Veronica Horton
MHS 500
Concordia University
Jan. 15, 2015
Perspective on Poverty
The issue of poverty has been bounced back and forth over who is responsible for caring for those less fortunate. In the 1500s the Catholic Church was held responsible for human services and institutions were established to care for the poor (Woodside & McClam, 2015). During the middle ages human services evolved to not only the churches but would later become responsibility of the government. Hospitals became not only a place for individuals who were sick but a resource for those who needed food and shelter(Woodside & McClam, 2015).
In 1601, the Elizabethan Poor Act was passed and is an important part of the history of human services and guided the social welfare practices by determining who would provide service for the needy. Family was responsible for family, however, more importantly was legislation which stated the state was responsible to alleviate the suffering and needs of those in poverty but those individuals deserved and had a legal right to have help(Woodside & McClam, 2015).
The United States response changed on how poverty was viewed in the 1800s with increased immigration and growth in industrialization. Changes in urbanization during the colonial years increased poverty. With the Elizabethan Law, responsibility had fallen on the government however, the mindset changed and the new thought was that the assistance provided only encouraged more poverty. This brought on the Poor Law Reform Bill of 1834, with the concept of “less eligibility” meaning that in order for one to receive assistance they had to make less than the lowest wage earners (Woodside & McClam, 2015).
Attitudes on poverty were further changed with philosophies of individualism, laissez-faire, and Social Darwinism. Individualism viewed as hard work would lead to the road of success and it was obtainable by anyone. Laissez-faire focused on government and social responsibility however with a French meaning of “leave alone.” Society took at attitude of “live and let live.” Society gravitated to a government that did little. An amalgamation of laissez-faire and societies work ethic led growth of social Darwinism, interpreted to be the natural and social order of life. The fittest of the fittest would survive and prosper while the ones not as fit would not survive (Woodside & McClam, 20115). This philosophy discouraged services to the people with belief that nothing could be changed for the working class and poor who worked long hours in poor conditions with low wages or children working at young ages (Woodside & McClam, 2015).
Between 1860 and 1900, there was a tremendous growth in population do to immigrants coming to the United States, 14 million who settled in cities largely having a farming background. Do to this mass expansion of population two responses were formed, the organized charity movement and the settlement house movement. The organized charity house dealt with poverty by personal contact also known as “friendly visiting” between the have wealthy and poor. Later reforms for better conditions, sanitation, health regulations, parks and recreation, and housing codes were developed. In order to keep those who were truly poor separate from the beggars a systematic distribution was used. The group evolved into a clearinghouse and is similar to how United Way is to this day (Woodside & McClam, 2015).
The settlement house movement was brought on largely to improve living and working conditions for the poor. With lack of support of the laissez-faire, they wanted better schools, housing, child labor and sweatshops to be abolished. They believed that human service professionals should be participating in the system at all times not just when something went wrong. A settlement house generally was a large house in a rough area. It functioned as a community center, provided classes: English, cooking, and citizenship, job training, and child care. People lived and were part of the community. An example is Hull House in Chicago founded in 1889 by Jane Adams which throughout the years was home to over 50 services including a boy’s club and a men’s club (Woodside & McClam, 2015).
During the 1900s also called the sociological era, social reform continued and two historical events took place with human services. One being a new profession, Settlement House and Charity Organization Society employees become known as social workers. This new profession was believed that is was necessary to have specific skills, knowledge, and understanding in how to work with those in poverty. During this time case work and social diagnosis became the approach of practice (Woodside & McClam, 2015). The development of social work was significant and was the beginning of the human service profession.
With the economic hardship of the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed new legislation which changed the federal government’s role with providing human service. The focus was on providing short term assistance to the unemployed and the passing of the Social Security Act of 1935. This essentially provided assistance in three areas: social insurance included the elderly, survivors, disabled, and unemployment insurance; public assistance consisted of federal funds to start programs like “Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled (APTD), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Aid to the Blind, and Old Age Assistance (OAA)”. (Woodside, 2015, p. 46) Lastly there were additional programs for those needing general assistance such as: health and welfare services, public health, children with disabilities, and mother and child health services (Woodside & McClam, 2015).
Believing that the very roots of poverty had to be attacked, President Johnson declared a “war on poverty”. Programs began including: “VISTA, Neighborhood Youth Corps, the Job Corps, College Work Study, and Head Start” (Woodside, 2015, p. 49). The idea was that in order to end poverty the poor had to have ways to improve their conditions. President Johnson was a promoter of right of the poor. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 allowed uneducated people the right to vote, Affirmative Action Order of 1968 and the Office of Economic Opportunity increased jobs opportunities for minorities. Furthermore, July 30, 1965 Medicare began to provide insurance for people over age 65 and Medicaid began grants to states to care for indigent citizens so they could receive medical and hospital care (Woodside & McClam, 2015).
In 1986, President Nixon approached poverty and human services differently. Nixon’s New Federalism demanded people to take ownership for their own situations. Self-help programs were established. President Ford followed suit with cutting federal involvement in human services cutting$9.5 billion from programs. Three programs he declined were the school lunch program, federal aid to education, and health care. However, during President Carter’s administration the development of the Department of Health and Human Services which had a variety of human service programs (Woodside & McClam, 2015).
President Reagan’s platform in 1980 was a change of attitude towards government and human services. He called for new priorities in regards to human services, government spending cut, and a deduction of the government’s involvement. He believed that states and communities should be handling the issue of poverty and human services. Social programs were cut as well as spending on others such as: “AFDC, childcare, school lunch program, food stamps, subsidized housing, energy assistance, family planning, public and mental health services, alcohol and drug counseling, legal aid, the Job Corps” (Woodside, 2015, p. 52). During his reelection the poverty issue worsened and the welfare reform bill was designed to help single parents enter the job market. In 1988, The Family Support Act was signed into law, one requirement was that single parents on welfare whose children were over three years of age had to be training or working in order to receive assistance. Unfortunately, President Reagan largely ignored the poor during his time as President (Woodside & McClam, 2015).
With an enlarging gap separating the rich and the poor, when President Clinton took office in 1992 there was a need for a welfare reform. His campaign was to “end welfare as we know it” and in 1996 the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was the replacement for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. The federal government’s six-decade of aid to the poor ended. Under the new welfare program eligibility was based on income and further regulated by the federal government (Woodside & McClam, 2015).
The ongoing question and trial and error remains as to what is the ultimate solution to end poverty. Human service professionals aim to see their clients move off of welfare and out of poverty yet, they are left seeing their clients struggle to gain employment which is enough for survival and to support a family. They are able to help families meet the everyday basic needs but have concerned in regards to rules and regulations. Today more welfare recipients are working while on welfare, this is more than in the past yet still so many require assistance. Things which hinder clients are little to no education, lack of work experience, disabilities, language barriers, and child care. These are major issues among those in poverty.
Personally, we receive free school lunches for our kids, LINK (food), and Medicaid. My husband was laid off six years ago and though very well experienced, he was too experienced in his field with no degree. He started his own computer repair company and while it does well and can pay the mortgage and bills (most of the time) it is not enough for school lunches or to pay out of pocket medical insurance and groceries. For me to work out of the house I have to at least make $15 an hour for it to cover the benefits of working. If I work then we will lose medical, food, and cost for kids school lunches and school fees, something that we simply cannot afford. I am all for working and want to very much so but I also lack a lot of the work experience since in my 20’s I was a stay at home mom. So, I continue school as I feel that 1) it is our best chance to get out of the system and 2) because I have a long term goal that I am working towards.
It is crucial that funding continues for families from the government and or private sectors. I believe families should have mentors working with them to help set goals and to help get those steps taken to reach them. It is a good start with requiring those parents with children of a certain age to be working or job training. The government and people making decisions on budgets and what they think is best for those in poverty should really come spend a week with families and really get an idea what they struggle with. Then they can have a real idea what the actual needs are and just how hard it can be for people. It is one thing to have an idea what being in poverty is like but it is another to actually live it.
Reference
Woodside, M., & McClam, T. (2015).An introduction to human services (8th ed.). Stamford,
CT: Cengage Learning.