Social welfare policy and services
...healed and the nation grew and prospered (Trattner 88). The poor were held in contempt and society still generally believed “… that indigence was simply punishment of the improvident for their lack of industry and morality – the direct consequence of sloth and sinfulness” (Trattner 88). Such theory kept the poor in a mentality of personal failure and Darwinistic theory came into play. Survival of the fittest became the doctrine of he time and the “… new religion preached the need for a laissez-faire economy in which the fittest would become the richest” (Axin & Stern 97). Individual achievement was a sign of health and strength but of moral superiority as well. Axin and Stern assert that Carnegie, the capitalist and Warner, an economist and social welfare leader, both agreed with the Charity Organization Movement that men are poor because they are weak, had done some great wrong, or been unkind to his fellow man. It was clearly a national problem at this time, yet most thought, especially Darwinists, that the government’s role was to protect people, not give public assistance to the needy. Trattner states that the philosophy prevalent then was that interfering with the poor, who were basically not worthy anyway, would just encourage the proliferation of the unfit. The federal government dominated the Southern social welfare area via the Freedman’s Bureau. They helped whites as well as blacks at the time, yet there was concern regarding such large-scale federal aid to the needy. Southerners accused the bureau of fostering idleness and pauperism. Axin and Stern state tat President Johnson objected to the federal role of taking responsibility of social welfare and wrote that this was never in the Constitution and he placed responsibility for recovery from slavery on its victims. He vetoed the continuation of the Freedman’s Bureau and with its demise came the end of federal responsibility for social welfare. It again became the responsibility of the states and private groups. An anti-public welfare attitude proliferated and the private sector became very powerful. There was a harshness in the attitudes of the time because of the beliefs of the corruptibility of human nature. It was felt that the poor can only do better through work. Charity was given only to those proven to be on the verge of starvation. “This view of human nature, whose lineage extends to a doctrine of original sin, marked the religious origins as well as the sustained power of the private charity idea” (Axin & Stern 98). As stern as the Charity Organization leaders were in their views of pauperism, their findings helped bring about “… some support of social legislation, but it carried with the position that there was no major defect in society itself” (Axin & Stern 100). However the movement in itself, by bringing to light the needs of so many “…induced many representatives of these private agencies to regard the social and economic causes of poverty as more pressing than personal inadequacy – and to realize that only the public could cope with the widespread dependence endemic to modern industrial society” (Trattner 101). This realization spread to the broader society. Also, many came to realize that the poor and needy are not “moral inferiors.” All the information researched by charities helped lead to the development of social work professions. In spite of the previous revelations, “the concept of the poor as a class of inferiors who needed to be driven or inticed from their unwholesome, lethargic state of being held sway as late as 1924” (Axin & Stern 169). The Depression finally brought to the nation’s consciousness the fact that one could be poor due to the malfunctioning of society. At the time, President Hoover had a Republican stance of laissez-faire, states’ rights and we’ll get out of this if we do nothing mentally. Hoover did not want federal responsibility of social welfare. It was always a state or private charity jurisdiction. Again, the American Republican philosophy of limited federal intervention and “pull oneself up b ones own bootstraps was a belief prevalent at the time. Social justice and change occur when a problem becomes “we” instead of “them.” The Depression brought about the visibility of issues that were never realized before. This visibility of the issues swung the pendulum towards social justice and change. The crisis “…and the need for money brought the meaning of economic standstill literally and painfully into almost every home. Everywhere there was agreement based on experience as to the necessity for more governmental action” (Axinn, Stern 172). Everyone knew someone, either family or friends, who was on or needed public relief. “The task of relieving the jobless and their families was first undertaken by private local agencies. It quickly became evident, however, that they were unprepared to meet the crisis” (Trattner 273). Public opinion finally turned to the realization that private and voluntary charity could not cope with the situation. As Patterson states, local relief officials still had a Poor Law mentality. They had no federal help so they tried to economize and keep as many people off of the rolls. Most were told that they would work and were ineligible for assistance even if they could not. As Patterson asserts, poor people during the Depression did not put great pressure on public officials. However, “the overwhelming needs of the time left policymakers with no choice but to heed the groups that were organizing…” (Patterson 77). “By the time that Roosevelt came into office, governmental intervention in social and economic affairs was expected and accepted- particularly on the federal level” (Axinn, Stern 172). The government needed to respond because societal expectations were rising. The public acknowledged that people could be unemployed and in need of relief through no fault of their own. This “…led…to an admission of fault in the economic and social system…” (Axinn, Stern 199). Public relief remained a state-local matter until President Roosevelt’s New Deal and it was finally recognized that “…society had an obligation to help” (Axinn, Stern 199). In spite of all this, FDR and others still had a “distaste for relief” (Axinn, Stern 185) and still felt public relief was a “subtle destroyer of human spirit” and a “threat to old values…” He felt that the needy should get relief temporarily but to be short-lived enough so as not to make them dependent on the government. He and others still wanted relief to be doled out by local government though private charities and churches. In 1933, Congress established the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. It put relief dollars into state and local agencies. However, by the end of 1935, federal participation of direct relief was phased out. Private agencies couldn’t keep up with the demand. What FERA did was “…formalize the changed relationship between public and voluntary family agencies” (Axinn, Stern 186). It also “…clarified further the separation of public and private agencies in regard to administering public relief funds” (Axinn, Stern 187). It’s regulations stated that funds be administered by public agencies. “It represented an advance in standard setting when compared with pre-depression approaches to public giving. Unfortunately though, the perception still existed “…that relief was somehow a necessary evil” (Axinn, Stern 187). The Social Security Act was very important. It represented a major “shift from public, governmental concern for property rights to a concern for the rights of people and, consequently, extending federal responsibility for social welfare” (Axinn, Stern 188). Leuchtenburg feels, however, that it was an inept and conservative law. He felt that it was ridiculous that nowhere else in the world does the state shirk all responsibility for its aged citizens and take the money out of their earnings. In spite of its faults though, “…the Social Security Act of 1935 was a new landmark in American history. It reversed historic assumptions about the nature of social responsibility, and it established the proposition that the individual has clear-cut social rights” (Lauchtenburg, p.133). If nothing else, what came out of the new deal was strong “…federal responsibility for guaranteeing minimum financial security as a matter of right” (Axinn, Stern 201). Bill Clinton realized this right when he became president in the 1990’s. He also felt the sentiment that people cared about the “…growing disparity in the distribution of income and wealth between the rich and the poor” (Trattner 389). He wanted to unite all Americans. He said, “This is America. There is no them. There is us.” Clinton went on to institute the TANF Act of 1996, also known as “workfare”. These tho...