Discussion Question need back right away!!!! no later than 11:00 pm tonight

€d ee- :- ,llar-\ u-

rianC

:-- '-- rnor;-, '

Io:.ie::- 1999 . ,1.-',. :-

r dud::; of ou;-

Ct-r11OLe :

!L] ieaoS-

I to mea: SOSe PILr-

> or Pea- - such a-' :ons rvors-

:d insuft- ,t societie: Itecedent! rices agen-

:ia1 rqeliart

rations like

ent of the rldren s Alc

e a"harmo- ional values

Ld economic

rists consid-

tential deter-

government

n democrac\-'

cf unPoPular

ur & Reisch' izations, such

and the ReC

ar, it was onlv

;ociated with

States created

:o oversee the

Lons develoPed

rl illness, delin-

Stern,2007)'

General Themes in the Evolution of HSA 31

***. Emergence *,*rTan services

of Modern Administration

In part, this private philanthropic t"-*"'::

*n.".a the unwillingness of business elites to

.;;;;;" ;rttem of public taxes and services thev

il;, control' At the time' these services con-

ilJ;;;;t of stute-fu"ded custodial institu-

,t""t t"."*-ups of people viewed as needing

special attention: individuals who were mentally

iffi ili;;ntallv disabled' orPhans' people *n" *... Uii"d o' deaf' criminals' and'

increas-

it*r, ,n. elderly poor (Katz' 1996)' This concern

intensified as new rmmigrants, became uo-:-t-lt'

and politically corrupt "iard bosses" acquired

;rilai ;iilul .ont'oi (Bruno' 1e57; LeibvJ e78)'

---Eurli.. sectarian-human services

orgafilza'

,i";;;;;. ro'*ta tutgtlv as "charitaf'; itt::]'- ,#f *iii ilifi "it""!ioa-1q

tt'-eh legal status'

Thii reflected their underlying philosophy :1"

.n.itf rnor''td be based on a personal t"l::t^lo'

between benefactor and recipient (Lowell'. 1 884)'

ii. t"i-U"ction of "scientific charity" illus-

i.ut.a no* the nations changing political econ-

omy influenced its social institutions' Jus::,t::

ffi';; ;;;itiiv uo't corPoration".replaced tra-

inJ"""f partnerships in the marketplace' tne

;;;t* 'corporalion" became the preferred

";*""rL.at"t.l iorm for philanthropic and

civic

;.fffi':';'"'g1' tt'it' "'odel' trustees colld

' rtions without incurrrngcontrol these organtza l"oal liabilitv for their debts or activities

and

;;;; .;ncepts of administrative efficiencv

;;;;; o"tiness world into the administration

of charity (Lubove, 1965)' During the last half of

,fr. irrt'.*tury, this model spread throughout

in. "."r-nt sector in higher education'

*l::,t'

t"t,ti"ia"t, public health' and youth-servlng

;t;""*t*'' tt ftttpta create a form of "wel-

iu.". .upitun'ml' a pragmatic U'S' alternative to

iror.r-'r"o. capitalism and European socrallsm

ur

ll, -

it

ll

I

I