306). Cliques mostly show local, social-area patterns of orientation
and thus differ from scenes, which have an open, not necessarily local
structure and frequently establish themselves along different music- and
life-styles. ”Scenes count as a youth-cultural expression of a post-modern
individualised culture, within which one wants to be both, biographically
unique as well as sociable” (Bönisch 1997, 141). The building
of scenes and cliques, however, do not exclude each other, as proved by
individual cliques representing distinct youth-cultural styles which are
at the same time part of local and regional scene meetings. The characteristic
of cliques in their social structure is the ”equality of position
in the relation to each other” (Krappmann 1991, 364). In this respect
they differ from youth groups or –gangs which have a hierarchic
social leadership structure. Long before German research adopted the issue
of cliques, gangs, especially youth gangs have been researched in the
USA. The tradition goes far back to early works of the Chicago School
about social-economic delinquency research and the classic about gang
research ”The gang” (Trasher 1926). In Germany, Liebel first
pointed out the historical establishment of cliques with the thesis that
youth cliques mainly arise and increase in importance when they are being
cut off from an imaginable better future and civil society is no longer
able or ready to grant enough time and space within the phase of youth
for the reasonable planning of the development of a perspective of live.
(cf. Liebel 1991, 308)
He clarifies this thesis according to a historic example. Among the proletarian
youths, mainly those gathered within a clique who came from a lower working
class level and who were threatened by neglect. These cliques ”mainly
established themselves in the Weimar Republic as amalgamation of working
class youths frequently growing up without parents and under problematic
conditions. For them, the clique was a social centre point and a place
of social learning and surviving (Lessing/Liebel 1981). The authors define
this basic type as ”Wild Cliques”, claiming the cities, the
streets in the cities as their own living- and action areas in a loud
and provocative manner, insisting on their autonomy (cf. Lindner 1983).
Their members supported each other in emergency situations and were allied
to each other in unconditional solidarity. The arising of Wild Cliques”
makes clear that ”working class youths re-defined the vacuum concerning
their social- and living-perspectives, into which the crisis had thrown
them, in a positive way as a creative area. They did not take the social
vacuum as an area of misery but defined it as being a creative, also aggressive,
area of articulating themselves” (Peukert 1986, 246).
There are other forms of survival nowadays within which the peer group,
the clique plays an important part. There has been a change of meaning
even during the last two decades. In the view of growing individualisation
and increasing loss of orientation of youths, cliques nowadays frequently
are said to be ”main socialisation points of crucial importance
for the survival” (Ferchhoff 1990, p. 72). If the membership in
cliques used to be a time of preparation for the adult role and had the
function to mediate between the traditional and the modern value system”
(Ferchhoff 1990, p. 27), nowadays cliques are places of self-organisation
and important social points for youths.
The living-up of youth-cultural individuality within the clique is frequently
connected to a territorial dimension. Youths, mainly boys, occupy public
areas, make their own use of them, understand them to be the stage for
clique-related possession processes. Mono-functional rooms and objects
are being changed in function in a group-specific sense (cf. Becker/Eigenbrodt/May
1989, Böhnisch 1989). Especially in the case of migrant youths, cliques
are closely connected to territorial behaviour. Territorial behaviour
gives cliques a feeling of power demonstration and acceptance. Within
their territory, cliques claim respect for themselves and adopt identifying
functions for their self-affirmation within their environment, which they
initially experience as being alien, into their action. Of special importance
are the fackets as a symbol for clique membership and territorial claim.
Conflicts between foreign, respectively multi-ethnic youth gangs arise
whenever they move within alien territory (Tertilt 1996). Mobile Youth
Work includes into its concept the fact that clique membership nowadays
offers a basis for territorial self-affirmation for many youths as well
as being a place of mutual support and common aid in managing youth risk
situations. Within cliques, common learning and social discussion is possible.
Within the group, youths experience self-value, backing, continuity, trust
– most important factors for their growing-up. Relation groups can
stabilise individual youths in problematic phases. Thus, the approach
of Mobile Youth Work is contradictory to repressive forms of dealing with
conspicuous street groups. Because frequently, groups are being denounced
as being seductive, and it is being overlooked that frequently they grant
status and a subjective feeling of security, belonging and strength to
the youth concerned. These basic human needs are obviously not being sufficiently
granted in the other daily social contexts of the youth and therefore
need the possibility of extension or substitute. It is for these positive
resources and potentials that youth groups can be said to possess that
Mobile Youth Work includes them into its pedagogic processes as a starting
point. There are possibilities of overcoming dyadic structures by applying
existing relationships, working with the dynamic of the group, initiating
or accompanying group-related processes. The frequently only short-term
relationship between the youth and the social worker can be extended by
processes of building up support structures which are longer-lasting and
often more effective. This needs a longer-term relationship work which
is being developed in the context of attractive leisure-time-offers and
systematic group work in rooms rented for the purpose (Haeberlin/Klenk
1997, Deinet 1966, Vogt 1997).
Community-based Work
Since integration and exclusion,
acceptance and rejection, the origin and the solution of problems frequently
arise within the environment of young people, Mobile Youth Work makes
a point of its approach being community-based. It is inspired by American
examples like for instance the work of Saul Alinsky and the concepts of
activating and conflict-oriented community-based work (Alinsky 1973; Bahr/Gronemeyer
1974) but by analytic community approaches like they have already been
practiced in the settlement movement at the end of the 19th century as
well (Müller 1988). By way of field- and social area analysis the
main points of Mobile Youth Work are being determined along the local
situations and put into action in a sense of grass root youth aid planning
(cf. Specht 1980, Specht 1992, Jordan/Schone 1992, p. 45 f./Lukas/Strack
1996). The concept of community-based Mobile Youth Work includes the joining
of existing local offers in the sense of an institutional community network
and the creation of respective institutional structures like for instance
district working groups.
The presence within the district, an office, an activity room for the
clique, create the necessary precondition to get into contact with the
citizens. Additionally to the work with the youths and the families, all
inhabitant groups of a district or community are target groups for special
actions, who can contribute to the improvement of the social climate within
the community or to forms of productive management of social or political
conflicts.
Download "Mobile Youth Work"Literature
Aktionsprogramm gegen Aggression
und Gewalt (AGAG) Berichte und Materialien Nr. 2 gegen Aggression und
Gewalt. Ein Lesebuch. Frankfurt/M. 1992.
Alinsky, S.D.: Leidenschaft für den Nächsten. Strategien und
Methoden der GWA. Gelnhausen/Berlin,1973.
Allerbeck, K./Hoag, W.: Jugend ohne Zukunft? Einstellungen, Umwelt, Lebensperspektive.
München, 1985.
Bahr, H.-E./ Gronemeyer, R. (Hrsg.): Konfliktorientierte Gemeinwesenarbeit.
Darmstadt/ Neuwied, 1974.
Becker, G./ Simon, T.: Handbuch aufsuchende Jugend- und Sozialarbeit.
Theoretische Grundlagen, Arbeitsfelder, Praxishilfen. Weinheim/München,
1995.
Becker, H./ Eigenbrodt, J./ May, M., Pfadfinderheim, Teestube, Straßenleben.
Jugendliche Cliquen und ihre Sozialräume. Frankfurt/M., 1984.
Böhnisch, L./Münchmeier, R.: Wozu Jugendarbeit? Weinheim/München
1988.
Böhnisch, L./Münchmeier, R.: Pädagogik des Jugendraums.
Zur Begründung und Praxis einer sozialräumlichen Jugendpädagogik,
Weinheim, 1990.
Böhnisch, L.: Sozialpädagogik des Kindes- und Jugendalters.
Eine Einführung. Weinheim/München, 1992.
Böhnisch, L.: Sozialisation der Jugendalter, Weinheim, 1997.
Boulet, J.J./ Kraus, E.J./ Oelschlägel, D.: Gemeinwesenarbeit als
Arbeitsprinzip. Eine Grundlegung. Bielefeld, 1980.
Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Landesjugendämter und überörtlichen
Erziehungsbehörden: Mobile Jugendarbeit. Beschluß in der 61.
Arbeitstagung in Hildesheim vom 15.-17.10.1986. In: Landesarbeitsgemeinschaft,
1997, S. 307-308 Bundesministerium für Jugend, Familie, Frauen und
Gesundheit (Hrsg.): Bericht über Bestrebungen und Leistungen in der
Jugendhilfe (Achter Jugendbericht). Bonn, 1990.
Deinet, U.: Cliquen brauchen Räume – im Jugendhaus und in der
Mobilen Jugendarbeit. In: Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe, Landesjugendamt.
(Hrsg.): Streetwork und Mobile Jugendarbeit, Münster 1996.
Ferchhoff, W.: Jugendkulturen im 20. Jh. von den sozialmilieuspezifischen
Jugendsubkulturen zu den individualitätsbezogenen Jugendkulturen.
Frankfurt, 1990.
Giesecke, H.: Jugendarbeit 5. völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage, München
1980
Gref, K./ Menzke, D. (Hrsg.): Grenzgänger. Straßensozialarbeit
und Offene Jugendarbeit. Nürnberg, 1994.
Gusy, B.: Aufsuchende Sozialarbeit in der Aids-Prävention –
Das “Streetwork”-Modell. Baden-Baden, 1994.
Haeberlein, V./ Klenk, B.: Führen oder wachsen lassen. Einige Aspekte
zu Gruppenarbeit in der Mobilen Jugendarbeit in Stuttgart. In: Landesarbeitsgemeinschaft
1997, S. 124-132.
Heitmeyer, W. u.a.: Die Bielefelder Rechtsextremismus-Studie. Weinheim/München,
1992.
Hurrelmann, K./Ulich,D. (Hrsg.): Neues Handbuch des Sozialisationsforschung,
Weinheim und Basel 1991.
ISMO. International Society for Mobile Youth Work (Hrsg.) 1999: Straßenkinder
und Mobile Jugendarbeit. Tagungs-Reader 7. Symposium St. Petersburg.
Jordan, E./ Schone, R.: Jugendhilfeplanung: Aber wie? Eine Arbeitshilfe
für die Praxis. Münster, 1992.
Kastner, P./ Silbereisen, R.K.: Jugendentwicklung und Drogen. In: Specht
1991, S. 227–253.
Keppeler, S.: Grundsätzliche Überlegungen zu Streetwork in der
Jugendarbeit und Jugendhilfe. In: Steffan, W. Weinheim/Basel 1988.
Keppeler, S.: Mobile Jugendarbeit in Baden-Württemberg. In: Landesarbeitsgemeinschaft
1997, S. 19-44.
Klatetzki, T. (Hrsg.): Flexible Erziehungshilfe. Ein Organisationskonzept
in der Diskussion. Münster, 1994.
Krafeld, F. J.: Cliquenorientierte Jugendarbeit, Grundlagen und Handlungsansätze,
Weinheim und München 1992.
Krappmann, L.: Sozialisation in der Gruppe der Gleichaltrigen, in: Hurrelmann,
K./ Ulich, D 1991.
Kreuzer, A./ Plate, M.: Polizei und Sozialarbeit. Wiesbaden 1981.
Kurzweg, K.: Jugendlicher Drogenkonsum und Mobile Jugendarbeit. In: Specht
1987.
Landesarbeitsgemeinschaft Mobile Jugendarbeit Baden-Württemberg e.V.
(Hrsg.): Praxishandbuch Mobile Jugendarbeit. Neuwied, 1997.
Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe, Landesjugendamt. (Hrsg.): Streetwork
und Mobile Jugendarbeit, Münster 1996.
Lessing, H./ Liebel, M.: Wilde Cliquen. Szenen einer anderen Arbeiterjugendbewegung.
Bensheim, 1981.
Liebel, M.: Cliquen und informelle Gruppen. In: Böhnisch/ Gängler/
Rauschenbach 1991, S. 304-312.
Lindner, R.: Straße - Straßenjunge - Straßenbande. in:
Zeitschrift für Volkskunde. Heft 2/1983.
Lutz, R./ Stickelmann, B. (Hrsg.): Weggelaufen und ohne Obdach. Kinder
und Jugendliche in besonderen Lebenslagen. Weinheim/ München, 1999.
Miller, W.B.: Die Kultur der Unterschicht als Entstehungsmilieu für
Bandendelinquenz. In: Sack, F./König (Hrsg.):Kriminalsoziologie.
Frankfurt S. 339-359/1968, (zuerst engl. 1958).
Miltner, W.: Street Work im Arbeiterviertel. Eine Praxisstudie zur Jugendberatung,
Neuwied 1982.
Oswald, H.: Beziehungen zu Gleichaltrigen, in: Jugend `92, Band 2. Lebenslagen,
Orientierungen und Lebensperspektiven im Vereinigten Deutschland, S. 319-332,
(Hrsg.) Jugendwerk der Deutschen Shell, Opladen 1992.
Peukert, D.: Grenzen der Sozialdisziplinierung: Aufstieg und Krise der
deutschen Jugendfürsorge von 1878 bis 1932. Köln, 1986.
Piaszczynski, U.: Mobile Jugendarbeit mit rechtsextrem orientierten Jugendlichen
in Baden-Württemberg. In: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, Beilage
zur Wochenzeitung “Das Parlament”. 1993, S. 46-47.
Sack. F./ König. R. (Hrsg.): Kriminalsoziologie. Frankfurt/M., 1968.
Shaw,C./McKay, H.D.: Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas, rev.ed. Chicago/London
1942, 1969, 1972.
Sonntag, J.: Hingehen, Nachgehen, Mitgehen. Mobile Jugendarbeit als Beratungsansatz.
Stuttgart, 1994.
Specht, Ch.: Ausgrenzung und Teilhabe. Mädchen in der Straßenclique
und ihr Kampf um öffentlichen Raum. In: Specht, W. (Hrsg.) Die gefährliche
Straße. 1987 S. 47 - 63.
Specht, W.: Jugendkriminalität und Mobile Jugendarbeit. Neuwied,
1979.
Specht, W. Feldanalyse Hallschlag zur Vorbereitung eines Jugendberatungs-Projektes.
Stuttgart 1980.
Specht, W.: Jugendliche Banden und Präventionsprogramme in den USA.
In: Neue Praxis 2, S. 124-139/1984.
Specht, W. (Hrsg.): Die gefährliche Straße. Jugendkonflikte
und Stadtteilarbeit. Bielefeld,1987.
Specht, W. (Hrsg.): Straßenfieber. Beiträge zur Sozialen Arbeit
der Diakonie. Stuttgart,1991.
Specht, W. (Hrsg.): Sozialraumanalyse Hoyerswerda. Stuttgart, 1993.
Specht,W./ Thiersch, H.: Polizei und Sozialarbeit – aus sozialpädagogischer
Sicht. In:Kreuzer/ Plate 1981, S. 23 – 47.
Spergel, J.A.: Street gang work. Theory and practice. Read. Mass., 1966.
Steffan, W.: Streetwork in der Drogenszene. Freiburg, 1988.
Steffan, W. (Hrsg.): Straßensozialarbeit. Eine Methode für
heiße Praxisfelder.Weinheim/Basel, 1989.
Stickelmann, B. (Hrsg.): Zuschlagen oder Zuhören, Jugendarbeit mit
gewaltorientierten Jugendlichen. Weinheim/München, 1996.
Tertilt, H.: Turkish Power Boys - Ethnographie einer türkischen Jugendbande.
Frankfurt,1966.
Thiersch, H.: Kritik und Handeln. Interaktionistische Aspekte der Sozialpädagogik.
Neuwied 1977.
Thrasher, F.: The Gang. A study of 1,313 gangs in Chicago, Chicago 1926.