Unit 1.1 DB: Values and Beliefs

VALUES AND BELIEFS AS THE CORNERSTONE OF SOCIAL WELFARE IN AMERICA

Social welfare efforts throughout American history have reflected the dominant values and beliefs of society. Remember, a value is the worth, desirability, or usefulness ascribed to something and a belief is an opinion or conviction. Those values and beliefs shift, and as a consequence, so too have public policies. For example, at one time in this country, the “desirability” of slavery was upheld as legitimate public policy, only to later become an issue so divisive that the nation faced civil war. One of the outcomes of the Civil War was that slavery was abolished and became illegal. Shifts in public values create shifts in public policy. Understanding the underlying values and beliefs that shape the social conscience of America helps us understand how the social welfare system of today came to be. Two currents underlie the values that have shaped social welfare policies: religious beliefs and social beliefs. The evolution of these values and beliefs has not been smooth, and today's policy reflects many conflicting values and beliefs. This conflict makes the creation and implementation of social welfare policies and programs difficult in the United States.

RELIGIOUS VALUES

Religion has held a strong position in maintaining the well-being of U.S. society. A large proportion of Americans identify with established religions (see  Box 1.2 ). The development of social welfare services can be traced back to values reflected in the dominant religions of the early history of this nation. Those dominant religions were primarily Protestant. The goals of religious charitable efforts were to uphold moral character, maintain humbleness, and help those less fortunate. Famous biblical quotations such as “It is harder for the rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle” (from the Book of Matthew in the New Testament) and “Love thy neighbor as thyself” (from the Book of Leviticus in the Old Testament) reflect a strong symbolism of charity and concern for the needy:

·  Christian tradition mandates a sympathetic attitude and practice towards the poor, disadvantaged, or diseased. There is nothing in the Bible resembling advocacy of material redistribution of resources, much less social or political revolution. The poor, the ill, the imprisoned, and the weak are to be treated with kindness and love, but the Bible deals with this as a matter of personal sentiment and moral obligation. ( Wagner, 1999 , p. 76)

BOX 1.2 CONSIDER THIS …

Religion Is an Integral Part of the United States

· • Approximately 182 million American adults (80 percent) identify themselves as affiliated with a religious denomination.

· • Members of American Protestant churches total 94 million persons across 220 particular denominations.

· • Almost 60 million people identify themselves as Roman Catholics, making Catholicism the single largest denomination.

· • Approximately 9 million Americans identify as members of non-Christian religions, including almost 3 million who identify as Jewish, almost 1.5 million as Muslim, and over a million as Buddhist.

· • There are more than 300,000 local congregations in the United States.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2011

   For the most part, religious values in America have been translated into individual reform, not social change. The emphasis was on individual behaviors of both those giving and those receiving. These emphases are apparent in social welfare efforts of many religious organizations today.

   The roles of religion and social welfare are further complicated by the mandates of the Constitution. The United States was founded on the principle that religion and government should not be intermingled. Thomas Jefferson was a firm advocate of the “separation of church and state,” and this sentiment is codified in the Constitution under the first part of Amendment I of the Bill of Rights.

   “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Although religious sentiments influenced charity and social welfare in this country, the law was clear that the government should not be involved in the establishment of religion, and at the same time, the government should not interfere with the free practice of religion. These two values are also an influential part of the social welfare system. Thus, although there is a religious imperative to help, by law it must be done without blending the roles of government and religious organizations.

   The constellation of social services today challenges this separation. There are social welfare agencies such as Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, Muslim Social Services, and Jewish Family and Children's Services, to name only a few. These organizations clearly are identified with religious organizations, yet often receive public funds through grants and contracts and are therefore part of the social welfare system. The issue of separation of church and state that these efforts raise is not new and continues to challenge providers of social services.  Box 1.3  presents a point of view that critiques the reality of separation of church and state for one particular organization, but the point could be argued for all groups that are affiliated with religions.

   The impact of religion in the political arena may follow economic and social trends. The proportion of Americans who identify as having strong religious beliefs declined from the mid-1990s to 2007 ( Pew Research Center, 2007 ). Dionne ( 2008 ) suggested that a look at history since the 1920s reveals shifts between public attention on religion and morals to economics and secular values. He argues that when economic concerns grow, such as during the economic decline during the Great Recession of 2008 and the years following, less attention is paid to cultural issues. He suggests that 2008 may have ushered in a shift when economic prosperity becomes more important than religion and culture. While it may be too soon to see if this trend is occurring, recent data suggest that the importance of religion has been declining for young people, those born after 1981, while staying level for those who are older ( Pew Research Center, 2012 ). This may be due to declining economics, which hit those who are starting their careers hardest. This shift in religious values among the younger generation of American adults may have an impact over time on the political arena.

BOX 1.3 CONTROVERSIAL PERSPECTIVES …

Should Public Dollars Be Used by Religious Organizations to Provide Social Services?

Although Catholic Charities has a strong reliance on public funding, it may not be operating from a strict separation-of-church-and-state philosophy. It is clear that Catholic Charities has been influenced by the teachings of the Catholic Church….

   In a time when the United States has great levels of cultural, religious, sexual, and racial diversity, is it appropriate and ethical for social services organizations such as Catholic Charities to receive public funding and yet maintain their religious identity? Although the public funds that local Catholic Charities agencies receive are given with the condition that clients are not discriminated against or denied services on the basis of race, cultural background, and sexual preference, the reality of how able and willing Catholic Charities agencies are to offer clients a full range and choice of services can be questioned given its religious identification.

Source: Degeneffe ( 2003 ), p. 382

PERSONAL VALUES

Related to religious values are personal values. Each of us has our own beliefs, shaped by our life experiences and backgrounds. It is difficult to separate what is important to us personally from what might be important socially. In fact, personal beliefs can drive us to be involved publicly. Although we all carry our own values and beliefs, it is important when analyzing social issues and providing social services that we strive to be aware of what values and beliefs are our own, what are dominant in society, and the intersection of the two.

SOCIAL VALUES

As the United States was founded on the principle of separation of religion and state, strong values emerged based on membership in society. Two strong social values that shaped social welfare policy are social responsibility and citizenship. Americans have long held the values of hard work and self-sufficiency. However, at the same time, social responsibility has been valued. Opinion polls reflect this conflicting sentiment ( Pew Research Center, 2012 ). Americans value individual enterprise. Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of those polled disagreed with the idea that “Success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control” and 63 percent disagreed with the statement “Hard work offers little guarantee of success.” Although Americans strongly feel that individual effort is rewarded, public opinion also expresses the need for government intervention. More than half (59 percent) say it is the responsibility of the government to take care of people who cannot care for themselves. Also, 59 percent believe that the government should guarantee every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep. Although these numbers suggest that the majority of people favor government social welfare services, a more accurate picture is seen when one examines the views of those who identify with one of the two major political parties.  Box 1.4  demonstrates the disparity.

   Trust in our national government to do what is right has fluctuated over the past 35 years, from a high of 47 percent who say they trust our government, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, to a low of 17 percent during the financial crisis of 2008, and then inching back to 24 percent by 2014 ( Pew Research Center, 2014 ). The emergence of the “Tea Party” movement and concerns raised by “Occupy Wall Street” participants in recent years have demonstrated a growth in anti-government sentiment. The percentage of people who consider that the government is a major threat to their personal rights and freedoms is now higher (30 percent) than when the question was first asked in 1995, when only 12 percent felt that way ( Pew Research Center, 2010 ). This erosion in support and trust in the federal government poses significant challenges to the role of government in public social services and promoting social welfare throughout the nation.

BOX 1.4 CONSIDER THIS …

Seventy-five percent of Democrats compared to 40 percent of Republicans say it is the government's responsibility to “take care of people who can't take care of themselves.”

   Seventy-eight percent of Democrats compared to 36 percent of Republicans say the government should “guarantee every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep.”

Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press ( 2012 )

   The role of government in aiding its citizens is closely related to the expectation that citizens will be involved in society. American history is replete with active civic involvement.

·  An extensive and participatory civil society took shape from the start of U.S. nationhood, even as life for the vast majority of Americans proceeded on farms or in small towns. In the era between the Revolution and the Civil War, voluntary groups multiplied and formed links across localities, spurred on by government activities and popular political contention in the new republic and by competitive religious evangelism in a nation without an established church. ( Skocpol, 1999 , p. 37)

   A democracy by definition demands participation of its citizens. A democratic government is founded on the principle that the entire population is involved in the election of representatives, and hence each person is part of the government system (see  Box 1.5 ). As Theda Skocpol (1999) discovered in her research on the history of civic engagement, the nature of American government from the beginning encouraged participation, from political action in competing groups to mobilization for revolution, the Civil War, and both world wars.

    Social justice  is another value that is integral to the social work profession: “Social workers promote social justice and social change” ( National Association of Social Workers, 2008 , Preamble). Social justice describes the level of fairness that exists in society. The Social Work Dictionary ( Barker, 2003 ) defines it as:

·  An ideal condition in which all members of society have the same basic rights, protection, opportunities, obligations, and social benefits. Implicit in this concept is the notion that historical inequities should be acknowledged and remedied through specific measures. (pp. 404–405)

BOX 1.5 CONSIDER THIS …

Democracy, civil rights, and representative government—to name a few of the key institutions that foster human dignity and wealth—were brought about by people involved in spontaneous collective action, fighting not for their selfish ends but for a vision for all of humanity. Our freedom is based on the emotional commitments of generations past.

Source: Gintis ( 2001 ), pp. xvii–xviii

   The importance of social justice to social welfare policy is discussed in more detail in  Chapter 6 .

   Thus, religious and social values place importance on the principles of charity, caring for others, government involvement, civic responsibility, and protection of basic rights. With such positive principles guiding the nation, why is the development of social welfare policy so fraught with dissension? Why is it so difficult for people to agree on the best way to help each other? The struggle for agreement on social welfare policy rests with attitudes, the beliefs that underlie the principles of caring for others and responsibility.

CONFLICTING VALUES AND BELIEFS IN SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY

Americans support the values of helping those in need, contributing to charity, being socially caring, and participating as a citizen. Nevertheless, people view those values differently.  Box 1.6  outlines three general areas where social values conflict. Do we think responsibility for people's well-being is personal and private, or should it be a collective and public concern? Should we respond to social needs as they occur, or should we take a long-term approach? Values are not fixed, so people may opt for personal responsibility as the first solution for some issues and collective attention for other issues. Values may change over time for the nation as a whole or for some individuals. For example, suppose you believe strongly in personal and private responsibility. Paying Social Security taxes would be disturbing to your sense of what is important—your values. Years later, when you face retirement, you may rethink your value of private responsibility and welcome the collective aspects of Social Security benefits. Fluidity is the reality ( Box 1.6 ). Values can shift over time, and from issue to issue.

BOX 1.6 CONSIDER THIS …

General Values—What Is Most Important?

·  Who do we view as responsible for people's well-being?

·  Personal or Collective?

·  Where do we place responsibility for people's well-being?

·  Private or Public?

·  When should social welfare interventions occur?

·  Immediate or Long-Term?

FIGURE 1.3 CONFLICTING BELIEFS

   Behind these general values are powerful competing beliefs that lead to disagreement. Many of the disagreements on what should be the best choice for public policy rest on disagreement over what people believe. The struggles in society to achieve helping others and being socially caring grow out of conflicting beliefs. The following 12 conflicting beliefs can be found in responses to social problems and throughout the U.S. social welfare system (see  Figure 1.3 ). Each chapter of the book concludes with a discussion of relevant conflicting values and beliefs.

UNDESERVING VERSUS DESERVING

Most Americans support the idea of helping people in need, as long as the people are worthy of help. They must be seen as trying hard, willing to work if given the chance, and grateful for any and all opportunities. The belief that there are deserving and undeserving people dates back to the colonial period (1700s) and is still significant today in discussions of need. Early colonial laws considered widows, orphans, elderly people, and people with a physical disability as worthy of assistance. The characteristic they shared was that they were in need through circumstances beyond their control. That view has shaped welfare policy for hundreds of years. For example, in political speeches given in the House of Representatives hours before the approval of the 1996 welfare reform legislation, the overriding concern of lawmakers was self-sufficiency and serving only the truly needy ( Segal & Kilty, 2003 ). If a person is perceived as being able to work but still poor, then the belief is that the person is not worthy of assistance.

   Distinguishing between who is deserving and who is undeserving may seem like a clear and logical process. Any reasonable person should be able to decide who should receive social welfare and who should not. However, the difference between who is worthy and who is not is based on an individual's view of the circumstances that led to the need. What is missing from this perspective is the consideration of cause. For example, is poverty the result of personal failure or of societal structures that create barriers to resources? Should we focus on the impoverished individual or on the economics of society? The next pair of conflicting beliefs relate more specifically to this dilemma.

PERSONAL FAILURE VERSUS SYSTEM FAILURE

Many people question a person who looks healthy but is receiving government assistance: Why isn't the person working? It is difficult not to immediately compare your own ability to hold a job and earn enough to support yourself and your family with another person's inability to do so and their receiving assistance without working. Many people feel it is unfair and believe such a person to be undeserving. However, what is often lacking in understanding need in America is consideration of the impact of economic, social, and political systems on access and opportunity. Racism limits people's opportunities. Women are treated differently than men. Companies find it cost-effective to close plants and move, leaving hundreds of workers without jobs. Many do not have the skills to quickly find another job. Higher education and training are not available for all, so some young people do not learn the skills that would help them get jobs. We must question whether these are instances of personal failure or whether something is wrong with society's social interactions, economic policies, or educational systems. If we identify the problem as centered on an individual's personal behavior, then we would want social welfare programs that focused on changing the way people individually behave. If we consider the problem to be the result of a breakdown in our social or economic systems, then we would want social programs that change the structure of opportunity in our society. This raises the next question: Who is responsible for people's well-being—each individual or society?

INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY VERSUS SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

As has already been discussed, Americans are torn in their beliefs about who should be responsible for well-being. The belief that the individual is responsible for his or her state in the world is strong, but so is the belief that the government should step in and aid people when they are in need. This split in the public consciousness plagues the development of social welfare policy. Although by definition social welfare involves the general public, the form of that involvement is the subject of debate. If a person believes strongly in individual responsibility, then that person will see personal needs such as poverty, mental illness, and family breakdown as issues that should be addressed by individual effort. For the person who believes strongly in social responsibility, many of these problems are social issues that should be addressed by public intervention. One's beliefs in terms of responsibility will shape the direction of social policy.

   Who comes first, the individual or the community? This is the question underlying the individual versus social responsibility debate. Many cultures believe that people are part of a collective, a larger group, and individuals are not the focus. Other cultures emphasize individuality and the worth of each person over and above the collective society. American tradition is firmly rooted in individualism, and yet democracy calls for collective participation. The disparity between these two beliefs gives rise to disagreements about how to approach social welfare policies and programs.

INDIVIDUAL CHANGE VERSUS SOCIAL CHANGE

If a person is a strong advocate of individual responsibility, then it is likely that when social welfare policies and programs are called into play, he or she will emphasize the individual. If the problem, for example, is unemployment, then the emphasis will be on trying to get the unemployed person a job. If a person holds strong beliefs about social responsibility, then he or she will focus on social change. The emphasis will be on promoting the development of new jobs and general economic well-being for the community, often using government resources to create new or expanded economic opportunities.

SELF-SUFFICIENCY VERSUS SOCIAL SUPPORT

Similar to the individual responsibility versus social responsibility debate is the debate over where support should ultimately rest. Should we promote self-sufficiency (i.e., the individual solely responsible for his or her well-being), or should we accept ongoing need of people through policies and programs of social support? Self-sufficiency stresses individualism and personal achievement, whereas social support stresses collectivity. For some, the belief in social support is so strong that it may not matter why a person has a social need. They feel that the responsibility to others supersedes all and that we must take care of all people regardless of the cause of their need. This value of social support is often at the root of calls for social justice.

ENTITLEMENT VERSUS HANDOUT

Attitudes toward assistance are also fraught with conflict. Some believe that assistance and social support are rights and that people are entitled to a basic standard of living that is guaranteed through public policies. Often an entitlement is viewed as something that a person has earned and therefore has a right to claim. The opposite belief is that assistance is given out by those with the power and means to provide for people without power and in need and is hence a “handout.” There is no stigma attached to service as entitlement because the recipient is owed the service; there is stigma attached to service as a handout because the recipient has not earned the service. When applying these values to social welfare services, the stigma that is perceived to be attached to certain programs, those thought of as handouts, can have a powerful impact on whether there is public support or not for such programs.

AID TO THOSE WE KNOW VERSUS AID TO STRANGERS

One pervasive characteristic of our society is the tendency to be more comfortable and more inclined to help people we know (or feel we know) rather than help strangers. Class differences in American society insulate people with wealth or even comfortable means from contact with people who are poor. What little contact they have is typically not on a personal level. It usually takes place through the media or through hierarchical relationships. Those with means are served in restaurants or have their lawns mowed by those who can barely make ends meet. Racial divisions are powerful in society. People of different races often do not get to know each other. Thus, when one racial group is called on to support social services, they are often asked to help people from another racial group. They may be reluctant to do so. This reluctance has proved to be a challenge in American society.

RELIGIOUS AND FAITH-BASED PRACTICE VERSUS SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

As discussed earlier under religious values, the mixing of religion and social welfare is highly contested. Although the constitutional prohibition is strong, there is much debate about the appropriate role of religious organizations in the care and support of people. Recently, there has been more emphasis from politicians on the provision of social welfare services by faith-based institutions. The question of what, if any, role religious organizations should play in the provision of social welfare services will continue to influence the development of social welfare policy.

CRISIS RESPONSE VERSUS PREVENTION

The outpouring of relief and donations after the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11 was overwhelming. So much blood was donated that there was a surplus, and some had to be destroyed. On an average day at most blood banks, there is a shortage of blood and never a surplus. It is typical for people to mobilize for a tangible crisis. The need for prevention, on the other hand, is usually invisible. Doing something now to ensure that a problem does not later occur, means that if those preventive efforts are successful, we will never see the problem. That often raises the question of whether the preventive effort was definitely needed, that is, did it prevent something from happening, or would things have worked out without the intervention and the problem would not have happened anyway? Demonstrating the need for prevention can be difficult because it is based on a “what if” scenario. Because of this, prevention is not as compelling as crisis response, and is therefore much more difficult to enact as part of social welfare policies and programs.

SYMPATHY VERSUS EMPATHY

Often, sympathy and empathy are considered the same emotion: caring for others. But these responses are distinctly different when applied to social well-being and social welfare policies. Both responses involve the ability and willingness to share feelings with another individual or group. However,  sympathy  involves compassion, which is sorrow for someone's misfortune and a desire to alleviate his or her suffering.  Empathy  requires identifying oneself with another, thereby entering into the other's experience. Empathy does not presuppose misfortune, as does sympathy. Although an empathic person will undoubtedly feel another's pain if the conditions of the person's life are miserable, his or her perspective is larger. An empathic person takes into consideration the external conditions that may contribute to the person's misfortune. Sympathy, with its concurrent compassion, typically creates a hierarchy in which those who are more fortunate help those who are more unfortunate. Empathy suggests that any of us could find ourselves in the same situation as the other, given life events, and does not lead to a hierarchy of giver and receiver. The application of empathic insights can lead to social empathy, which calls for using an understanding of the historical evolution and context of an issue to gain the perspective of others whose lives are different from our own to inform policy-making. Social empathy is discussed in more detail later in the book.

TRUST VERSUS SUSPICION

Giving a person money for necessities such as food and shelter involves trust. If that person should instead use the money to buy drugs, the giver feels exploited and suspicious of how the receiver is living his or her life. Recipients are free to make bad choices, but when they misuse resources provided by others, the givers feel as though there has been a breach of trust. These values often arise in social welfare policies and programs. In order to ensure resources are used as intended, the benefits are categorized for a specific use, such as for medical care or coupons to be exchanged only for food or a tuition waiver for education. This categorized approach to services ensures that the recipients will use the services only for the purpose intended by the providers.

RATIONALITY VERSUS EMOTIONS

Facts and dispassionate analysis are keys to rational thinking. Should all social issues be approached using only a rational perspective? Do emotions play a role? Shouldn't human beings have emotions when they are considering issues as painful as poverty, violence, and poor health? Public policy makers struggle with developing rational, sensible policies and policies that appeal to the emotions. When creating laws that govern treatment of the American flag, for example, legislators often cite the flag's symbolic meaning rather than referring to it as merely a beautiful piece of cloth. This example demonstrates that beliefs and the emotional meaning of a symbol are more powerful than the construction of an object, which is a rational act.

VALUES AND BELIEFS GUIDE POLICY MAKING

Values and beliefs tend to flow together. Although people may take differing positions on concerns, beliefs tend to follow a general value framework. Beliefs reflect values.  Figure 1.4  outlines the beliefs that support specific values.

FIGURE 1.4 BELIEFS SUPPORTING GENERAL VALUES

FIGURE 1.5 CONFLICTING BELIEFS THAT SUPPORT OR OPPOSE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

   How does knowing that we are a nation with conflicting values and beliefs help in understanding the social welfare system? Rather than becoming polarized by the traditional divisions among policy makers and citizens—Republican versus Democrat, liberal versus conservative, right wing versus left wing—we should strive to understand the belief systems that guide our views. We may feel torn between two conflicting values, sometimes believing strongly in one and sometimes in the other. For example, we want government involvement in some things and privacy in others. Usually when political groups differ, they are arguing about beliefs. The preceding discussion of conflicting beliefs (also listed in  Figure 1.3 ) covers most of the disagreements in the public policy arena.  Figure 1.5  outlines some of the typical beliefs that support and oppose government involvement. If a person holds beliefs that are in the first column, he or she is more likely to expect individuals to be responsible for the conditions of life. Therefore, rather than argue for more government programs, we need to address these important ideas and explore the meaning of these beliefs. When we clarify values and beliefs and understand people's positions, we can better develop social policies. And even if we cannot agree with all beliefs, exploring them helps us to more accurately discuss the true conflicts in social discourse. Throughout the rest of this book, the relevant values and beliefs will be discussed to better understand the social welfare system in America.

CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE NEED FOR SOCIAL WELFARE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

The population of the United States includes more than 300 million people. This makes this country larger than most nations; only China and India have a larger population. The United States is almost ten times more populous than Canada, five times more populous than the United Kingdom and France, three times more populous than Mexico, twice as populous as Russia, and 30 times more populous than Sweden. We are a diverse nation, and that diversity is changing. Census data ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a ) reveal that we are aging. The number of people over the age of 65 is projected to more than double by 2060, and those over the age of 85 will triple. Racial composition is also changing. In the 1960s, less than 16 percent of the population was categorized as people of color; by 2013 that number had increased to more than 36 percent, and is expected to continue to rise over the coming decades ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2014b ). The presidential and vice presidential candidates of 2008 and the election of the first person of color as president in over 230 years of U.S. government reflected those changes. In terms of social welfare policy, this portends an exciting time of change. Public policy reflects the needs and concerns of diverse social and economic groups. For example, with the aging of the population, programs and services that address the needs of people as they age will most likely become more pronounced in policy debates. Already, changes in racial composition are taking precedence, as in the discussions surrounding immigration. Following social welfare requires keen awareness of social trends. Shifts in population typically influence public policy discussions, often serving as the catalyst for social change.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Changing social and economic conditions, coupled with the ways people's beliefs and values influence their interpretations of these events, influence the development of social welfare policies and programs. Part of the belief system in the United States is that people have freedom of choice and that is what distinguishes Americans from citizens of so many other nations. Americans treasure their freedom and consider the United States to be the most open and free country in the world. That belief is so deep that they rarely question it. Yet is it true that all Americans are free to choose how they lead their lives? Within the framework of lawful behavior, do we have choice?

To have free choice in the public domain means that:

·  All options are open and available.

·  Each person is aware of those options.

·  Each person fully understands all the options, as well as the qualifications needed to participate in the options.

·  Each person understands the consequences, impact, and possible outcomes of all choices.

·  Sufficient resources are available for all to take advantage of all choices.

·  Sufficient support is available to sustain a person in his or her choice.

·  People have the abilities, skills, self-confidence, realistic assessment, and motivation needed to take advantage of all choices.

   Although some people may never have all of the pieces of the framework when they make choices, some will have more pieces than others. The more pieces you have, the better suited you are to take advantage of free choice. In fact, these aspects of free choice are the basis of social justice. The reality in America is that for poor, oppressed, and disenfranchised people, choice is often not a reality. The result is social injustice. Social welfare policies and programs are one of the ways that society tries to provide more choices for more people and give them the skills necessary to take advantage of those choices.

   You may be asking whether social welfare policies and programs make a difference. Are they worth the social and economic investment? The answer is that social welfare programs do help and make a difference. This book is based on that premise. For example, almost 30 years ago, Lisbeth Schorr ( 1988 ) put together a volume describing numerous social programs for children that had proved to be highly successful. She concluded that “We know how to organize health programs, family agencies, child care, and schools to strengthen families and to prevent casualties at the transition from childhood to adulthood. We know how to intervene to reduce the rotten outcomes of adolescence and to help break the cycle that reaches into succeeding generations” (p. 294). Years later, Jonathan Crane ( 2000 ) used rigorous research techniques to identify successful social welfare programs. He concluded that “A number of programs have had a substantial, positive impact on the lives of the people they have served and have benefited society as a whole” (p. 1). He writes further that “Although there have been many disappointments in the past 35 years, we have learned a tremendous amount. If we let this knowledge go to waste, then the money spent on programs over the years will have gone for naught. If instead, we capitalize on the handful of successes that we have worked so hard to develop, then all the money, the failures, and the disappointments will have been worthwhile after all” (p. 40).

   Understanding what works and what does not work creates better social policy and programs. This book provides the foundation and guidelines you need to understand the U.S. social welfare system and the public policies and programs that contribute to it, analyze the effectiveness of those efforts, and be knowledgeable about the underlying values and beliefs that shape social welfare policies.

Key Terms

belief  (p. 4)

empathy  (p. 20)

Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA)  (p. 2)

institutional social welfare policy  (p. 7)

provider  (p. 4)

recipient  (p. 4)

residual social welfare policy  (p. 7)

selectivity  (p. 7)

social justice  (p. 14)

Social Security  (p. 1)

Social Security Act of 1935  (p. 3)

Social Security Trust Fund  (p. 2)

social welfare  (p. 2)

social welfare policy  (p. 2)

social welfare programs  (p. 3)

social welfare system  (p. 5)

sympathy  (p. 20)

Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)  (p. 9)

universality  (p. 7)

value  (p. 4)

Questions for Discussion

· 1. How would you describe what our social welfare system is to a friend who is not taking this class?

· 2. What is the difference between a provider and a recipient in the U.S. social welfare system?

· 3. Explain the difference between a value and a belief. Give an example of each.

· 4. Why do you think it is important to study social welfare policy?

· 5. Find data on population growth in the United States between 1980 and today. How has the composition of our population changed and how do you think that might influence social welfare policy?

Exercises

· 1. Based on your initial understanding of social welfare policy, what policies and programs do you think benefit you? Why? Write these down and put them away until the end of the course. At that time, look at what you wrote and consider how your thinking and understanding may have changed over the course. Are there different social welfare policies and programs that you can identify as beneficial to you?

· 2. Look at your list of policies and programs. Can you identify which are institutional and which are residual? Can you determine which are universal and which are selective?

· 3. Consider the values and beliefs identified in this chapter. Where do your own values and beliefs fit? Again, write down where you think you fit in terms of the values and beliefs listed in this chapter. At the end of the course, review what you wrote and consider how your views may or may not have changed. Why?

· 4. Read through a newspaper or a news magazine such as Time or Newsweek. How many articles are related to social welfare issues? How are the issues presented? Does the discussion seem relevant to social work practice? How do these issues affect you, your family, and your friends?

· 5. Visit the web site of a local or national elected politician. Can you identify values and beliefs held by this elected official? How do you think those values and beliefs might influence his or her policy making?

References

Abramovitz, M. (2001). Everyone is still on welfare: The role of redistribution in social policy. Social Work 46 (4): 297–308.

Barker, R. L. (2003). The social work dictionary, 5th ed. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.

Berliner, D. C, & G. V. Glass. (2014). 50 myths and lies that threaten America's public schools: The real crisis in education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Congressional Budget Office. (2014). Report on the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Washington, DC: Author.

Crane, J. (ed.). (2000). Social programs that work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Degeneffe, C. E. (2003). What is Catholic about Catholic charities? Social Work 48 (3):374–383.

Dionne, E. J. (2008). Culture wars: The era of Americans voting on the basis of “moral values” is over. Washington Post National Weekly Edition 25 (22): 25.

Gintis, H. (2001). Foreword: Beyond selfishness in modeling human behavior. In R. M. Nesse (ed.), Evolution and the capacity for commitment, pp. ii–xx. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York: Crown.

National Association of Social Workers. (2008). NASW code of ethics. Washington, DC: Author.

National Education Association. (2014). Rankings and estimates. Washington, DC: NEA Research.

New Oxford American Dictionary. (2010). New Oxford American dictionary, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2007). Trends in political values and core attitudes: 1987–2007. Washington, DC: Author.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2010). The people and their government: Distrust, discontent, anger and partisan rancor. Washington, DC: Author.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2012). Trends in American values: 1987–2012. Washington, DC: Author.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2014). Trust in government. Available at  http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/typology-comparison/trust-in-government/ .

Schorr, L. B. (1988). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. New York: Anchor Press Doubleday.

Segal, E. A., & K. M. Kilty. (2003). Political promises for welfare reform. Journal of Poverty 7 (1/2):51–68.

Skocpol, T. (1999). How Americans became civic. In T. Skocpol & M. P. Fiorina (eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy, pp. 27–80. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2012, 131st ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2014a). An aging nation: The older population in the United States. Current population report P25-1140. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2014b). 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce.

Wagner, D. (1999). What's love got to do with it? A critical look at American charity. New York: New Press.

Wilensky, H. I., & C. N. Lebeaux. (1965). Industrial society and social welfare. New York: Free Press.

Chapter 2 Historical Foundations of Social Welfare in America

Today's social welfare policies have been shaped by historical events and molded by changing social values and beliefs. Exploring the history of social welfare policy in the United States can help us better understand today's social welfare system.

   The political system of a democratic government rests on the principle that people or their elected representatives make policy decisions. The majority usually decides the outcomes of elections and makes decisions. In the United States, as in many other countries, that majority mirrors those who control the most resources and have the most influence. Social welfare policy evolves in ways that reflect the majority culture and its values. That majority has usually been concerned with maintaining the status quo rather than risking social upheaval. Examples of efforts to maintain the status quo can be seen in the treatment of women and nondominant groups. Social welfare policy in this country has tended to reinforce traditional family ethics, which kept women at home (Abramovitz, 1996) and restricted nondominant people and immigrants from full economic participation ( Patterson, 2000 ).

   In spite of the overriding goal of protecting the status quo and maintaining control for the majority, change has occurred from colonial times to the present. Some social welfare policy changes were dramatic and far-reaching. Others were slow and gradual. Because the social welfare system reflects economic fluctuations, political changes, and shifting values and beliefs, it is important to examine the system within the context of history.

COLONIAL PERIOD (1690–1800)

Social welfare—the concern with societal well-being—dates back to the time of the earliest European settlers. The colonial period was a time of great uncertainty. To the Europeans who first landed in this country, North America did not seem to possess established social, political, or economic systems. The settlers lacked awareness of native cultures that had been in existence for centuries. The New World of the European settlers was actually a place of thriving, populated communities. Many indigenous people lived in North America (see  Box 2.1 ). The population is estimated to have been as high as 18 million before 1492. In the 130 years after that date, 95 percent of the indigenous people died from diseases brought by Europeans and from conflicts that occurred as white settlement expanded ( Mann, 2002 ).

BOX 2.1 MORE ABOUT THE FIRST NATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA

At the time of the earliest European contact with North America, there were no “American Indians.” The aboriginal inhabitants of North America encountered by European travelers spoke a myriad of languages; possessed a wide variety of cultures; displayed a broad diversity of social, economic, and political organization; and had no conception of themselves as a single “race,” group, or people. The common label “Indians” in fact told more about the visitors than about the natives. First, the label revealed an unfounded geographic optimism about the discovery of a route to the East Indies; if this was India, these must surely be Indians. More important, this strategy of simplistic collective designation reflected a racially compartmentalized worldview that would come to guide the colonial policies of Europeans for nearly five centuries on as many continents. These policies divided human populations into two camps: those who were civilized and those who needed to be civilized; those manifestly destined to rule and those in need of rule. Finally, the uniformity implied by the common label “Indian” reflected the singleness of purpose in European, and later American, social, economic, political, and military dealings with the various indigenous communities they confronted: an unrelenting demand for native land and resources. ( Nagel, 1997 , p. 3)

   The settlers who came to America during the late 1600s and early 1700s either ignored cultures and mores that were not their own or found ways to destroy those cultures. Consequently, the earliest settlers relied on laws from their countries of origin in creating their first social welfare system. The earliest form of legislated social welfare policy came with the importation of the  Elizabethan Poor Laws  (Trattner, 1999). Passed in 1601 in England, the Elizabethan Poor Laws embodied the first public legislation outlining a public response to social welfare needs. As the feudal system changed in England, the problem of what to do about people in dire need surfaced as a public concern. With people leaving the countryside, where they were under the rule and care of feudal lords, towns became populated by people without sufficient resources to survive. Feudal lords, in power through birth, marriage, and at the behest of the monarchy, were responsible for a geographic area and all the people who lived there. Towns tended to be separate, and became places where people from the countryside came to try and improve their economic well-being. Arriving poor, they put a strain on the local towns. The Elizabethan Poor Laws were passed primarily out of necessity, to designate a system of care for the poor and indigent—not because of a commitment to social well-being. Landowners and church leaders were not able to care for all those in economic need.

   A number of key components characterized the Elizabethan Poor Laws ( Stern & Axinn, 2012 ). Landowners and lawmakers of the time categorized need by distinguishing between those deserving of aid, the “worthy poor,” and those not deserving, the “unworthy poor.” The  worthy poor  included widows, orphans, the elderly, and people with disabilities. These groups were viewed as worthy because their circumstances of need were perceived to be beyond their control. The  unworthy poor  were able-bodied single adults and unmarried women with out-of-wedlock children. These groups were unworthy because either they could work and were not doing so or they did not follow expected social norms. These distinctions are important because they permeate the U.S. social welfare system to this day and are reflected in the understanding of “deserving” versus “undeserving,” as described in  Chapter 1 .

   In addition to categorizing people in need, the Elizabethan Poor Laws institutionalized structures that remain a part of the social welfare system. The Elizabethan Poor Laws stipulated that the economic support of those in need must first come from within the family. Only when the family could not afford to care for a person did local authorities take public responsibility for his or her care. Another stipulation was that the person in need had to be a legal resident of the community. In this way, the generosity of the local government would be provided for community residents rather than outsiders. Funding for public assistance came from money collected from local residents who could afford to pay. The tendency to support people we know rather than strangers continues to be strong to this day.

   The Elizabethan Poor Laws established a single relief system coordinated by civil authorities. The system was intended to provide support for those who deserved assistance. It was not seen as a way to eradicate poverty. The colonists believed strongly in the work ethic. Those who could work must work. They also believed that jobs were available for anyone willing to work and that hard work would lead to moral uprightness and individual well-being. In other words, they valued self-sufficiency more than social support.

   These earliest social welfare laws set the stage for all social welfare policy to come. In summary, the major principles of the Elizabethan Poor Laws included (1) a distinction between the worthy and unworthy poor, (2) the idea that the family was responsible first and foremost for the care of its members and that only after the family cannot provide support would local authorities intervene, (3) the stipulation that only residents of a community were eligible to receive assistance, and (4) the provision that assistance would be given only when dire necessity required it and would be terminated when the recipient achieved the ultimate goal of employment or marriage to someone who was employed. Poverty was seen as an individual shortcoming, not a structural or societal failure. One key outcome of the colonial period was the belief that social welfare was a partnership between private care and public aid.

   The American South was similar to the North in its adherence to the Elizabethan Poor Laws, but it differed in regard to its economic structure. The agricultural economy of the South relied on large numbers of laborers. African slaves provided an inexpensive source of labor. From the 1600s through the late 1700s, almost 600,000 Europeans came to America and 300,000 Africans were brought here as slaves ( Daniels, 1990 ). Almost all of the Africans lived in southern states. The colonists from Europe, most of whom were British, controlled the economic and social order of colonial America. By 1661, the South had institutionalized slavery. The care of slaves was the responsibility of their owners. The Elizabethan Poor Laws were not applicable to slaves, who had no legal claim to social welfare support from local governments. As in the North, these policies set the foundation for the public response to social welfare needs for decades to come.

   During the colonial period, America was perceived as a land of abundant resources with plenty of room for growth. The native people, like the African slaves, were regarded by the colonists as nonpersons with no rights to the land or resources ( Nagel, 1997 ). The colonists considered American Indians to be a nuisance blocking the growth of the colonial empire ( Nabokov, 1991 ). The differences in culture between the colonists and the native peoples were significant. Misunderstanding and mistrust between the two groups lasted for centuries. For the American Indian tribes, the white colonists, in the words of a member of the Santee, were:

·  … a heartless nation. They have made some of their people servants.… We have never believed in keeping slaves, but it seems that these Washichu [white people] do.… The greatest object of their lives seems to be to acquire possessions—to be rich. They desire to possess the whole world. For thirty years they were trying to entice us to sell them our land. Finally the outbreak [of illness] gave them all, and we have been driven away from our beautiful country. ( Nabokov, 1991 , p. 22)

   Such differences in beliefs and the success of the settlers in pushing the native peoples westward supported the colonies growth and prosperity. Because of economic growth and a rich base of natural resources, the belief that poverty was inevitable or structural never became part of the national consciousness. In fact, because of the abundant resources and expansion, poverty was viewed as a personal misfortune, not a public responsibility.

IMPACT OF THE COLONIAL PERIOD

The policies and practices of colonial America serve as the foundation for the U.S. social welfare system and beliefs. The strong values of work, individualism, and aggressive expansion blended to create an ongoing American way of life. This way of life promotes economic gain and individual achievement. Americans value the entrepreneurial and adventurous spirit of early explorers and settlers. Also, the acclaimed superiority of Anglo-European colonists over indigenous cultures and African slaves set the stage for racial conflicts that continue today.

CONFLICTING BELIEFS OF THE COLONIAL PERIOD

The colonial period gave rise to a number of the conflicting beliefs that influence U.S. social welfare policies of today. Most significant is the emphasis on distinguishing between those who are deserving of aid and those who are not, the worthy and unworthy poor. The emphasis on the individual reflected the colonial values of individual responsibility, self-sufficiency as the preferred way of living, and the work ethic. Also codified in the Elizabethan Poor Laws was the tendency to help those we know rather than strangers. These beliefs permeate the social policies and programs that constitute our current social welfare system.

PRE–CIVIL WAR PERIOD (1800–1860)

After the American Revolution in 1776 and the formation of the United States, economic, political, and social forces changed the face of the nation. The economic structure of the country changed from primarily agrarian to primarily industrial. More and more immigrants from European countries settled in America. With growing immigration and industrialization, workers in search of employment gravitated toward cities, and the America of the 1800s became more urbanized.

   The social welfare system in the United States changed with the increase in industrialization, immigration, urbanization, and western expansion. Although the fundamental precepts of the Elizabethan Poor Laws were still accepted, local authorities were facing greater social problems and needs. Conditions such as mental illness and disabilities and the plight of orphaned children seemed impossible to solve through distribution of aid to individuals. One solution was the building of residential institutions to care for such people (Leiby, 1978). Institutions were believed to be the way of eliminating social problems through rehabilitation of poor people and others deemed to have social problems and in turn setting examples of proper ways to live ( Rothman, 1971 ). The institutions, also known as  indoor relief , included hospitals, almshouses for the poor, and orphanages for children ( Stern & Axinn, 2012 ).

   Colonial and pre–Civil War America reflected a strong religious background, which greatly influenced how early Americans viewed social problems ( Jansson, 2015 ). The dominant ideology was a religious moralistic perspective that regarded individual behavior as the root of most problems. This perspective reinforced the emphasis on correcting behavior through rehabilitation and life in institutions. Although the goal of institutional living was to rehabilitate people, the reality differed. Institutions often became places where people who were destitute or suffering from mental illness were warehoused, and no efforts at rehabilitation were undertaken. The conditions were often substandard, and inmates were treated poorly.

IMPACT OF THE PRE–CIVIL WAR PERIOD

The use of institutions in caring for people became an established social service approach during this period. Care from sources other than families and friends was accepted as a legitimate way to treat social problems. In addition, although the separation of church and state was outlined in the Constitution, religious organizations played a role in caring for people.

CONFLICTING BELIEFS OF THE PRE–CIVIL WAR PERIOD

The concept of rugged individualism permeated the society of the 1800s. America was still seen as a nation rich in resources, and opportunities for hard work were perceived to be plentiful. Therefore, anyone not working or poor was regarded with suspicion. Poverty was viewed as an individual condition and, hence, a personal failure, not a societal failure. This belief reinforced the value of economic self-sufficiency.

   However, the concept of work being available for every person who wanted it was, and continues to be, a distortion of historical reality ( Katz, 1986 ). As has been true during many periods of history, viable employment for unskilled or semiskilled workers was not universally available. Although there have always been rich and poor people in American society, the industrialization of the 1800s created broader differences and a greater disparity in resources between those at the top and those at the bottom.

CIVIL WAR AND POSTWAR PERIOD (1861–1874)

The Civil War awakened the new nation to social unrest, regional nationalism, and economic disparity. The difference between the North and the South was not simply a matter of abolition versus institutionalization of slavery. The industrialized North had an economic base that differed from the more agrarian economy of the South. The Civil War and its aftermath created a tremendous need for relief efforts. As a result of poor sanitary conditions, public health emerged as a social welfare concern, as did the need for national government intervention.

   For the first time in the nation's history, the federal government made a brief foray into providing social welfare benefits. Before the Civil War, all social welfare programs fell under the control of private charity groups and local governments. With the magnitude of the Civil War and the North's successful efforts to abolish slavery came the postwar need to provide for those displaced by the war. In 1865, the federal government established the  Freedmen's Bureau , which provided temporary relief for newly freed slaves, managed abandoned and confiscated property, helped to reunite families, provided medical supplies and food rations, and established institutions such as hospitals, schools, and orphanages (Trattner, 1999).

   The Freedmen's Bureau was placed in the War Department, an action that ensured that the bureau would remain temporary. It was disbanded in 1872 ( Jansson, 2015 ). The establishment of the bureau raised the question of what role the federal government should take in the creation of social welfare policy and the provision of services. The bureau was seen only as a postwar effort and not as a way of altering the social or economic structure that had given rise to the Civil War. It provided the minimum services needed immediately after the war.

   Although slavery officially ended with the Civil War, racial differences remained deeply embedded in American society. African Americans were technically free people but were still subject to the will of the majority. Even many northern abolitionists who had fought for the end of slavery perceived African Americans as morally inferior to whites ( Jansson, 2015 ). Forcing people to leave their native land and culture and then depriving them of any chance to develop their own resources and a new culture set the stage for long-standing racial imbalances. How could newly freed African Americans begin to achieve the social, political, and economic success that the founders of this country had secured for themselves almost 200 years before? Early settlers had access to land and resources, and by the 1800s controlled the political and social economy. Even with the end of the Civil War, African Americans were not included in those systems. Freed slaves had few belongings, no land, and no education, and therefore had no chance to integrate into the mainstream society. What institutional slavery accomplished before the Civil War, social values and structural systems maintained after the war.

   Women fared a bit better after the Civil War. The war had drawn women out of their homes and into the social structure to a greater degree than before. Women found a place for themselves in social welfare services and public health careers. Following the war, the country experienced enhanced economic wealth and an improved standard of living. Women from families who were economically well off found opportunities to do social welfare service work outside the home.

   During the years following the Civil War, Anglo-Americans decimated the resources and culture of American Indians. Thousands of miles of railways opened the way for westward expansion, and white settlers took the land as they moved across the country. In 1887, the  Dawes Act  destroyed Native American culture by dividing native lands among individuals. Needing resources, many Native Americans sold their land for little money or were cheated out of it. Ninety million acres were transferred to whites, and 90,000 American Indians were left homeless. Also in 1887, the government provided funds for missionary groups to create boarding schools. American Indian children were forced to attend these schools and consequently lost contact with their families, communities, and culture ( Day & Schiele, 2013 ).

IMPACT OF THE CIVIL WAR AND POSTWAR PERIOD

The greatest contribution of this time to social welfare was the involvement of the federal government in the delivery of social services. The idea of the highest level of government stepping in to address social problems was new to the nation. Although it was a short-lived effort, it left an indelible mark on the social welfare system. Also, the impact of the Civil War was to be felt for generations to come. The rift between the North and the South, and the ill feelings it left, continue to affect social beliefs today. The aftereffects of slavery lingered for over 100 years, and the economic, social, and political disparities between whites and African Americans are still evident today.

CONFLICTING BELIEFS OF THE CIVIL WAR AND POSTWAR PERIOD

Disproportionate economic growth, renewal of immigration, increased industrialization, urbanization, and western expansion characterized the period from the 1870s through the beginning of the 1900s. The industrial development fostered by the war laid the foundation for postwar expansion and growth in individual wealth ( Stern & Axinn, 2012 ). It also laid the foundation for intensified economic disparity, poverty, regional differences, and racial strife. The high level of unemployment at the end of the 1800s challenged the American belief in individualism and the availability of work for anyone who wanted it (Bremner, 1956). People began to accept the possibility that there might be structural reasons beyond the control of the individual that contributed to poverty. Societal structure and systemic failure, instead of personal failure, were seen as possible contributors to poverty.

   Severe bouts of economic depression, particularly during the late 1800s, gave rise to a tremendous need for social welfare intervention and recognition of the large-scale needs of many population groups. Social responsibility began to emerge. Out of this period came the seeds of government-supported social services and federal social welfare policy.

PROGRESSIVE ERA (1875–1925)

The late 1800s and early 1900s witnessed two opposite but related trends: economic growth and increased poverty. Urban areas grew tremendously, and industry expanded. Immigrants were hired to fill dangerous and low-paying jobs, and wealth became concentrated in the hands of the few who were at the top. Poverty was prevalent among industrial workers, immigrants, and rural southern African Americans (Wenocur & Reisch, 1989). The wide schism between the “haves” and “have-nots” produced great social need. Change was rapid, and the social problems that surfaced were far beyond the capabilities of the existing private charities.

   The growing disparity between rich and poor fueled political and social dissatisfaction that in turn gave rise to a new political movement. This period, the  progressive era , witnessed a shift in social welfare policy and programs from family and private responsibility to community and government responsibility. Unlike during the expansionary years after the Civil War, economic conditions at the turn of the century worsened, and the nation began to regard problems such as poverty as social concerns rather than individual problems (Trattner, 1999). This new concern included closer examination of the structural forces that led to personal misfortune.

   Among the numerous social problems during this period were terrible labor conditions, particularly for women and children; poor health, especially among those living in crowded urban tenement areas; lack of understanding of mental health needs, which led to mistreatment of those deemed to be “insane”; poor treatment of children and lack of educational opportunities; and overall poverty among a significant portion of the population.

   Social welfare programs and the provision of services during the progressive era were embodied in two distinct movements: the  Charity Organization Societies (COS)  and the  settlement movement . The role of these movements in the foundation of the profession of social work is discussed in  Chapter 4 . In short, COS and settlements dominated the social service system of the progressive era.

CHARITY ORGANIZATION SOCIETIES

Modeled after groups in London, the first Charity Organization was established in 1877 in Buffalo, New York. COS workers tried to eliminate poverty by discovering its causes among individuals and then removing those causes from society ( Erickson, 1987 ). Objective techniques stressing scientific methods were considered the best way to solve the problem of poverty. Through coordinated relief giving and modeling of appropriate behavior by “friendly visitors,” families would receive relief without duplication of services and would be shown how to live a respectable life. Those most involved in COS believed that poverty was rooted in the personal character of the poor person ( Germain & Hartman, 1980 ).

SETTLEMENT MOVEMENT

The settlement movement was influential at the turn of the century. The work of the settlements was based on a completely different perspective than that of the COS regarding the causes of poverty and social need. The settlement movement officially began in this country in 1887 with the establishment of the  Neighborhood Guild  in New York City. It was based on a similar model in England, the famous  Toynbee Hall  ( Reid, 1981 ). The philosophy behind the settlement movement was that social workers should live among the people to best serve communities. Established as neighborhood centers where all were welcome, settlements served both as housing for settlement workers and as meeting places for local people. The settlement movement philosophy combined the achievement of individual growth with satisfying social relations and social responsibility. Unlike the narrow individual focus of the COS, the settlements emphasized community and society. The settlements held a holistic perspective on the individual in society and regarded a person's inner well-being as inseparable from external forces. The settlement philosophy held that people could become full citizens through participation in social systems, including the family, neighborhood, ethnic groups, and place of employment.

IMPACT OF THE PROGRESSIVE ERA

The progressive era witnessed tremendous political change. For the first time in America, industrial workers began to organize and demand better working conditions and wages. Although management was still in control of production, unions were organized for numerous trades and provided newfound strength for workers. Women found a place in the changing economic and political environment, becoming employed in social welfare services and seeking increased political involvement. The  suffrage movement  gained public attention and culminated in 1920 with passage of the constitutional amendment awarding women the right to vote. Women fought for and achieved access to higher education and the professions ( Boulding, 1992 ).

   African Americans did not fare as well as other groups during the progressive years. White workers, women, and children gained rights, but most of the freed slaves of the South remained in poverty and were excluded from political and social realms. Many became tenant farmers, economically enslaved to their former owners. Some moved to the North to find jobs in urban centers. Although life in the North was better than life in the South, northern African Americans were barred from union membership and did not benefit from the progress of white workers ( Jansson, 2015 ). The newly created social welfare services were not available to African Americans, so they created a separate network of services to meet their needs. Although the National Urban League and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) were established in 1910 and 1912, respectively ( Stern & Axinn, 2012 ), racial divisions and hierarchies remained firmly rooted in America.

   In spite of political change and progress, the underlying economic and social structure of the United States remained intact. The severe economic depressions of the turn of the century gave way to a resurgence of social stability. World War I brought a sense of common purpose to the nation, put people to work, and halted immigration, giving the country time to absorb the people of diverse cultures that had flocked to America in the late 1800s and early 1900s. By the 1920s the nation was relatively prosperous and the social changes of the progressive era had slowed. “Old American values” resurfaced, and a return to majority conservatism dominated ( Daniels, 1990 , p. 281).

CONFLICTING BELIEFS OF THE PROGRESSIVE ERA

Social welfare policy still remained in the hands of private charities and localities. The involvement of religious and faith-based groups in the delivery of social services called into question the separation of church and state. The federal government was not yet a provider of services, although seeds of stronger federal involvement in social welfare had been sown during the progressive era. The federal government had passed legislation regulating work, protecting women and children, placing restrictions on factory owners, and protecting American workers.

   A shift in values from individual responsibility to social responsibility created a foundation for believing in social support in addition to self-sufficiency. Although emphasis was still placed on each person's abilities, there was growing awareness that the larger society had some role in the care of those who were less fortunate.

THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND THE NEW DEAL (1925–1940)

Economic instability and depression were remote concerns during the 1920s. The “Roaring Twenties” were years of economic prosperity and extravagant living. Certainly there were poor people, but their problems were geographically and socially confined. Those in political power and those who controlled industry remained oblivious to the needs of the poor. Much of the population was living beyond their means, buying on credit and saving little or nothing. Market speculation and fraudulent stock deals were common. Shrewd but shady business dealings that resulted in profit were viewed as acceptable. There was a general feeling that anyone who worked hard and had some business savvy could “make it” economically.

   The stock market crash of October 1929 brought an abrupt end to the nation's strong faith in the market system and the prosperity of the 1920s. The warning signs of extended credit, little savings, and market speculation had gone unheeded. The nation's social structure and charitable organizations were totally unprepared to meet the incredible social needs and demands of Americans during the Great Depression of the 1930s. The economic changes were staggering: In 1929, almost 1.6 million people were unemployed; in 1931, 8 million were unemployed; and by 1933 almost 13 million were out of work—more than 25 percent of the civilian labor force ( U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 ). In addition, the gross national product fell from $103 billion in 1929 to $56 billion in 1933 ( U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 ). Millions of families were impoverished because of the widespread unemployment of the main breadwinner.

   The shock of the Great Depression paved the way for the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the presidency. The nation was in the depths of severe economic destitution and ready for a new leader with new ideas.

·  One of the factors that made Roosevelt a great leader was that his beliefs so neatly coincided with popular values in the thirties__What was good, decent, fair, and just—what was “right”—was also what a majority of people wanted and, hence, what was expedient. (McElvaine, 1993, p. 325)

   Roosevelt had a genuine concern for others, a noblesse oblige combined with his understanding of struggle based on his own experience with polio. He believed that the Depression was the result of factors that could be changed through federal action. His policies, referred to as the  New Deal , were designed to reverse the economic misfortunes of the nation.

   The  Social Security Act of 1935  was the most significant federal legislation to develop out of the Great Depression and Roosevelt's New Deal efforts. It represented a major change in the country's approach to social welfare policies and programs. Although a number of smaller federal efforts were undertaken during the early 1930s, the groundwork for passage of the Social Security Act was set by three efforts: the  Federal Emergency Relief Act (FERA) , the  Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) , and the  Works Progress Administration (WPA)  (Trattner, 1999).

   FERA was the first federal economic relief agency to be established since the Freedmen's Bureau after the Civil War. The magnitude of poverty was so great that many agreed that the federal government needed to be the direct provider of relief to local public agencies through which individuals would receive aid. The relief was intended to be temporary, available only until people became employed.

   By 1933, the creation and provision of jobs were the dominant goals of the social welfare policies under the New Deal. The CCC and the WPA were created to develop employment for those on relief. The WPA provided 8 million government jobs, ranging from heavy construction work to playing in orchestras ( Stern & Axinn, 2012 ). WPA projects included the building of post offices, schools, and government buildings. The CCC provided employment for thousands of young men, who worked on conservation projects, including reforestation and flood control (Trattner, 1999).

   The Roosevelt administration planned to use FERA to provide direct relief and the WPA and CCC to provide temporary employment through the worst of the Depression. Once basic relief had been achieved, permanent solutions were needed. Two key advisors to the president at this time were both social workers: Harry Hopkins and Frances Perkins. Harry Hopkins, born in Iowa, started his social work career as a settlement house worker in New York City. He went on to work as an advocate for the poor and served in the New York State Bureau of Family Rehabilitation and Relief. Hopkins served as the director of FERA and acted as a personal advisor to Roosevelt. Frances Perkins, the first woman appointed to a presidential cabinet position, served as the secretary of labor throughout the Roosevelt administration. Perkins had begun her career as a public investigator of labor conditions and was deeply committed to improving the lives of workers. Her work as a member of FDR's cabinet demonstrated her commitment to enhancing labor conditions and promoting federal social welfare services. Perkins chaired the Committee on Economic Security, which developed the Social Security program still in place today (McSteen, 1985;  Severn, 1976 ).

   The Great Depression disproved the concept that poverty was always the result of personal laziness and unworthiness. During the Depression, millions of hardworking, responsible, and previously economically stable workers found themselves without work. The circumstances of their poverty were out of their control. The economic upheaval of the Depression altered public opinion toward social welfare policy and programs. The overall failure of economic institutions lessened the resistance of the voting public to adopting a national social welfare policy (Dobelstein, 1980).

   The failure of the economic system brought the federal government into the direct provision of social welfare services. The enactment of the Social Security Act established the two main social welfare programs of today: social insurance and public assistance ( Berkowitz & McQuaid, 1988 ). The social security programs reflected Roosevelt's New Deal efforts of providing relief in times of economic downturn while stressing employment as the key to economic well-being.

   The Social Security Act, passed in August of 1935, represented a compromise between radical and conservative ideologies. Conservatives were concerned that federal social welfare policy would destroy individual responsibility and self-determination. Radical proposals called for large payments and federal responsibility for the economic well-being of all Americans. In response to these competing political pressures, the act included provisions for economic security for the aged, unemployment insurance, and assistance for dependent children, as well as funds for states to provide services to promote vocational rehabilitation, infant and maternal health, public health, and aid to children and people with disabilities. The overall aim was to reinforce the work ethic by rewarding employment while at the same time providing a federal safety net of economic relief for those most in need.

   The Social Security Act created two main social welfare programs: (1)  social insurance , including Old-Age Insurance and Unemployment Insurance, and (2)  public assistance , including Old-Age Assistance, Aid to Dependent Children, and Aid to the Blind. Over the years the act has been amended numerous times to include other provisions. The details of economic assistance and the Social Security Act are explained more fully in  Chapters 7  and  8  as part of the discussions on social insurance, poverty, and economic inequality.

   The Social Security Act put into place two programs with very different approaches to providing economic assistance. Social insurance is a collectively funded program for workers and their dependents that provides economic resources at the conclusion of employment due to retirement, disability, or death. It is social because anyone who works is covered, provided they paid into it while they worked, and it is insurance because the payments guarantee coverage for the rest of the recipient's life. Public assistance, on the other hand, does not require any involvement prior to economic need. It is a government-funded effort to assist people whose income falls below a certain level and are considered to be in poverty. It is public because it is funded through general revenue collected by the government, and it is assistance because it is meant to be temporary and aid people in distress, not provide support for life.

   The social insurance provisions of the Social Security Act were appealing for a number of reasons. Initial acceptance was aided by the bias in the system: Early entrants were favored with a high benefit to cost ratio; that is, in the early years of the program, people would receive benefits after paying into the program for only a short time. The program had an incremental structure: Costs were low at first and then increased gradually. This structure made it more acceptable to the taxpaying public. Also, the program's design ensured that there was no stigma attached to receiving benefits; workers had “paid” for the benefits with payroll taxes. A person earned credits by working and did not have to prove financial need.

   The public assistance provisions did not receive as much public support. Because of the tremendous poverty of the Great Depression, people needed immediate economic aid. The overall plan was that public assistance was to be temporary. Once the immediate economic crisis passed and all were employed (or related to someone employed), there would no longer be a need for public assistance. The severity of the Great Depression and the political savvy of Roosevelt and his supporters lessened public opposition to both programs and reluctance to accept their benefits. In the end, the Social Security Act reflected many compromises and contained many ambiguities so that different interest groups could support it (Derthick, 1979).

   The establishment of the Social Security Act in 1935 marked the beginning of a new era in social welfare policy in the United States. The act ushered in a period of significant change in the ideological stance of the federal government: It marked the beginning of the modern welfare state. Since 1935, almost all significant social welfare policy has been enacted as part of the Social Security Act or an outgrowth of it. Its programs account for most of the coverage, recipients, benefits, and expenses for social welfare from 1935 to the present. In addition, the creation of social insurance and public assistance through the Social Security Act gave rise to several major shifts: there has been tremendous growth in the federal bureaucracy and in the number of people working on social welfare issues, and the federal government has been established as the institution that takes on projects disowned or ignored by the private sector ( Berkowitz & McQuaid, 1988 ).

IMPACT OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND NEW DEAL ERA

During the 1930s, significant social welfare policy shifts occurred. Human rights were given more priority than property rights; the movement toward equality in access to employment and education was initiated; legislation was passed to promote better health and economic security; and the federal government began to intervene in the nation's economy. All of these changes helped to push forward the development of professional social work ( Fisher, 1980 ).

CONFLICTING BELIEFS OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND NEW DEAL ERA

Existing social services and relief organizations could not deal with the millions in need. The private charitable groups of the 1920s had been concerned with individuals and small-scale need, and they lacked the skills and resources to deal with the tremendous social and economic upheaval of the Great Depression. Public opinion changed because of the magnitude of the Depression. People who were hardworking and had trusted the market system were suddenly without work. They lost savings and had no prospects for self-support. The situation could not be explained by the American belief in individualism and the inevitability that hard work and honesty would always be rewarded. The market system had failed, and poverty had become a societal concern. The combined failures of the economic system, private charitable agencies, and state and local governments to address economic need placed social welfare on the agenda of the federal government: “As a result of the Depression, many people came to realize that the fortunes of individual Americans were interdependent, and many adopted the belief that it was the duty of the federal government to prevent new depressions” (Gronbjerg, Street, & Suttles, 1978, p. 46).

   The belief in social responsibility and social change was significant during this time period. Also for the first time, people became aware of how difficult it was to respond to a crisis situation. They began to feel that prevention could be an important part of the social welfare system. The Social Security Act demonstrated that legislators had a positive belief in both immediate responses to crisis and preventive actions to ward off future crises.

   President Roosevelt was the first national leader to demonstrate empathy over sympathy in social well-being. Although leaders before him, such as Lincoln, demonstrated great concern for the plight of people who were oppressed and destitute, Roosevelt promoted programs based on the premise that unfortunate circumstances could happen to anyone and that the response should be empathic, not just sympathetic. Economic downturn could hit people who had always worked hard, and, therefore, social programs needed to be developed to guard against the vicissitudes of the marketplace. Social Security was the proposed solution.

   Prior to the 1930s, the federal government had played a secondary role to private organizations and states and localities in social welfare policy. The federal government had begun to intercede through regulation but had for the most part left the market system alone. Therefore, those who did not benefit from the market—poor workers, women and children, racial minorities, and immigrants—had received no federal support. The economic upheaval of the Great Depression changed the federal role, and social responsibility gained national support. Although in the years to come those opposed to government involvement in personal life would challenge this support, the federal government was firmly entrenched in the provision of social welfare services by the end of the 1930s.

WORLD WAR II AND THE POSTWAR ERA (1940–1960)

Challenged by international events, President Roosevelt was forced to focus on World War II and abandon his primary concern with the social reforms of the New Deal. World War II did what all the employment programs of the New Deal could not: It put most Americans back to work. The war effort employed millions through enlistment in the armed services and employment in war-related industries and technologies. The war brought about social changes because the country was closed to immigration and military personnel were exposed to foreign cultures. It brought full employment and finally ended the economic downturn of the Great Depression.

   In addition to bringing the economy out of the Depression, World War II permanently expanded the social role of the federal government. “New Deal spending in the years 1937 through 1941 averaged $9.2 billion a year. By the years 1947 to 1950, however, federal expenditures averaged $37.8 billion. A four-fold increase in government spending had occurred almost unnoticed” ( Berkowitz & McQuaid, 1988 , p. 147).

   Expansion of the military also changed the social environment. With so many men in the armed services, women were brought into the workforce and introduced to nontraditional jobs. The famous “Rosie the Riveter” exalted the efforts of women in jobs that men had formerly held. As the war went on, social mores gave way to military necessity. African Americans were brought into the military and slowly began to be integrated into the larger military system. The liberation of women and the integration of African Americans were short lived, however. After the war, the nation shifted into a period of private interest, a focus on the family, and a conservatism not witnessed since the 1920s.

   Immediately following the war, the federal government passed the  Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 , commonly known as the  GI bill . It reflected the sentiment that the nation owed much to its veterans and therefore funded provisions for education and training, home and business loans, and employment services designed to help the returning soldiers adapt to civilian life ( Stern & Axinn, 2012 ). Although today the GI bill is viewed as a major piece of legislation, its original sponsors planned it to be nothing more than a modest support for readjustment ( Lemann, 1993 ). However, millions of people took full advantage of the educational provisions. The act contributed to a lasting positive view of the federal response to returning veterans.

   Although the federal government was permanently drawn into the provision of social welfare services during the 1930s and 1940s, the efforts of the 1950s centered on incremental changes and services that reinforced the private domain. Federal subsidies for housing, mortgages, and transportation made it possible for postwar families to leave cities and live in newly developed suburban areas ( Ehrenreich, 1985 ).

   The one major social welfare policy development of the decade was the addition of disability insurance to the Social Security Act. This addition exemplifies the development of social welfare policy during the 1950s. Change was incremental in nature. It took years to convince policy makers to extend social insurance to cover workers who became disabled and their families.

IMPACT OF WORLD WAR II AND THE POSTWAR ERA

The addition of disability coverage to Social Security reflected the mood of the times: It demonstrated how difficult it was to expand the coverage of the existing Social Security Act. The conservative mood made developing any new social welfare policies extremely difficult. The 1950s witnessed a postwar prosperity that emphasized private well-being. Although women had left the family to work outside the home during the war, they returned during the 1950s to cultivate the family and private interests. Reform in social welfare policy and social values would not come for another decade.

CONFLICTING BELIEFS OF THE WORLD WAR II ERA AND THE POSTWAR ERA

Whereas the New Deal era promoted social responsibility, the post-World War II period was an era in which individual responsibility was promoted. The crises of the Great Depression and the war had passed, and the focus was once again on the individual. Rational, incremental change was the preferred response to social well-being. Economic growth and suburban development reinforced a concentration on personal life, and social responsibility faded in importance.

SOCIAL REFORM (1960s–1970s)

The private focus and relative economic stability of the 1950s was broken by the revelations of the 1960s. The economy had generally prospered. However, research uncovered large segments of the population who had not benefited from the post-World War II prosperity and were living in poverty. Michael Harrington's book The Other America: Poverty in the United States ( 1962 ), which described the economic misfortunes of so many Americans, is credited with initiating the  War on Poverty . A massive migration of African Americans from the South to the North had created densely populated urban areas untouched by the economic prosperity of the 1950s ( Jansson, 2015 ).

   The 1960s, like the early 1900s and the 1930s, was a period of social welfare policy development. In response to the “rediscovery” of poverty and the demographic shifts, two major social welfare policy initiatives were passed by 1964: the Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty. The  Civil Rights Act of 1964  codified protection of racial minorities by requiring desegregation of public facilities and prohibiting discriminatory hiring practices ( Jansson, 2015 ). President Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty as an effort to start his own New Deal (Trattner, 1999). The  Economic Opportunity Act  outlined the administration's antipoverty attempts. Among the provisions were the Job Corps program, which helped youths to prepare for employment; VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America), which stressed community service in impoverished neighborhoods; and  Community Action Programs , which provided federal funds for community programs working toward the elimination of poverty ( Stern & Axinn, 2012 ). Also in 1964, the  Food Stamp Program  was enacted to address the growing need to alleviate hunger in America.

   Additional legislation was enacted in 1965. The  Older Americans Act  developed a nationwide network to coordinate services for the elderly. The coverage of the Social Security Act was expanded by the addition of two major social welfare programs,  Medicare  and  Medicaid , to address health care for the elderly, the poor, and people with disabilities. Early efforts during the 1920s and 1930s to include health coverage in the Social Security Act had failed. Supporters of health care insurance and assistance had spent 30 years lobbying for health coverage. As participants in the War on Poverty, they were successful in gaining passage of Medicare, which is part of the social insurance program of the Social Security Act, and Medicaid, which provides health coverage as part of public assistance. The addition of Medicare broadened the safety net of Social Security for the elderly and workers who became disabled. The constellation of health services for the poor was expanded through Medicaid.

   The War on Poverty also affected other areas of social welfare. As a result of the Economic Opportunity Act,  Head Start  was established in 1965. The goal of Head Start was to prevent poverty by providing services for poor preschool children and their families. The services included medical care, nutrition, school preparation, and parental education (Gustavsson & Segal, 1994). Civil rights legislation also expanded.  Chapter 5  provides greater detail about advances in desegregation and policies enacted to ensure protection based on race and gender.

IMPACT OF THE SOCIAL REFORM PERIOD

In a relatively short time, the face of social welfare policy was again dramatically altered. Building on the programs of the New Deal era, social reformers in the 1960s promoted expansion of both social insurance and public assistance at the federal level. Public health insurance was enacted to complete the coverage of the Social Security Act. The War on Poverty brought the issue of social need back to the forefront of the nation's consciousness. The  Civil Rights movement  gained momentum through public legislation as well as growth in public awareness. The increased awareness extended to other social groups, as the women's rights, American Indian rights, farm workers' rights, and gay rights movements all coalesced during the 1960s.

CONFLICTING BELIEFS OF THE SOCIAL REFORM PERIOD

Public consciousness was at a high level during the 1960s. In reaction to the conservatism of the 1950s, the focus shifted from the individual back to social responsibility and social change. Emotions ran high. Leaders attempted to craft public policies that would address social system failures. Poverty was again regarded as a social ill more than as an individual shortcoming. Social support was one of the key sentiments fueling the momentum to create a more just and fair society.

   The Civil Rights marches and demonstrations represented, in addition to social change and responsibility, a concern for people who were strangers, a sentiment that was not seen during the post–World War II years.

RETRENCHMENT: SOCIAL WELFARE PULLBACK STARTING IN THE 1970s AND THROUGH THE 1990s

For social welfare activists, the 1960s was a time of optimism, when it seemed that all social problems could and would be addressed. Policies and programs were created and supported by the government and the voters alike. No matter how liberal and reformist the new legislative efforts might have been, however, conservative ideologies were still evident. By the later 1960s, efforts were begun to curtail the social largesse of the decade. Public assistance, developed as part of the New Deal, had shifted from aid for the elderly, those with disabilities, and widows and their children to aid for a new population, the dependent children of unmarried, abandoned, or divorced women ( Berkowitz & McQuaid, 1988 ).

   By the late 1960s, the growth in the caseloads of single mothers and families of color in the  Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)  program (expanded in 1962 from the original Aid to Dependent Children program of the Social Security Act) prompted more punitive measures. The program was perceived as having changed from one of income support for the worthy poor—widows and orphans—to one of subsidizing women whose lifestyle differed from the norm and who were not concerned with the nation's family ethic (Abramovitz, 1996). The economy began to stagnate. The War on Poverty of the 1960s, although regarded as worthy, did not eradicate poverty. The costs of the Vietnam War led to inflation. People began to view government skeptically. Thus, during the 1970s, the efforts of the previous decade underwent a reversal.

   Despite the shifting ideology of the 1970s and President Richard Nixon's conservative policies, a number of incremental policy initiatives developed. In 1973 the federal government passed the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), designed to help the unemployed, and a year later Title XX was added to the Social Security Act to provide funds directly to the states for social welfare services for the poor. Both initiatives reflected the more conservative elements of the times, with reliance on local authority and the private market for implementation rather than the federal government (Trattner, 1999).

   The activism of the 1960s did not disappear during the 1970s. The women's movement gained momentum in seeking equal rights and protection from discrimination. Groups such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), organized in 1966, established themselves as national representatives for women's issues. In 1973, the landmark legal case of Roe v. Wade legalized abortion and in the process gave women of all economic and social backgrounds access to the medical procedure. Gay rights advocates mark the 1969 Stonewall riot as the beginning of the gay rights movement. The riot was a violent, five-day confrontation between the police and the gay patrons of the Stonewall bar in New York City. The confrontation politicized many gay people and resulted in intensified organizing for equal rights and protection from discrimination ( Marcus, 1992 ).

   The renewed conservatism of the 1970s settled in during the 1980s, however. Represented by the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the entire decade was a time of preoccupation with private interests. The Reagan administration focused on three fundamental goals: shifting responsibility and power from the federal government to states and localities, relying on the private sector to provide for social welfare needs, and reducing federal programs and spending for social welfare initiatives ( Rochefort, 1986 ). The concept of  devolution  of social services marked public policy. Devolution sought the return of control of social services from the federal level to the state or local levels. This shift, supporters of devolution argued, would save costs for the federal government and let those closest to the problems—localities—develop appropriate programs. While this concept had merit, it ignored the reason the federal government became the provider of many social services in the first place—left to their own, localities either did not have sufficient resources or lacked the will to provide services.

   Social welfare policy legislation enacted during the 1980s was meager and often punitive, taking resources away from social welfare services under the guise of “less government.” This punitive response was particularly felt by poor women who relied on government cash benefits to support their families. After cuts in AFDC were made law in 1983 under President Reagan, the Family Support Act of 1988 was passed to amend the AFDC program. Described as “welfare reform,” the act was punitive and restrictive, giving poor women less support and protection from economic hardship ( Segal, 1989 ).

   When social welfare policy was enacted during the 1980s, it often came long after a social problem had gained national attention. For example, in 1987, years after researchers and mayors of urban cities had recognized the problem, the federal government finally passed legislation to provide support for people who were homeless. The  Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act  was passed in July 1987, but was never fully funded. From 1987 to 1991, Congress authorized $3.3 billion, yet only $2.4 billion was actually appropriated to be spent on services for people who were homeless ( U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992 ).

   Just as slow in coming was the federal response to AIDS, a disease that had gained public attention as early as 1983 ( Shilts, 1987 ). The federal government did not respond with AIDS-related legislation until 1990, when the  Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act  was passed. It was designed to provide services for people with AIDS. As with other legislation of the time, full funding was not forthcoming. In 1991 and 1992, the act received less than one-fourth the authorized amount of almost $900 million ( Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, 1992 ).

   At the same time that social welfare services were being rescinded and underlying social problems were being ignored, the federal government invested untold billions in supporting corporate America. The $7.5 billion bailout of Continental Bank in 1984 ( Congressional Quarterly, 1985 ) and the more than $100 billion spent between 1989 and 1993 on resolving the savings and loan scandal ( Congressional Quarterly, 1993 ) are the most publicized examples. Other subsidies for agriculture, energy, and technology groups were significant.

   The decade of the 1990s can best be summarized as one of economic fluctuations. The early years were bleak because the nation was mired in a recession. Then the economy expanded at an unexpected rate. From July 1990 through March 1991, the nation was in deep recession. During the next 18 months, the nation was technically not in a recession, but the atmosphere was recession-like (Rushefsky, 2002). Then the nation rebounded and experienced an unprecedented period of economic growth, which lasted until 2000. In addition to, and perhaps as a contributor to, the economic expansion, technology found its way into thousands of homes. It changed the way people communicate and gain access to information, and it changed worker productivity (see  Box 2.2 ).

   The 1990s was also a period of political divisiveness. Republicans and Democrats were deeply divided. Congress was controlled by the Democrats under the Republican president George H. W. Bush. In 1994, the Republicans took control under the Democratic president Bill Clinton. The divided federal legislative and executive branches contributed to contentious public policy confrontations.

BOX 2.2 CONSIDER THIS …

Technology has entered people's lives at a rapid pace. “In 1980, IBM projected that the total U.S. market for personal computers for the next 5 years would be 241,000 machines. The actual number was almost exactly 100 times that” (Garreau, 2001, p. 7).

   In spite of division in government and retraction in social welfare spending and programs, gains in civil rights were made during the 1990s. In 1990, the  Americans with Disabilities Act  was passed, mandating protections from discrimination for people with disabilities. In 1991, after civil rights gains had been chipped away for years, the Civil Rights Restoration Act expanded many of the protections of earlier legislation. In the spring of 1993, gay rights advocates organized the largest civil rights demonstration in American history with the March on Washington. Nearly a million people demonstrated for equal rights and an end to discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.

   The election of Democrat Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992 ended 12 years of Republican control. Under President Clinton, several major pieces of legislation were passed after they had languished for years under Republican administrations. After twice being vetoed by President George H. W. Bush in 1988 and 1990, the  Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)  was passed and signed into law in January of 1993. Although it was minimal in its coverage and far less than what activists had hoped to achieve, the FMLA marked the first time in history that the federal government had mandated employers to guarantee unpaid leave for workers after the birth or adoption of a child, or during the illness of a dependent or family member. Other social welfare legislation passed under President Clinton included the Brady Bill, which enacted controls on the purchase and ownership of handguns, and the Anti-Crime Bill, which outlawed automatic assault weapons. These two bills had been introduced to Congress during the Reagan and Bush administrations and had met with defeat each time.

   Democratic control of Congress was short-lived. After the 1994 election, Republicans took control of both the House and the Senate for the first time in more than 40 years. The Republican platform called for retraction of social welfare services and a shift away from federal support. The Republican “Contract with America” pledged to decrease federal control of social welfare services with a move to turn over the responsibility to state and local governments. These positions built on those espoused during the 1980s under the Reagan presidency. The Republican agenda of limiting social welfare programs and removing the federal government from the social welfare system was reflected in the  Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) , signed into law by President Clinton in August of 1996. This piece of social welfare policy represented a radical shift in public assistance. Since 1935, the AFDC program had guaranteed cash assistance to any family with a very low income. The new legislation canceled a guarantee that had been in place for more than 60 years. The AFDC program was phased out and replaced by the  Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)  program.

   The new legislation removed unified federal guidelines for the program ( Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996 ). Today, as a result of PRWORA, public assistance programs vary by state. If a state runs out of money in a given year, it can stop providing economic aid. Poor families have to wait until the next year for assistance. In addition, there is a time limit on cash assistance. No family can receive more than five years of assistance over its lifetime. The new law is very complicated and contains numerous sections. A full discussion of TANF and the full impact of this policy change is found in  Chapter 7 .

IMPACT OF THE RETRENCHMENT YEARS

What characterized the 1980s was less government support for poor and disenfranchised people and more government support for corporate America. This seeming contradiction reflected the priority of support for private interests rather than social welfare programs. Less government was viewed as better government. This view led to cutbacks in social welfare spending at the federal level, which in turn caused rescinding of services at the state and local levels. Disparities between those with high incomes and those with low incomes grew, leaving a larger gap between the rich and the poor. From 1980 to 1990, household incomes rose by more than 20 percent for the highest fifth, more than $20,000 in real dollars, compared with an increase of 7 percent, or $650, for those in the bottom fifth (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Lee, 2005).

   The historical lesson of the 1990s is that even in modern times, economics has a major impact on social welfare. Although the fluctuations of the Great Depression were more volatile and extreme, the economic changes of the 1990s were also profound. Social welfare policies were mixed, perhaps reflecting the shifts in the economy. Although civil rights gained some ground, public assistance was cut back extensively and was viewed harshly by policy makers and the public.

   Political rancor soured people on government, and this had a negative effect on social programs. Public support declined, and punitive and restrictive measures were enacted. Dissatisfaction with the federal government promoted moving social welfare services to state and local levels, furthering the decentralization begun during the Reagan years. The impact of this shift has been strongly felt by social work practitioners, who provide much of the staff for social welfare programs.

CONFLICTING BELIEFS OF THE RETRENCHMENT YEARS

Distinctions between deserving and undeserving people resurfaced by the 1980s. The social responsibility ethos of the 1960s receded, and individual and private interests had become the hallmark by the end of the 1980s. Whatever regard people had had for prevention in social services prior to this period disappeared. The focus was on personal failure as the reason for social problems rather than systemic failures. The view of social welfare as a “handout” rather than an entitlement dominated the public policy landscape. The desire to shift responsibility for social welfare from the federal government to localities was also pronounced during the years of retrenchment.

   The 1990s witnessed the full return of differentiating between deserving and undeserving people. Poor women on public assistance were viewed as undeserving, and subsequent legislation codified that belief. This perspective fueled beliefs in personal failure as the reason for poverty and destitution. The full force of the belief in the primacy of individual responsibility and self-sufficiency was evident in PRWORA. For the most part, social responsibility and social change were marginal sentiments during the 1990s. These narrow perspectives on and conflicting beliefs about social welfare policy set the stage for struggles to come over the next 10 years.

THE NEW CENTURY

The first decade of the 21st century opened with some of the same conditions of the previous decade. The contentious 2000 election, which gave a plurality of popular votes to Democrat Al Gore but gave the electoral vote and, hence, the presidency to George W. Bush, marked the beginning of the century. The bitter division of electoral politics that influenced the 1990s coupled with the contentious election of 2000 set the political tone for the new decade. With the return of the presidency to the Republican Party, the ideas of limited government and individual responsibility were reinforced. Less government was thought to be better, and lowering taxes was the rallying point for the Bush presidency. Historical events during the Bush presidency tested that philosophy, and the arguments about the role of government continued with the election in 2008 and reelection in 2012 of Democratic president Barack Obama. The first 15 years of the new century years reflect political divisiveness, which threatens the ability of government to make sound social welfare policy decisions.

TRAGIC EVENTS TRIGGER POLICY CHANGES

The events of September 11, 2001, with the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon, rocked the nation. Although the long-term impact of that event remains to be seen, it is likely to have been a pivotal point in U.S. history (Garreau, 2001). The events of 9/11 did demonstrate the impact of crisis and the readiness of Americans and the government to respond. Although President Bush was a strong advocate of less government intervention, he instituted federal relief efforts on a major scale following the events of 9/11. These efforts included restitution to families of those who died in the attacks, major monetary grants for emergency efforts, and economic support and loans for corporate airlines and airports. Directly as an outcome of 9/11, the cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security was created through the National Strategy for Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established to provide one unifying agency responsible for the national network of organizations and institutions involved in efforts to secure the nation. Today the DHS employs more than 240,000 federal workers. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was also created in response to the events of 9/11, and is part of DHS. The TSA has responsibility for the security of the nation's transportation systems and oversees security for the highways, railroads, buses, mass transit systems, ports, and 450 airports in the United States. TSA employs almost 60,000 people from Alaska to Puerto Rico. Thus, in a very short time in response to the crisis of 9/11, the arm of the federal government grew instead of diminishing.

   International efforts also greatly expanded. The war in Iraq, which officially began in March 2003, went from a planned short-term “shock and awe” blitz to a long-term, costly war that stretched on officially until December of 2011 and included fighting in Afghanistan. The conflict still involves the presence of thousands of American troops in the region. The human toll and economic costs have been staggering ( Crawford, 2014 ). At the five-year anniversary in 2008, more than 4,000 American military personnel had died and tens of thousands had been wounded. By 2014, that total had risen to over 6,800 military personnel killed. Since 2001, the financial cost to the federal government for the global war on terror, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been $1.6 trillion. This does not include spending on veterans' care or for services provided for military families, which have cost an additional $1 trillion. Nor does this include any future aid that may be directed to support the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan. Future costs will depend on the needs and care of the troops deployed and returned but could top $4 trillion ( Belasco, 2011 ;  Congressional Budget Office, 2011 ). These totals do not include the loss of lives and economics of war incurred by those who live in the region, adding significantly to the social and economic costs. By incurring large financial costs and significant human casualties from the war abroad, the resources available for social services at home is diminished. The spending and commitment to future spending for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and surrounding areas impacted by the spread of terrorist groups will have repercussions on the United States for many years to come.

   Other tragic events taxed the resources and skills of government officials and programs. The 2005 failure of the federal government and local authorities to respond adequately to the disaster brought on by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans raised questions about the adequacy of social welfare policies and programs. The abilities of local authorities and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to respond to the crisis and aftermath were sorely inadequate. Hurricane Katrina revealed how long-standing social and economic divisions are worsened by natural disaster. The poor of New Orleans, primarily African American, lived in areas hardest hit and suffered significantly, with minimal resources to rebuild their lives ( White, Philpot, Wylie, & McGowen, 2007 ). Even 10 years later, much of the rebuilding of poor neighborhoods had not been realized. The initial crisis response faded into political disagreements and a lack of will to commit the needed resources, bypassing the needs of many who were displaced by the storm and flooding.

SOCIAL NEEDS EMERGE AND GAIN ATTENTION

In addition to the challenges of terrorism, war and disasters, were emerging social issues. Although not a new issue in terms of debate, health care concerns received more attention and policy changes during the early years of the 21st century than had been seen since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s. The early part of the decade included Medicare reform. In December 2003, President Bush signed into law a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The goal was to help seniors pay for the high cost of prescription drugs. However, the program was such a complicated combination of options and partial coverage that analysts feared it “will make it harder, not easier, for the nation's senior citizens to navigate health care in this country” (Dallek, 2003, p. 22). The program was designed to combine public and private services and participation was optional. The many options in the program resulted from the need to find consensus among diverse policy makers in order to pass it, but these options made for a very complicated and expensive program (see  Box 2.3 ).

   One of the most controversial provisions was called the “doughnut hole”—a set of rules that allowed for coverage of prescription costs up to a threshold at which point the person paid out of pocket. When that cost hit a yet higher threshold, the government re-entered to cover the costs. It was very confusing, and costly to those most in need of the support, those with high costs for prescription medication. In spite of the complicated and confusing nature of the program, within the first two years it had grown to cover over 27 million people ( Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2008 ).

   With the election of Barack Obama, health care became a top policy priority. First, in 2009, Obama reauthorized and expanded the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which had been vetoed previously by President Bush. This program is covered in more detail in  Chapters 11  and  12 . Second, President Obama spearheaded the campaign to create a national health care program that would provide coverage for the millions of uninsured people in the nation. In 2010, the  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act  (ACA, P.L. 111–152) was signed into law. The ACA was the culmination of numerous attempts at health care reform, including an effort early in the Clinton administration years handled by Hillary Clinton, all of which had previously failed. The ACA requires that all individuals are required to carry minimum coverage, which can be under employer programs, individual coverage, federal programs, or other programs. In the event that a person is not eligible for current programs, health benefits exchanges at the state level provide people with access to insurers' plans. There is also a federal level exchange, the Health Insurance Marketplace, which is accessible online for anyone to enroll. The ACA also includes provisions for tax credits to help with affordability.

BOX 2.3 CONTROVERSIAL PERSPECTIVES …

Political Efforts to Get Medicare Reform

The Medicare reform policy of 2003 was passed with the intent of helping low-income seniors to pay for prescription drugs. Should the federal government pay this expense? When the legislation was passed, the estimated cost of the program was $400 billion over 10 years. By February 2005, the estimate had grown considerably to at least $720 billion over the next 10 years ( VandeHei, 2005 ). In 2008 the Congressional Budget Office revised the estimate for federal spending and figured that with the offset of premiums the government cost would be about $625 billion for the first 10 years. The cost in 2009 was $61 billion, reflecting the estimated 10-year annual cost ( Social Security Administration, 2011 ). Some people argue that prescription medications should be covered under the health care policies of Medicare. Others argue that pharmaceutical companies are making large sums of money through the sale of prescription medications and that the government should intercede in the market and broker group prices for medications, as is done for other health care services. And still others argue that the public was misled. One of the pressing questions that arose when the higher costs of the Medicare reform program were announced with the presidential budget for fiscal year 2006 was this: How could the original estimate be so wrong? That is, how could the 10-year cost in 2003 balloon from $400 billion to $600–$700 billion? Part of the answer is that the program was not slated to become fully operational until 2006. The costs from 2003 until 2006 would merely be planning costs. Therefore, the first few years of the 10-year plan would be much less costly than the 10-year costs, when the program would be fully operative. The larger question is this: Was the cost of $400 billion cited because it was lower and therefore more palatable to the public and policy makers, even though it was not reflective of the cost once the program was fully up and running? Did advocates of the policy have a responsibility to disclose the full operating costs rather than base their estimates on the lesser startup costs? Sometimes too much detail obscures the positive goal of a proposed policy. To what extent should policymakers gloss over details in order to get political support?

   The ACA met with stiff resistance and was put to the test through the legal system. After numerous court cases were tried at the state and regional levels, the issue of the ACA's constitutionality was debated at the highest level, the Supreme Court. The two issues of concern were the mandate that individuals must participate in the programs and the expansion of Medicaid on the state level ( Kaiser Family Foundation, 2012 ). In 2012, the Supreme Court issued its opinion, validating the individual mandate as a tax, which Congress can implement within its duties, but regarding the state expansion of Medicaid as an option for states, not a requirement. And should a state opt out, its current levels of funding for Medicaid would not be affected. The Supreme Court ruling, although making some changes to the ACA, seemed to effectively end the debate on the law's constitutionality and paved the way for implementation of the plan. However, opponents vowed to continue to fight with new legal challenges.

   Initially derisively referred to by political opponents as “Obamacare,” the programs of the Affordable Care Act have received a mixed response from the public. Perhaps most problematic is the complexity of the legislation and the lack of general understanding of its provisions. Research has found that most people are in favor of the provisions of the ACA, but do not realize that those aspects of health care reform are part of the ACA ( Gross, et al, 2012 ). The debate surrounding this policy was strongly impacted by the divisiveness between political parties in Congress. While a more detailed description of the provisions of the ACA are given in  Chapter 12 , in brief the policy is designed to expand health care coverage to the more than 45 million people who are uninsured; control costs of medical care; expand eligibility for Medicaid; phase out the gap in Medicare prescription benefits; support the establishment of health insurance exchanges to extend affordable health care coverage; and provide tax credits to small employers to encourage the purchase of health insurance.

   While the full impact of the ACA will take years to play out, estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office project that the long-term effect of the ACA will be to extend health insurance coverage to an additional 31 million people and cut the overall budget deficit for the nation ( Congressional Budget Office, 2014a ). This could represent a major improvement in health care in the United States.

   Other social issues were prominent during the early years of the 21st century. Immigration gained significant attention by 2007. Initial focus on immigration was prompted by efforts to ensure unauthorized people do not enter or illegally remain in the United States, as did some of the 9/11 terrorists. However, by 2008, the focus on immigration centered on unauthorized workers who were primarily from Latin American countries. Opponents of open immigration argue that these undocumented people compromise security, while advocates argue that people come for economic opportunities and serve in needed areas of employment. Again, a divided Congress and partisan fighting stalled progress on immigration legislation. In an attempt to move the issue forward in 2012, President Obama used his position as president to authorize the Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for administering the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency, to change procedures for dealing with some undocumented people. Under the  Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)  program, people who came to the United States as children and have no criminal record, attend school or have graduated high school, or have been honorably discharged from the armed forces, can request deferred action on their undocumented status for two years, with the possibility of renewal. This program does not provide legal status, but research on DACA participants found that the young adult immigrants with DACA certification were able to obtain driver's licenses, find new jobs that increased their earnings, and many have been able to attend college or obtain internships ( Gonzales & Bautista-Chavez, 2014 ).

   In 2014, President Obama again used his presidential authority to address the issue of immigration, particularly the state of those who are undocumented. Through executive action, which is designed to clarify existing policies and programs, Obama expanded DACA by lifting the age limit and deferred deportations to allow people to gain work permits. These changes could affect up to 5 million people who currently lack documentation. Because this action was done through presidential action, it can be changed by future presidents and challenged by Congress. Like other public policy concerns, the immigration debate raises questions about race and economics in America, issues that are very relevant to social welfare policy, and are likely play a key part in future political elections and debates. The issue of immigration is dealt with more thoroughly in  Chapter 13 .

   The last major concern of the first decade of the new century was the economy. The housing market, fueled by easy-to-get mortgages, fell and banks with heavy exposure to the housing market suffered severe financial losses. Federal interventions through the Federal Reserve Board and mortgage support efforts developed by the president and administered through the Federal Housing Administration were initiated in 2007 to stem the negative financial impact. With passage of the Housing and Recovery Act of 2008, the Treasury Department took over the government-sponsored but privately run mortgage agencies known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the fall of 2008, Congress passed the  Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)  as part of the larger Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (P.L. 110–343). TARP authorized the secretary of the treasury to purchase or insure troubled assets owned by private financial institutions, with up to $700 billion in spending authority (Webel, 2011). This authorization was rather open, allowing significant room for the secretary to decide which financial institutions to aid and what was a troubled asset. As of 2014, $423 billion had been disbursed, with almost all of it paid back, leaving a cost to the federal government of about $27 billion ( Congressional Budget Office, 2014b ). From a historical standpoint, federal management in the private financial sector, coupled with government bailouts of other financial firms, shifted the federal government from the role of outside regulator to inside operator within the for-profit financial business sector. The full impact and cost of this shift will unfold over the next decade. The state of the economy has significant implications for social welfare and is addressed more fully in  Chapter 8 .

   In addition to health care and immigration, Barack Obama placed his imprint on other policies in the beginning of his presidential term that differed from the previous administration. Upon taking office in January of 2009, his first signed piece of legislation was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which makes it easier for employees to sue for past workplace discrimination. Passage of this policy demonstrates the power of a shift in political players. The bill was originally introduced in 2007 in response to a Supreme Court decision that considered the time frame for filing a discriminatory action by an employer to begin with the first paycheck when the discrimination occurred, even if it continued over time. The original law provided a 180-day window for filing; this meant that victims who may not have been able to readily prove the discrimination, or were too intimidated to come forward, were closed out of filing after the initial 180 days. The bill introduced in 2007 would lift the statute of limitations to file. Although passed by the Democratic-controlled House, it was voted down by the Republican-controlled Senate in 2008. Then President Bush had announced that he would veto it if it were to be passed. With that, the Congressional session closed and the issue died. With a new Congress and a new president, the bill was reintroduced in 2009, and passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama. This was a clear signal that the new administration was supporting issues different from the previous administration.

IMPACT OF THE EARLY YEARS OF THE NEW CENTURY

What the ACA legislation, the Fair Pay Restoration Act, DACA, and the withdrawal of military troops from Iraq demonstrated is that with a change in governing parties, there can be a window of opportunity for the enactment of social welfare policies that were not supported under an earlier administration. In addition, economic periods are never discrete lengths of time and often cover more than one political period. The government effort to stabilize the economy began under one president, George. W. Bush, and continued under the next president, Barack Obama. Although the two presidents were from different political parties, TARP was a rare example of a major policy effort that was, for the most part, supported by both. However, such carryover of policy has become rare and instead we have seen the early years of the new century with political divisiveness between political parties. The political differences are in part a result of very different values and beliefs.

Conflicting Beliefs of the New Century

It is too early to tell what impact the first decade of the new century will have on our social welfare system or what conflicting beliefs will dominate. We have witnessed the nation's capacity to respond to a major crisis such as 9/11. However, that crisis has caused increased mistrust of strangers and people different from the majority culture. Significant efforts at social welfare reform have been attempted, such as the Medicare changes, the Fair Pay Restoration Act, DACA and the Affordable Care Act, but again we see the tension between values in individual responsibility and social responsibility. For the first time in history an African American and a woman were viable candidates to be nominated by a major party for president, and a woman was nominated for vice president by the other party. The election of Barack Obama, the first African American to hold the highest political office in the United States, is a remarkable social and political shift in America. President Obama's cabinet reflects the broad diversity of the American people, and as such suggests that a broader scope of policy interventions will follow. However, we have also witnessed significant divisions along political party lines leading to political inaction as well as a difference in opinions as to the role of government. A window into poverty was opened with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The federal government expanded in response to national security. The economy faltered, demanding federal intervention. These events suggest that the population of the United States expects government to intercede. Yet there is still great debate and difference of opinions on what extent of government involvement in social welfare is desirable, and what that effort should look like. This debate is likely to continue vigorously as part of the next series of elections and upcoming policy-making efforts.

FINAL THOUGHTS

No matter what kind of social welfare policy decisions are made in the future, it is certain that changes will build on the achievements and failures of the past. To be prepared to participate in the dialogue for social welfare policy change, it is imperative to understand its history. We really can, and should, learn from history. In this chapter, an overview of the history of social welfare policy in America has been provided that can serve as a foundation for understanding the U.S. social welfare system.

Key Terms

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)  (p. 44)

Americans with Disabilities Act  (p. 46)

Charity Organization Societies (COS)  (p. 34)

Civil Rights Act of 1964  (p. 42)

Civil Rights movement  (p. 43)

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)  (p. 37)

Community Action Programs  (p. 42)

Dawes Act  (p. 33)

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)  (p. 52)

devolution  (p. 44)

Economic Opportunity Act  (p. 42)

Elizabethan Poor Laws  (p. 29)

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)  (p. 46)

Federal Emergency Relief Act (FERA)  (p. 37)

Food Stamp Program  (p. 42)

Freedmen's Bureau  (p. 32)

GI bill  (p. 41)

Head Start  (p. 43)

indoor relief  (p. 31)

Medicaid  (p. 42)

Medicare  (p. 42)

Neighborhood Guild  (p. 35)

New Deal  (p. 37)

Older Americans Act (ACA)  (p. 42)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)  (p. 51)

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)  (p. 46)

progressive era  (p. 34)

public assistance  (p. 38)

Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act  (p. 45)

Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944  (p. 41)

settlement movement  (p. 34)

social insurance  (p. 38)

Social Security Act of 1935  (p. 37)

Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act  (p. 45)

suffrage movement  (p. 35)

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)  (p. 46)

Toynbee Hall  (p. 35)

Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)  (p. 52)

unworthy poor  (p. 29)

War on Poverty  (p. 42)

Works Progress Administration (WPA)  (p. 37)

worthy poor  (p. 29)

Questions for Discussion

· 1. What can people learn from studying the history of social welfare policy in America?

· 2. Identify a period of history in which individualism seemed strong. What were the social welfare responses of the time that reflected the strong beliefs in individualism?

· 3. Identify a period of history in which social responsibility seemed strong. What were the social welfare responses of the time that reflected the strong beliefs in social responsibility?

· 4. When did the federal government seem to become entrenched in the provision of social welfare services? Do you think this has been a positive or negative trend? Why or why not?

· 5. Give a recent example of new intervention or expanded intervention by the federal government. Do you think this expansion is good for the nation? Why?

Exercises

· 1. Ask someone older than you if they will reminisce about what they remember about social conditions throughout their life. Were they alive during the Great Depression? Do they remember World War II? Were they involved in social movements of the 1960s? Do they remember the struggle over civil rights? Try to link their personal experiences with the historical events outlined in this chapter.

· 2. Read a historical novel to help bring to life some of the periods highlighted in the chapter. As a class project, several groups can be formed, each focusing on a different time period. The task is to find a novel written about the time period and analyze the experience of the characters in relation to historical events. For example, a group might read The Grapes of Wrath for the Great Depression, The Help for the civil rights era, or Forrest Gump for the 1970s. Are the books realistic portrayals? Why or why not?

· 3. For each of the historical periods identified in this chapter, list the most significant social welfare policy change of the time. Are those changes still evident in our social welfare system today? Why or why not?

· 4. Browse through current news magazines or online news sites. Is there a current event that you think is becoming or might become in the near future a major social welfare issue? Bring it to class and share it with you fellow students. Do they agree or disagree? Why?

References

Abramovitz, M. (1996). Regulating the lives of women, rev. ed. Boston: South End Press.

Belasco, A. (2011). The cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other global war on terror operations since 9/11. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Berkowitz, E., & McQuaid, K. (1988). Creating the welfare state, 2nd ed. New York: Praeger.

Boulding, E. (1992). The underside of history. Vol. 2. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bremner, R. H. (1956). The discovery of poverty in the United States. New York: New York University Press.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (1996). The new welfare law. Washington, DC: Author.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (2008). Monthly contract summary report. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.

Congressional Budget Office. (2011). The budget and economic outlook: Fiscal years 2011 to 2021. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States.

Congressional Budget Office. (2014a). Report on the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States.

Congressional Budget Office. (2014b). Updated estimates of the effects of the insurance coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Washington, DC: Author.

Congressional Quarterly. (1985). Congress and the nation 1981–1984. Vol. VI. Washington, DC: Author.

Congressional Quarterly. (1993). Hill votes more funds for thrift bailout. 1993 CQ Almanac, p. 150. Washington, DC: Author.

Crawford, N. C. (2014). U.S. costs of wars through 2014: $4.4 trillion and counting. Boston: Boston University.

Dallek, G. (2003). A prescription for confusion. Washington Post National Weekly Edition 21 (8):22.

Daniels, R. (1990). Coming to America: A history of immigration and ethnicity in American life. Princeton, NJ: Harper Perennial.

Day, P. J., & Schiele, J. (2013). A new history of social welfare. 7th ed. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

DeNavas-Walt, C, Proctor, B. D., & Lee, C. H. (2005). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2004. Current Population Reports, P60–229. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Derthick, M. (1979). Policymaking for social security. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Dobelstein, A. W. (1980). Politics, economics, and public welfare. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ehrenreich, J. H. (1985). The altruistic imagination: A history of social work and social policy in the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Erickson, A. G. (1987). Family services. Encyclopedia of social work, Vol. 1, pp. 589–593. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers, Inc.

Fisher, J. (1980). The response of social work to the depression. Boston: G. K. Hall.

Garreau, J. (2001). Hinge moments in history. Washington Post National Weekly Edition 18(52):6–7.

Germain, C. B., & Hartman, A. (1980). People and ideas in the history of social work practice. Social casework 62(6):323–331.

Gonzales, R. G, & Bautista-Chavez, A. M. (2014). Two years and counting: Assessing the growing power of DACA. Washington, DC: American Immigration Council.

Gronbjerg, K., Street, D., & Suttles, G. D. (1978). Poverty and social change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gross, W., Stark, T. H, Krosnick, J., Pasek, J., Sood, G, Tompson, T., Agiesta, J., & Junuis, D. (2012). Americans' attitudes toward the Affordable Care Act: Would better understanding increase or decrease favorability? Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Gustavsson, N. S., & Segal, E. A. (1994). Critical issues in child welfare. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harrington, M. (1962). The other America: Poverty in the United States. Baltimore: Penguin.

Jansson, B. S. (2015). The reluctant welfare state, 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning Brooks/Cole.

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2012). Focus on health reform: A guide to the supreme court's Affordable Care Act decision. Washington, DC: Author.

Katz, M. B. (1986). In the shadow of the poorhouse. New York: Basic Books.

Leiby, J. (1978). A history of social welfare and social work in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lemann, N. (1993). GI bill nostalgia. Washington Post National Weekly Edition (September 6–12).

Mann, C. C. (2002). 1491. The Atlantic Monthly 289(3):41–53.

Marcus, E. (1992). Making history: The struggle for gay and lesbian equal rights. New York: HarperCollins.

McElvaine, R. S. (1993). The great depression: America 1929–1941. New York: Times Books.

McSteen, M. A. (1985). Fifty years of social security. Social Security Bulletin 48(8):37–44.

Nabokov, P. (ed.). (1991). Native American testimony. New York: Penguin.

Nagel, J. (1997). American Indian ethnic renewal: Red power and the resurgence of identity and culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Patterson, J. T. (2000). America's struggle against poverty in the twentieth century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Reid, K. E. (1981). From character building to social treatment. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Rochefort, D. A. (1986). American social welfare policy: Dynamics of formulation and change. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Rothman, D. J. (1971). The discovery of the asylum: Social order and disorder in the New Republic. Boston: Little, Brown.

Rushefsky, M. E. (2002). Public policy in the United States, 3rd ed. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Segal, E. A. (1989). Welfare reform: Help for poor women and children? Affilia 4(3):42–50.

Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families. (1992). A decade of denial: Teens and AIDS in America. House of Representatives Report 102–1074. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Severn, B. (1976). Frances Perkins: A member of the cabinet. New York: Hawthorn.

Shilts, R. (1987). And the band played on. New York: St. Martin's.

Social Security Administration. (2011). Annual statistical supplement to the social security bulletin, 2010. Washington, DC: Author.

Stern, M. J., & Axinn, J. J. (2012). Social welfare: A history of the American response to need, 8th ed. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Trattner, W. I. (1999). From poor law to welfare state, 6th ed. New York: Free Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1975). Historical statistics of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1992). Homelessness: McKinney Act Programs and funding through fiscal year 1991. GAO/RCED-93-39. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

VandeHei, J. (2005). So much for “limited government.” Washington Post National Weekly Edition 22(17):11.

Webel, B. (2011). Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP): Implementation and status. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Wenocur, S., & Reisch, M. (1989). From charity to enterprise: The development of American social work in a market economy. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

White, I. K., Philpot, T. S., Wylie, K., & McGowen, E. (2007). Feeling the pain of my people: Hurricane Katrina, racial inequality, and the psyche of Black America. Journal of Black Studies 37:523–33.