“The field of Human Services is broadly defined, uniquely approaching the objective of meeting human needs through an interdisciplinary knowledge base, focusing on prevention as well as remediation of problems, and maintaining a commitment to improving the overall quality of life of service populations.” (National Organization for Human Services)
Sounds incredible, no? This idea of bringing unique gifts and talents forward in order to provide vital human needs, in an environment that is accountable, and relies upon checks and balances (or introduces same) while seeking to stem new or growing problems, while staying steadfast and focused in order to deliver a better life to people in need.
In undertaking the task of this paper I was excited when I found a reference to King Athelstan. He established what is the first recorded almshouse – in York in the 10th Century. I also found that the oldest established charity still in existence is thought to be the Hospital of St. Oswald in Worcester, founded around 990. What I found disturbing is that even though the almshouses in Great Britain survive and thrive – after many adaptations to this day – the almshouses established in the United States evolved to become very bad places. (Almshouses.org website)
In our text, we read that in the United States, human services were established and modeled according to the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601, and that the first principle laid down in the colonies defined poor relief as a public responsibility. Another principle stipulated that people would be denied support if they had family members who were not poor, i.e., parents, grandparents, adult children, or grandchildren. (Woodside, p. 33)
This entire subject area is fascinating.
Early Peoples Recorded In History In researching “human services from the early peoples recorded in history” we can go back pretty far. Human services, i.e., to serve humans, is derived from a call to serve. I believe this call to serve is based upon the concept of a “brotherhood of man” found in very early recorded history. We can find this concept in the bible: * Moses‘s countrymen are “brethren” (Exodus 2:11) * Later we read about the kinship of humanity: "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one teacher and you are all brothers.” (Matthew 23:8) * “Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness.” (1 John 2:9) * “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household” (Ephesians 2:19)
I ask you: Would we seek to provide for people in need if they were not our brothers? What other motivation would there be, money? What leads us to help others?
The Golden Rule
Amazingly all who would fight each other and each other’s views agree:
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:18)
"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – Confucius
"If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." – Mozi (Chinese philosopher who founded the school of Mohism, and argued strongly against Confucianism and Daoism)
"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." – Epictetus ( Greek sage and Stoic philosopher)
Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself. – Bahá'u'lláh
And this is the one I believe that people called to be Human Services professionals would nod at: "The Golden Rule is of no use to you whatsoever unless you realize that it's your move!" – Dr. Frank Crane (Wikipedia website)
Support For The Poor
Our first settlers strived to take care of the poor without involving the government. James Madison is quoted as saying: "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." And Ben Franklin: "… the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." This perspective continued well into the 19th century. Private organizations, charities, and mutual aid societies were formed. It has been noted that Alexis de Tocqueville (French political thinker and writer) wrote after visiting the US: "Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. ... Wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association." These organizations thrived because the perspective was to have them be an expression of personal pride and independence. In some instances, members paid dues, and the services provided included unemployment insurance, workers compensation, health insurance, life insurance, and sick pay. Fraternal societies y would have doctors care for their members. These organizations provided private orphanages, hospitals, and homes for the elderly.
Early American mutual aid societies policed their members to ensure benefits went to those who were legitimately in need. They were strict in their membership, permitting admittance based upon character.
One problem was admittance was also decided by sex and race. This caused formation of other societies for men, women, African Americans, Hispanics, Polish, German, Jewish, and others.
Besides mutual aid societies, there were also missions, churches, and other private relief agencies.
Outside of these private organizations, the government did step in with poorhouses. According to one source, "Poorhouses were tax-supported residential institutions to which people were required to go if they could not support themselves.”
The advent of the Great Depression began to see an increase in the federal government's role in poverty relief. Franklin Roosevelt, who once adamantly declared that government relief was a "narcotic," aggressively pursued a "New Deal" designed to raise living standards for the poor and middle class. FDR later presented a "second Bill of Rights" which stated that every American had a "right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation" and a "right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment."(Intellectual Take Out website)
Support For Children
When it comes to child welfare services in the United States, there have been significant shifts in areas such as the population, i.e., the composition, along with changes in demands and needs. However some issues today are the same ones we have always had. Some of these include: * Parents rights (vs. children’s needs) * Saving children (vs. supporting families) * Federal, state, local responsibilities * Public and/or voluntary financing/services * Developmental vs. protective services * In-home, foster family, institutional care * Boundaries between child welfare, family services, juvenile justice, mental health * Comprehensive vs. integrated systems
There is one overriding and non-disappearing challenge that never disappears. And that is the search for a solution to the problems of children whose parents cannot provide care. Many have recommended, and continue to recommend permanency planning. However, this has not seen any alleviation of the need for extensive and ongoing public provision for children who are poor, neglected, unwanted, socially deficient, or disabled than the infanticide, warehousing, banishment, and foster home programs of the past. “The earliest biblical accounts of Moses, Abraham, Isaac, and Jesus all refer in different ways to problems of dependent and maltreated children.” (Historical Evolution of Child Welfare Services, Brenda G. McGowan)
Early American settlers considered the family a basic economic unit, with each member pulling their weight. Even though there was no child welfare system – it was presumed that orphans and children of paupers would require care. Parents who could not provide for their children were deprived of their rights to plan for their children, and were socially condemned. What was provided was based upon the English Poor Law tradition, i.e., outdoor relief (minimal assistance to maintain family in their own home), farming-out (auctioning off to people who would keep people in their own homes), almshouses, and indenture (apprenticing children).
There were some private institutions for orphans – the first was the Ursuline Convent founded in New Orleans in 1727 (under the auspices of Louis XV of France). Prior to 1800 most dependent children were cared for via almshouses, indenture. Most often the children were in public almshouses until the age of eight or nine, and then indentured until they reached majority.
Provisions were made in such a way as to have the lowest costs possible for the community – in part because it was thought that “indolence and depravity should not be rewarded” – parents who were not able to provide for their children had abrogated their rights and children were seen as property.
Great changes took place in the nineteenth century, influenced by the fact that large numbers of slaves had been imported – and with abolition a reduced number of requests for indentured white children resulted. In fact, there was opposition to that form of care for white children that was no longer permitted for blacks. Upper-class families turned their attention to educational and development needs of their own children (a new idea – remember, before this children were considered little adults).
They also attended to all children, including the orphaned, poor, and delinquent children.
With large-scale economic growth after the civil war, the expanded tax base freed funds to develop private philanthropies.
The most significant change in the United States relative to the care of dependent children was the great increase in orphanages. These were public, voluntary, and sectarian institutions for orphans and children whose parent could not care for them. Partly this was a result of two published reports: The 1821 Report of the Massachusetts Committee on Pauper Laws and the Yates Report of 1824. These cited that “removal of humans like felons for no other fault than poverty” to condemn outdoor relief and indenture practices. The reports also mentioned that the poor “are frequently treated with barbarity and neglect” and “they grow up in filth, illness, ignorance, and disease.”
This also resulted is a great increase and expansion of almshouses. Not foreseen were the physical and social risks. Mixed populations had children housed with dependent adults, derelicts, the insane, the sick, the blind, the deaf, etc.
By the mid-century investigations and great pressure resulted in the development of alternative methods for caring for children. For example, a Select Committee of the New York State Senate was formed and reported on a study done in 1856.
Many states issued and reacted to reports – all stating that almshouses were wretched, and calling for special provisions for children. Change came slowly – as public funds had been largely invested in the poorhouses, and there were no readily available alternatives.
In 1853 the Children’s Aid Society was founded by Charles Loring Brace. And, by the end of the 19th century Children’s Aid Societies were established in major eastern cities. Brace stated that the best way to save poor children form the “evils of urban life” was to place them in Christian homes in the country – where they would receive moral training and learn good work habits. Brace recruited large numbers of foster homes in the Midwest and upper New York state – sending trainloads of children to these places. By 1879 the Children’s Aid Society had sent 40,000 homeless or destitute children to homes in the country. In parallel to this was formation of The Children’s Home Society, societies were established as statewide agencies under Protestant care, and designed to provide free foster homes for dependent children. The first society was established by Martin Van Buren Van Arsdale in Illinois in 1883. By 1916 there were 36 Children’s Home Societies located primarily in midwestern and southern states. These and what Brace did with Children’s Aid Society were seen eventually as not much different than the indenture system. These also had three-part contracts: family/child/agency, and the children were expected to pay for their bread through labor.
Eventually people began to see that there were abuses in this approach also. Moreover, there was new recognition that children really are different from adults, and need different forms of care. In fact, people began to see that not all children should be cared for in the same way.
The first major event relative to child welfare services in the US was the establishment of the US Children’s Bureau in 1912. It was given a broad mandate: “Investigate and report … upon all matters pertaining to the welfare of children and child life among all classes of our people, and … investigate the questions of infant mortality, the birth rate, orphanage, juvenile courts, desertion, dangerous occupations, accidents and diseases of children, employment, legislation affecting children in several states and territories. This was the first congressional recognition that our federal government has a responsibility for the welfare of children. It also introduced that public responsibility for all children – not just groups of poor, neglected, disturbed, and delinquent children served by public or private agencies. (Historical Evolution of Child Welfare Services by Brenda McGowan)
It is clear that what the needs are for caring for children – no matter what they are –even if there are shifts in populations or challenges, the responsibility for providing services they respond to these needs are absolutely necessary for the good of all.
Support For Mentally Challenged
From our text we learn that prior to the Middle Ages people believed that mental illness was caused by evil spirits – so early treatment would seek to find ways for the evil spirit to escape or be removed. Other methods included those based upon fear, like chaining and beating. Hippocrates (3rd century BC) used a scientific approach that explained how to treat mental illness. His theory was that the cause was natural, albeit, caused by brain disease, heredity, or head trauma. He differentiated between types of mental problems – including melancholia (depression) and epilepsy. (Woodside, pp. 29-30)
In 1140 Norman King Roger II decreed that only physicians with licenses issued by the government may practice medicine.
Also from our text we are told that until the 1500s, the Catholic Church was the chief provider of human services. Saints Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi are mentioned as two of the first human service professionals. The church continued its work and established many institutions for the poor, orphans, elderly, disabled people, etc. Asylums were created for those with “deviant behavior” and mental illness.
One of the most significant asylum reforms was introduced by Philippe Pinel in Paris. In 1792, he tested his theory that mentally ill patients would show improvement if they were treated well. It had dramatic results. In fact, others started to reform treatments at this time. In 1796 the York Retreat in York, England was run by an English Quaker, William Tuke and other Quakers who used respect and compassion in treating the mentally ill.
This approach came to the United States in the early 1800s. Applied to asylum care, the focus became the person’s spiritual and moral development as well as the rehabilitation of their personal character to lessen their mental ailments. (Foerschner)
In 1905 A social services department is established in Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston to help patients deal with the social problems of their illnesses. Within the next decade, more than 100 hospitals hire hospital social workers.
In 1907 Psychiatric social work begins at Massachusetts General Hospital when social workers are hired to work with mentally ill patients.
In 1914 The Boston Psychopathic Hospital establishes a social services department and uses the title "psychiatric social worker" for the first time.
Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts, establishes the first training program for psychiatric social workers.
In 1926 The American Association of Psychiatric Social Workers (AAPSW) is founded, as social work increasingly comprises caseworkers and clinical practitioners.
“In the early part of the 20th century, the American Eugenics Movement argued that all people who were mentally ill, mentally retarded or physically disabled were polluting the gene pool of the country. Such individuals were seen as a threat to society and the probable cause of most of the criminal activity and social problems of the country. In many states, support for the Eugenics movement resulted in legislation requiring mandatory sterilization, incarceration, and in many cases, the castration of persons with disabilities. In each state, hundreds of thousands of people with mental illness or intellectual disabilities were placed in institutions, the largest of which housed as many as 20,000 people.” (Keystone Human Services website)
Going into the latter part of the 1960s there were 156,000 people with intellectual disabilities and 550,000 people with mental illness in state institutions in US. It was not unusual for one hundred people or more to be in one large bedroom. Most families with mentally challenged children were told that it would be best if they put their child away and forgot them.
After various studies and research, along with public outcry about mistreatment in institutions was the norm – a move toward de-institutionalization commenced. The movement to de-institutionalization can be traced to the forties, with legislation and programs through the decades to a point in time when … Geraldo Rivera broadcast news items about Willowbrook State School in Staten Island. There was then a big movement to disband facilities and de-institutionalize many residents, placing them in the community. (New Jersey Newsroom website)
Recent conferences in the Human Services profession support de-institutionalization as being a good thing. However, as with many programs and initiatives a large problem with de-institutionalization is that mental health experts did not get to control how it played out. (Redesigning Mental Illness Blog Spot)
References:
(http://almshouses.org/almshouses/index.php/features/whatarealmshouses) (Chapter 2, Woodside, Marianne, McClam, Tricia, 2011 An Introduction to Human Services p. 33 Brooks/Cole.)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule)
(http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/american-history/poor-america-welfare-state)
(Historical Evolution of Child Welfare Services by Brenda McGowan in Gerald P. Mallon, Peg McCartt Hess (Eds.), Child Welfare for the 21st Century, A Handbook of Practices Policies, and Programs, 2005)
(The History of Mental Illness: From "Skull Drills" to "Happy Pills" Allison M. Foerschner, Student Pulse Journal, 2010)
(http://www.keystonehumanservices.org/about-us/history)
(http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/commentary/deinstitutionalization-of-mentally-disabled-controversy-continues)
http://redesigningmentalillness.blogspot.com/2012/09/dontt-blame-deinstitutionalization.html)