In primitive society,
sometimes referred as the ‘folk
society’, the larger family
or tribe took over the support
of those whose needs were not
satisfied in the normal
way. Children deprived of
parental support were taken
into the homes of relatives
or adopted by childless
couples. Food resources were
shared among relatives
and neighbours. In course of
time, when the feudal
system gave way to the wage
economy, legislation was
enacted to compel the poor to
work. Whipping,
imprisonment, and even death
punished begging.
Role of the Church
In Europe, in the early
Christian era, the folk tradition
continued and the faithful
considered it a religious
obligation to care for those
members of the group who
could not care for
themselves. Religion provided the
greatest motivation for
charity. The church, especially
the monasteries, became the
centres for distributing
food, medical aid and
shelter. Alms were collected in
the parish and distributed by
the parish priest and
other clergymen who knew the
individuals and their
situation.
Welfare Becomes a
State Responsibility
The shift from church
responsibility to government
responsibility for relief is
seen first in the restrictive
legislation forbidding
begging and vagrancy. In England
between 1350 and 1530, a
series of laws were enacted,
known as the “Statutes of
Labourers,” designed to force
the poor to work. The
decreasing authority of the
church and the increasing
tendency to shift
responsibility to
governmental authorities gave rise in
England to a series of
measures which culminated in
the famous Elizabethan Poor
Law of 1601.
The Elizabethan Poor
Law 1601
The Poor Law of 1601 was a
codification of the preceding
poor relief legislation. The
statute represented the final
form of poor law legislation
in England after three
generations of political,
religious, and economic
changes that required
government action.
The law distinguished three
classes of the poor:
1) The able-bodied poor were called “sturdy beggars”
and were forced to work in
the house of correction
or workhouse. Those who
refused to work in the
house of correction were put
in the stocks or in
jail.
2) The impotent poor were people unable to
work—the
sick, the old, the blind, the
deaf-mute, the lame,
the demented and mothers with
young children.
They were placed in the
almshouse where they
were to help within the
limits of their capacities.
If they had a place to live,
they were given “outdoor
relief” in the form of food,
clothes and fuel.
3) Dependent children were orphans and children who
had been deserted by their
parents or whose
parents were so poor that
they could not support
them. Children eight years
and older able to do
some domestic and other work
were indentured
with a townsman.
The Poor Law of 1601 set the
pattern of public relief
under governmental
responsibility for Great Britain for
300 years. It established the
principle that the local
60 Introduction to Social Work
community, namely the parish,
had to organize and
finance poor relief for its
residents. The overseers of
the poor administered the
poor law in the parish. Their
function was to receive the
application of the poor
person for relief, to
investigate his or her condition,
and to decide whether he or
she was eligible for relief.
Influence of The
Elizabethan Poor Law
Though there were similar
reform plans advocated in
Europe; it is the Poor Law of
1601, sometimes known
as 43 Elizabeth, which was
most influential in the
development of public welfare
and social work. There
are several important
principles in the English Poor
Law, which continue to have a
dominating influence
on welfare legislation four
centuries later.
1) The principle of the
state’s responsibility for relief
is universally adopted and
has never been
seriously questioned. It is
in tune with democratic
philosophy as well as with
the principle of the
separation of church and
state.
2) The principle of local
responsibility for welfare
enunciated in the Poor Law
goes back to 1388 and
is designed to discourage
vagrancy. It
stipulates that “sturdy
beggars” to return to their
birthplaces and there seek
relief.
3) A third principle
stipulated differential treatment
of individuals according to
categories: the
deserving as against the
undeserving poor,
children, the aged, and the
sick. This principle
is based on the theory that
certain types
of unfortunate people have a
grater claim on the
community than other types.
4) The Poor Law also
delineated family responsibility
for aiding dependants.
Children, grandchildren,
parents, and grandparents
were designated as
“legally liable” relatives.
The Elizabethan Poor Law was
noteworthy and
progressive when it was
enacted. It has served as the
basis for both English and
American public welfare.
The Poor Law
Revisions: 1834-1909
In 1834 a Parliamentary
Commission presented a report
which aimed to revise the
Elizabethan and post-
Elizabethan Poor Laws. Upon
the basis of the
committee’s report
legislation was enacted enunciating
the following principles: (a)
doctrine of least eligibility,
(b) re-establishment of the
workhouse test, and (c)
centralization of control.
The doctrine of least
eligibility meant that the condition
of paupers shall in no case
be so eligible as the
condition of persons of the
lowest class subsisting on
the fruits of their own
industry. In other words, no
person receiving aid was to
be as well off. According to
the second principle, the
able-bodied poor could apply
for assistance in the public
workhouse, but refusal to
accept the lodging and fare
of the workhouse debarred
them from qualifying for any
aid. Outdoor relief was
reduced to an absolute
minimum. As per the third
principle, a central
authority consisting of three Poor
Law Commissioners had power
to consolidate and coordinate
poor law services throughout
the land.
Parishes were no longer to be
the administrative units.
Between 1834 and 1909 there
were numerous changes
in Poor Law legislation, the
cumulative effect of which
was to veer the entire system
away from the principles
of 1834. The most important
changes were those that
began to develop specialized
care for certain
disadvantaged groups. For
instance, for dependent
children district schools and
foster homes were
provided and for the insane
and feeble-minded
specialized institutions were
started.
A more positive approach to
the poor laws can be seen
in The Poor Law Report of
1909. The report stressed
curative treatment and
rehabilitation rather than
repression, and provision for
all in the place of the
selective workhouse test. If
the principles of 1834
provided a ‘framework of
repression’, those of 1909 may
be termed as the ‘framework
of prevention’.
The Beveridge Report
In 1942, Sir William
Beveridge, chairman of the Inter-
Departmental Committee on
Social Insurance and
Allied Services, presented
the Committee’s Report to
the government. The report
emphasized four major
principles:
1) Every citizen to be
covered,
2) The major risks of loss of
earning power -- sickness,
unemployment, accident, old
age, widowhood,
maternity-- to be included in
a single insurance,
3) A flat rate of
contribution to be paid regardless of
the contributor’s income, and
4) A flat rate of benefit to
be paid, also without regard
to income, as a right to all
who qualify.
Beveridge emphasized that the
underlined social
philosophy of his plan was to
secure the British against
want and other social evils.
Everyone is entitled to
benefits, which include
maternity, sickness,
unemployment, industrial
injury, retirement and grant
for widows. The related
services are Family Allowances,
National Health Services and
National Assistance.
The Beveridge Report of 1942
takes its place as one of
the great documents in
English Poor Law history ---
601, 1834, 1909, and 1942.
The Report became the
foundation of the modern
social welfare legislation for
UK.
Beginnings of the COS
Movement and Settlement
House Movement
In England, where the problem
of competing and
overlapping social services
in London had been
increasing over the years, a
group of public-spirited
citizens founded in 1869 the
London Charity
Organization Society (COS).
Octavia Hill and Samuel
Barnett were two of these
founders. In her work as
housing reformer, Octavia
Hill introduced a system of
“friendly rent collecting” as
a method of improving slum
housing.
Octavia Hill communicated to
the volunteers certain
principles or laws to be
followed in their activities,
through weekly meetings and
‘Letters to Fellow
Workers’. She stressed that
‘each case and each
situation must be
individualised.’ Everyone must be
treated with respect for his
or her privacy and
independence. She advised her
workers not to judge
the tenants by their personal
standards. She believed
in the value of dignity of
even the most degraded of
her tenants.
Samuel Augustus Barnett was the
founder of Toynbee
Hall, the first settlement
house, in which wealthy
Oxford students “settled” in
an attempt to improve living
conditions in the slums of
Whitechapel. The basic idea
was to bring the educated in
contact with the poor for
their mutual benefit.
Realization had dawned on the
Christian Socialists that
mere distribution of charity
does not solve problems. In
order to better understand
the situation of poverty and
underdevelopment, one
needed to live with the poor
and listen to their
problems.
After outlining the
beginnings in England, we shall
now see the growth and spread
of the social work
profession in the United
States.
No comments:
Post a Comment