"Social Work in a Revolutionary Age" and Other Papers 9781512821055

Citation preview

SOCIAL W O R K IN A R E V O L U T I O N A R Y AGE AND

OTHER

PAPERS

K E N N E T H L. M. PRAY

SOCIAL W O R K IN A R E V O L U T I O N A R Y AGE AND

OTHER

PAPERS

By

K E N N E T H L. M. P R A Y

Published for the

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK By the

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESS PHILADELPHIA

I949

Copyright

IQ49

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESS Manufactured in the United States of America LONDON: GEOFFREY CUMBERLEGE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

" F o r the central, continuing problem of social organization and adjustment remains always the same—to find a secure, stable basis for creative, satisfying life in the midst of constant growth and change."

From Social

Work

Kenneth L . M . Pray in a Revolutionary Age

Acknowledgments THIS volume was made possible by the generous g i f t s of alumni of the Pennsylvania School of Social W o r k and social workers all over the United States and Canada who responded to the press announcement of M r . P r a y ' s death with the suggestion that they be given the privilege of expressing their feeling f o r him in a way that would continue to have meaning and value. T h e proposal that his papers be collected and published was accepted by the faculty and alumni of the School and they procured whatever funds were needed beyond the unsolicited gifts. F o r permission to reprint already published papers, the editors wish to thank the American Association of Social Workers, John H o w a r d Association, Child W e l f a r e League of America, National Conference of Social W o r k , National Probation and Parole Association, Federal Probation, the Jewish Social Service Quarterly, Journal of Social Casework, Prison Journal, Social Service Review, and the Survey. In some instances slight editorial revisions have been made with the permission of the publisher. Special thanks are due to Miss Florence P r a y , M r . P r a y ' s sister, to his daughter Ellen, M r s . Frederick L . M a y t a g , 2d, to M i s s Blanche Salmons, his secretary, and M i s s Evelyn Butler, Librarian, whose help in assembling this material was invaluable.

TII

Contents Acknowledgments Introduction by Virginia P. Robinson

PART

I

EARLIER F O R M U L A T I O N S OF T H E P H I L O S O P H Y U N D E R L Y I N G SOCIAL W O R K

PRACTICE

Education for Social W o r k T h e Role of Professional Social Work in the W o r l d Today Social W o r k and Social Action

P A R T II PUBLIC

WELFARE

A Plan for the Treatment of Unemployment T h e Role of Individualized Program

Services in a Public Welfare

New Emphases in Education for Public Social W o r k T h e Child Welfare Field: What is Expected Program?

PART

in Today's

Total

III

PENOLOGY

T h e Woman Offender and Sterilization Function and Structure of Social Casework in an Institution for Delinquent Women ix

χ

Contents PAGE

T h e Place of Social Casework in the Treatment of Delinquency, with Discussion by Charlotte T o w l e 158 Social W o r k in the Prison Program

186

Parole in Relation to Classification and Casework in Prison

199

Casework Paves the W a y in Preparation for Freedom

212

PART

IV

F I N A L S T A T E M E N T OF T H E P H I L O S O P H Y U N D E R L Y I N G SOCIAL W O R K

PRACTICE

Social W o r k in a Revolutionary Age

225

A Restatement of the Generic Principles of Social Casework Practice 244 Some Essentials of a Community Correctional Program

262

When Is Community Organization Social Work Practice?

274

A Philosophy of Change in the Community of Social Work

288

Biographical Statement

304

Bibliography of Published Papers

306

Introduction IN preparing this volume f o r publication the editors have had only one problem, to select f r o m a wealth of published and unpublished material those papers that would be most representative of the contribution of Kenneth L . M . P r a y to social work. While early papers have value in showing how characteristic were the ideas and ideals that animated and guided M r . P r a y ' s approach to the problems in this field f r o m 1 9 1 5 throughout his life, they have been laid aside f o r the most part in f a v o r of addresses and articles written within the past decade, during which his thinking, resting on years of rich experience with every aspect of social work, came to full maturity. T h e r e has been no need f o r editing in the usual sense of the word, f o r here was a man to whom speaking and writing came naturally. H i s typewriter was never f a r f r o m his side and some piece of writing was always in process—a f o r m a l address to a conference of social work, a summarization of committee or class thinking, or a new statement f o r the School catalogue. T o every request f o r a speech, whether it came f r o m an important national, state, or local organization of social workers, or parent-teachers' organization, his response was w a r m and positive, notwithstanding the heavy, fulltime responsibilities he bore as Dean of the Pennsylvania School of Social W o r k , the center of his professional life f r o m 1 9 2 2 until his death. It would be safe to say that he preserved everything he ever wrote, even to remarks made at informal occasions, such as the opening of School or Commencement dinners. T h e s e notes, as well as formal speeches and papers, were as carefully 1

2

Introduction

edited by him as if for publication. For editing was a skill learned in his early journalistic training which he loved to exercise. Nothing delighted him more than a "batch of proof" and every publication of the Pennsylvania School of Social Work, from its catalogue to its journals, pamphlets, and books, owes much to his editorial ability and judgment. It is difficult to impose any satisfactory organization on these papers which reach out to every aspect of social work. The papers in the two fields in which his contributions have been most extensive and consistent, public welfare and penology, have been put together in Parts T w o and Three, while the definitive statements of his last two years, regardless of the field, have been combined in Part Four. T o public welfare and penology he contributed steadily, not from merely a theoretical interest but from actual experience and practice and a close relationship with their problems. His summarization of the findings of a Committee of the Community Council of Philadelphia, delegated to draw up a plan for the treatment of unemployment, which was printed in the Survey in 1933 and is included in this volume, grew out of his long service to that committee. Following his work in Philadelphia, came his appointment in 1936 as Secretary of the Pennsylvania Committee on Public Assistance and Relief, the so-called Goodrich Committee, whose recommendations to the Pennsylvania legislature became the basis for a law under which the public assistance program of the state operates. From that time on he maintained close contact and absorbing interest in the development of public welfare programs. T o a greater degree even than public welfare, perhaps, the field of penology engaged his attentions. H e was an active member of the Board and Executive Committee of the Pennsylvania Prison Society from 1 9 2 1 . The Industrial Home for Women at Muncy, Pennsylvania, and the Industrial School for Boys at Huntingdon valued him greatly as a board

Introduction

3

member who gave informed and devoted service over a period of years. An article on " T h e Woman Offender and Sterilization" shows the immediacy and humanity of his interest in a woman's reformatory and the kind of responsibility he took as a board member of a penal institution. His first published paper on penology appeared in the Prison Journal in 1928. This was followed by numerous articles in other important periodicals. The joy of working on these papers, the challenge he felt in the nature of the problems, the added stimulus and satisfaction that were his in the response of probation officers, prison wardens, heads of institutions, and so forth, made every occasion for a speech a memorable one for him, as well as for the faculty and students with whom he shared these vital experiences. It is characteristic of his interest in penology that in 1947, in addition to all he had undertaken in connection with the National Conference of Social Work in San Francisco by way of major addresses, he was unable to resist an invitation to speak on a favorite topic, " T h e Prisoner's Part in H i s Rehabilitation" at a luncheon meeting of the Jewish Committee for Personal Service. Also he promised to stop on his way back from the Conference to address the Missouri Association for Social W e l f a r e in St. Louis on "Some Essentials of a Community Correctional Program." Perhaps the contact with this field which M r . Pray enjoyed most was that made at a meeting of the Central Howard Association * in Chicago in 1945. Miss Charlotte Towle's discussion of his address to that association and his own comments in answer to her expression of difference proved very stimulating to his thinking about casework and resulted in the National Conference paper on " A Restatement of the Generic Principles of Social Casework Practice" referred to below. Of his many speeches and published papers on penology * Name changed in 1947 to John Howard Association.

4

Introduction

six have been selected f o r this volume. N o t the least in interest among them, in the opinion of the editors, is "Function and Structure of Social Casework in an Institution f o r Delinquent W o m e n , " which lays out a blueprint f o r the introduction of casework into such an institution, in as detailed a fashion and as soundly rooted in institutional realities as if he had been administering one f o r years. T o whatever field of social work Kenneth P r a y addressed himself, one emphasis is strong throughout his writings, that on "respect f o r individual personality, f o r the significance of the individual as such and in his own right." " T h e service of social w o r k , " he said, "is directed primarily to freeing and helping individuals to find and fulfill themselves—their own unique selves—within the society of which they are p a r t . " T h i s regard f o r the individual, as all who knew M r . P r a y in personal or professional association would testify, was not learned in any process of professional training but grew out of respect f o r himself, a respect which he accorded in the same degree to everyone with whom he associated, f r o m student to professional colleague. A personality so whole, so well balanced, so constructive, would inevitably be used therapeutically, and had he entered a profession other than social work, he might well have rested on his rare natural endowments. But his contact with the problems of social casework and the training of students in social work did not leave him content with endowment alone. Although he never actually put himself under the discipline of supervised practice in a social casework agency, he did not spare himself any part of the struggle to find the limits within which professional helping can develop. Because of not being a practicing caseworker, it was with some hesitation that he undertook the responsibility put upon him by the Casework Section of the National Conference of Social W o r k in 1947 f o r the preparation of a definitive statement of the point of view and practice in casework. H o w e v e r , in carrying out this assignment he

Introduction

5

found a satisfying and final articulation of the problems of helping that had absorbed him f o r so many years. F o r those who heard him deliver the paper in San Francisco, as well as f o r those who read it later, it offered an authoritative formulation of the basic psychology underlying the practice of functional casework. T h e National Conference also provided the stimulus f o r an extension of his understanding of the helping function into a field in which he felt himself to be a newcomer, that of community organization. H e delighted in the challenge of the new problems to be tackled here and in the controversy, aroused by what he had injected, as to " W h e n Is Community Organization Social W o r k P r a c t i c e ? " I t is interesting to note that here, too, practice and actual experience were the accompaniment and basis f o r his thinking. F o r it was in the year 1 9 4 6 - 4 7 that the School's incorporation with the University of Pennsylvania was finally accomplished, opening up f o r him new administrative and community organization contacts and responsibilities. This was the year also in which his concern and leadership in professional education reached its peak in his work as chairman of the Study Committee of the American Association of Schools of Social W o r k . H e looked f o r w a r d to serving in 1947—48 as chairman of a committee of the Philadelphia Chapter of the American Association of Social W o r k e r s on the place of the union in social agencies. H e had given a great deal of thought to writing, a f t e r his retirement, a book which he tentatively called " P r o f e s s i o n a l Social W o r k and Its W o r l d . " It was his purpose to begin with a definition of social work, out of its own historical evolution and its philosophy in relation to a changing social scene and climate. H e intended to discuss "professionalism" as it has emerged in recent years and the effect of this development on the nature, the function, and the internal and external relation of social work. H i s real objective, he said, w a s " a

6

Introduction

more precise and serviceable bounding and defining of professional social work in relation to the development and improvement of the society in which it plays its p a r t . " * I t was apparent when School opened f o r the fall semester of 1 9 4 7 - 4 8 that Kenneth P r a y was tired and was limiting his activities. H o w e v e r , he would not even consider asking to be excused f r o m writing the paper he had promised to deliver in October at the Massachusetts Conference of Social W o r k . H e completed it just before he suffered a heart attack, f r o m which he never recovered. H i s not being able to attend the Conference was a very great disappointment, but his paper was read by M r . Malcolm S. Nichols. In placing " A Philosophy of Change in the Community of Social W o r k " at the end of this volume the editors recognize not only that it belongs there in chronological order, but that the enunciation in this paper of a philosophy of change represents the full, generous, and final sharing of the wisdom and understanding of a lifetime dedicated to professional service in the field of social work. VIRGINIA P.

ROBINSON

• F r o m a letter written in M a y 1947 to Dr. Donald H o w a r d , formerly Director of the Department of Social Work Administration, Russell Sage Foundation, and now Chairman of the Department of Social W e l f a r e in the University of C a l i f o r n i a at Los Angeles.

Pari

I

Earlier Formulations Of the Philosophy Underlying Social Work Practice

Education for Social Work Address delivered at the Commencement Dinner of the (Not Pennsylvania School of Social Work, June IÇ3S Previously Published)

A s we meet to celebrate the Twenty-Seventh Commencement of the Pennsylvania School of Social W o r k , we are reminded how young is the profession f o r which these graduates have been preparing, measured at least by one of the essential criteria of true professionalism, the development of f o r m a l professional education. F o r this School was among the first five schools of social work to be opened in America, in the world f o r that matter; and the very first of all had been in operation only ten years when the Pennsylvania School came into being. Although a quarter century is a short span as history is reckoned, we realize, as we travel back in our minds over that brief time, how f a r removed 1 9 3 5 is, even f r o m those recent days of our School's beginnings. T h e term "social casework" had scarcely been heard; M a r y Richmond had not yet begun to write her classic on Social Diagnosis, probably the first important American contribution to the technical literature of social work. T h e first social service department in an American hospital was but three years old, and there was not yet one such department in Philadelphia. T h e r e was no mental clinic, and no such creature as a psychiatric social worker had been dreamed of. T h e visiting teacher, or school counselor, was still unknown; systematic vocational guidance was a fanatic's hope. E v e n intelligence tests were comparatively new and were fighting their way against older and 0

10

Earlier

Formulations

more orthodox psychological experiments and measurements. As for modern dynamic psychology and psychoanalysis, they were but vague and frightful shadows just emerging from Vienna. T h e r e was no juvenile court in Pennsylvania; the mothers' assistance fund was only being mildly agitated. T h e r e was no workmen's compensation act on our statute b o o k s ; we were still living in that arcadian individualistic age in which practically all the risks of industry were borne, as a matter of principle in the law, largely by the individual workman. Scarcely a beginning had even been made in the regulation of working conditions, in the interest o f health and safety, and children o f ten, eleven, and twelve were active competitors in the labor market everywhere. T h e r e was not yet a Department o f L a b o r and Industry at H a r r i s b u r g , nor a Department o f L a b o r at W a s h i n g t o n , and, of course, there was no federal Children's Bureau. T h e r e was not a single Department of W e l f a r e , so-called, in any state. Even the Pennsylvania Department of H e a l t h had been in existence only three years, and the first public dispensary for the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis had just been opened. T h e public health nurse was just finding her way into the public school, the industrial plant, and the medical clinic. T h e Pittsburgh Survey, the first American effort to discover the normal needs and appraise the normal living conditions o f the great mass o f citizens in a modern industrial community, had been only dimly projected. T h e r e was not one journal o f professional social work in existence, and it was to be a dozen years before a genuinely professional organization took its modest place alongside the National Conference, then called a conference o f "charities and corrections." I hope from this little impressionistic picture o f conditions when this School was born, you may derive some o f the comfort I have found in it as I look out upon the present struggles and halting progress of our youthful profession in the present

Education

for Social Work

11

disheartened and disordered world. I t would be absurd to claim for professional social work, much less f o r the schools of social work that have grown up with it, any great share of credit f o r the momentous multiplication of social efforts and intensification of social feeling t h a t have marked the intervening years. Yet I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that an increasing sense of responsibility on the p a r t of social workers for discovering and interpreting the meaning of their own experience in dealing with the misfortunes and disabilities of human beings, and an increasing awareness of their common objectives and common problems have contributed something at least to the present widespread recognition of personal and social needs and a growing determination to deal with them on the level of systematic, scientific understanding. FUNCTION

OF PROFESSIONAL

EDUCATION

I t is not vain pretension to declare that b e f o r e social workers could truly feel and accept these widening opportunities and larger responsibilities, before the community could respect them and use them in significant social advances, social workers had first to recognize an obligation to know their own problems and to study their own experience, to think through and organize their materials and methods, to seek out and integrate with their own philosophy and practice the contribution of other developing sciences and arts concerned with human personality and social relations. This, obviously, is the function of institutions of professional education, and as the schools of social work have grown f r o m five to forty, as their students have gone out into communities great and small, presumably more alert and thoughtful explorers and practitioners in the field of human relations, they must have had an appreciable p a r t in building solid

12

Earlier

Formulations

f o u n d a t i o n s f o r t h e expanding social structure we now see about us. T h e p r o g r a m s a n d process of education f o r social w o r k has, of course, n o t t a k e n a steady and consistent direction f r o m the beginning. I t has reflected t h r o u g h the years, in its objectives a n d m e t h o d s , the changes t h a t have dominated the tasks of social w o r k as they h a v e also affected the lives of h u m a n beings in society, as well as society's point of view t o w a r d its own m e m b e r s and their relations to one a n o t h e r . I n t e r e s t a n d p u r p o s e in p r o f e s s i o n a l education, as in professional service, h a v e swung f r o m time to time between concern f o r the individual and concern f o r the e n v i r o n m e n t ; between highly specialized and differentiated u n d e r t a k i n g s and the m o r e g e n e r a l common elements underlying all professional f u n c t i o n s ; between one aspect and problem of social life and a n o t h e r . I t seems to me, however, t h a t , viewed as a historic whole, t h r e e fairly definable periods have m a r k e d its d e v e l o p m e n t .

PERIODS OF

DEVELOPMENT

T h e initial stage of f o r m a l p r o f e s s i o n a l training was concerned w i t h t h e gaining and o r g a n i z i n g of knowledge. W e set o u t in a r d e n t p u r s u i t of every bit of scientific and historical fact t h a t could t h r o w the faintest g l e a m of light upon t h e cause and solution of the complicated h u m a n situations w i t h which we tried t o deal. W e h a d sublime f a i t h in the old a d a g e t h a t " k n o w l e d g e is p o w e r , " and in our quest f o r power t h e r e was no limit to our intellectual curiosity. T h e test of a t r a i n e d w o r k e r in those days m a y be said to h a v e been summed up largely in t w o simple questions : W h a t does he k n o w ? W h a t can he find o u t ? T h a t w a s an inevitable and a desirable s t a r t i n g point, a n d it is still by no m e a n s a negligible consideration, as evidenced by t h e steadily rising s t a n d a r d s of educational p r e p a r a t i o n

Education for Social Work

13

f o r professional service as well as professional training. I t is still true that in attempting to deal with the most complicated and delicate of all conceivable problems, the lives and personalities of human beings in their infinite relationships, there is no understanding of motive and need, of behavior and experience, of every surrounding circumstance, which is too broad or too deep to be useful. Knowledge, if free, growing, changing, untainted with dogmatism or finality, is still a central ingredient of sound professional equipment. But there came a time when knowledge f o r its own sake became secondary in importance to skill in the use of knowledge. Discrimination in the selection of pertinent facts, discretion in the weighing and interpretation of knowledge, economy, and effectiveness in the application of it to individual situations became a primary consideration. Function, process, method, technique—the organization of professional experience in terms of activity, and the search for dependable principles of conduct and procedure—became the p a r a m o u n t objectives of training. T h e test of a trained worker no longer centered so largely in the question, W h a t does he k n o w ? as in the question, W h a t can he do? Can he get the m o t h e r to the clinic? Can he move the family f r o m an unwholesome neighborhood ? Can he find a job and persuade the client to take it ? This was an advance toward solid establishment of professional standards of performance, f o r it challenged the critical intelligence in terms of measurable achievement; it was a step toward the maintenance of accountability f o r the gains presumed to be derived f r o m specific training and the evaluation of knowledge and experience. W e were scarcely launched on this fascinating adventure of discovering and measuring methods and skills of p e r f o r m ance, in terms of results, when we were challenged by a new concept, emerging f r o m the findings of a new dynamic psychology and f r o m the new modes of human service to which it was devoted. T h i s was the rediscovery of the individual,

14

Earlier

Formulations

not only as the object of social treatment but the subject of it as well—the dominant, decisive factor, whose qualities and needs and wants could and should bring to naught all knowledge, all method, and all skill that did not find validity through his own effective use of them. T h e fullest knowledge, coupled with the highest skills, in crises of decision was dashed to pieces on the hidden rocks of personal unwillingness and incapacity to accept and use the best-laid plans and the most generous services. Out of the endless search for solutions of this basic problem there emerged a still more significant discovery for social work, namely, that in every social work situation, among the personalities involved is the personality of the social worker, whose feelings and fundamental interests are reflected in his use of all knowledge and in his choice of tools, and determine in a measure the help that he is able to give. Somewhere near the vital center of the professional problem is the test of professional competence and of the outcome of professional training in terms of the question, W h a t kind of person is he? That, it seems to me, is the significant characteristic of the third and latest period of professional development and of professional education. And just as keener attention to the development of practical skills gave new and higher value to the knowledge content that had been the primary goal of an earlier time, so the consideration and evaluation of objective method and of skill in performance became not less important but more so, not less possible but more certain, when associated with a fuller appreciation of the deeper meanings of objective behavior and with a deeper capacity for self-critical examination of it. This, of course, cannot be the end of professional development nor the final stage of professional education. Social work finds itself in a new period of startling change and growth, not only in the society of which it is a part, but in

Education

for Social

fVork

IS

the function it is called upon to exercise in that society. Has the time come for still another orientation of professional education in a new world of professional practice? W e can certainly answer that question affirmatively, but we can with equal certainty declare that the process of development, like every historic process, is continuous, not intermittent and disconnected, and that into the new era we shall carry all that is sound and true of the present and of the past. And of this we can also be confident, that wherever in the future the lives of human beings are at stake, the quality of feeling, one for another, the capacity for understanding, the ability to cooperate on terms of freedom and equality will continue to play a decisive role in social adjustment and in the social worker's contribution to it. Of great significance in the content of social work today is its increasing participation and responsibility in the thoughtful planning and operation of the normal common life of all men, to the end that all may realize as fully as possible those aims of individual life with which social work in its customary forms has been predominantly concerned. Does that mean that the practice of social work will require less sensitive feeling for the rights and interests of individual personality, less awareness of self and less appreciation of others, less dependence upon the processes of growth rather than of external compulsion in the attainment of social objectives, less willingness to renounce predetermined ends and to utilize experimental, flexible, cooperative means? I hope and believe not. In whatever social function the future may hold for us, I crave for social work the true satisfaction of helping a torn and distracted community, as we have learned to help confused and frustrated individuals, to realize more fully a free, secure, and adventurous life—not, however, by abandoning our own philosophy and turning from our own tested experience, but by consistently and faithfully contributing from that philosophy and that experi-

16

Earlier

Formulations

enee to the reservoir of common understanding and feeling f r o m which alone planful, cooperative living and opportunity f o r individual fulfillment can grow. If I could wave a wand tonight and bring into being one great force to help the world move f o r w a r d toward this good life, it would be to command the genuine acceptance and use by leaders of the world's affairs of that sense of the dignity and worth of individual personality, that feeling f o r the indispensable values of mutually acceptable and, therefore, mutally creative personal relationships, upon which social work in its best estate has reared its modern philosophy and practice. Times change, probelms change, f o r m s and functions change, but so long as finite human beings face the inevitable limitations and conflicts and compromises involved in all social relationships, the soundest hope f o r the attainment of a full and rich life f o r all will be the steady penetration of social life, f r o m center to circumference, by that feeling and understanding which are at the heart of modern social work. I t remains, therefore, the essential task of a school of social work, as I see it, to afford to students an opportunity to gain for themselves, and so to be ready to give to the world, in their daily practice with individuals and with communities, that same feeling and understanding which can help to realize the highest object of any society—to release and sustain the unfathomed powers of the free human spirit.

T h e R o l e of Professional Social W o r k In the World T o d a y Address delivered at the National Conference of Jewish Social H/elf are, June 1Ç42, and published in the J e w i s h Social S e r v i c e Q u a r t e r l y , September 1942

IT is not entirely easy and c o m f o r t a b l e , perhaps, in the midst of the cataclysm w e are now experiencing, when the w h o l e w o r l d we h a v e known seems to crash and crumble about our heads, to spend even one precious hour of time in seeking to examine calmly and objectively that tiny segment of human a f f a i r s with which we social w o r k e r s h a v e been p r i m a r i l y identified in less troubled days. It may seem at the outset almost picayune to attribute such special significance to so small a p a r t of the all-embracing crisis t h r o u g h which the whole human race is living. P o w e r f u l impulses m o v e all of us at times to f o r s a k e the relatively sheltered areas of our accustomed occupations and to share at once and to the full the excitements and the risks and the sacrifices of world-wide war. T h e s e impulses a r e right. T h e y a r e necessary. T h e y are, indeed, the prerequisite conditions of an effective citizenship and of a sincere humanitarianism. A n d without these, whatever our technical competence or our potential capacity f o r constructive service, w e must play a s o r r y and shabby p a r t in a w o r l d that is struggling f o r the v e r y s u r v i v a l of civilization — t h a t civilization which grants and protects our own right to serve human well-being. 17

18

Earlier

Formulations

SOCIAL W O R K AND T H E LARGER

SETTING

But it is easy and also dangerous to lose ourselves completely in the vastness of these world-shattering events. In our effort to encompass, in understanding and feeling, the full meaning of this universal whole, we may thoughtlessly sacrifice a realistic sense of the elemental significance of those infinitely many and various small p a r t s which, in the final analysis, make up that whole and which change and control is ultimate meaning f o r all of us. T h e r e is real validity, therefore, in setting out to examine with care and earnestness this little segment of the universe which is our own specific area of responsibility, which is at least conceivably within our own control, and about which, if we can command the necessary insight and conviction, we may be able to do something that has true and lasting value. H e r e , within our own sight, is a reality which we can comprehend, a reality, too, which directly affects the will and the capacity of some millions of human beings to find their own useful and satisfying place in this very uncertain and disordered world. I t is in that humble spirit, in that stern faith, that we approach the theme of today's discussion. Before we can define the role of professional social work in the world of today and tomorrow, we must agree, in at least the fundamentals, as to what social work is, where it starts, what it does, what it undertakes to achieve, and how it goes about gaining those ends. As a starting-point, then, I shall sketch in a general picture of some of the basic elements that go to make up what is to me a true and satisfying conception of social work as a specific field of professional service. WHAT

SOCIAL W O R K

IS

Social work, as I conceive it, always finds its focus and its object in the helping of individual human beings, who face in

Professional

Social

Work

19

their social relationships all sorts of disturbing inadequacies, frictions, limitations, t h a t f r u s t r a t e the full realization of their own capacities and wants as persons. Its philosophy and its practice are rooted in a p r o f o u n d respect for individual personality, for the significance of the individual as such and in his own right. Its service is directed primarily, therefore, to freeing and helping individuals to find and to fulfill themselves—their own unique selves—within the society of which they are p a r t . T h e service is made available through social agencies, organized by members of the community who become aware of, and especially sensitive to, certain problems t h a t c o n f r o n t their fellows, and who believe that community well-being, as well as individual humanitarian feeling, requires that this help shall be made available to those who want and can use it.

A

PROCESS OF

INDIVIDUAL

HELPING

N o w , that concept of social work carries within itself a number of serious and perhaps debatable questions. In the first place, it exalts the individual as the supreme value to which social work addresses its effort. This raises the very fundamental question of the relative ultimate values of the individual, as such, and of society as a whole. It may even raise serious doubts in many minds as to whether this exaltation of what seems to be a separate individual interest and a separate right to achieve individual ends, is possible or even desirable in the face of the need f o r sustaining a stable, predictable, social order. On what basis, we may be asked, can the social worker, who is commissioned as the agent of the community, and who acts only with its sanction, reconcile his constant service of individual want and need, his cultivation of unique individual development, with the demands of a society in which specific rules of conduct, standards of behavior, controls of permissible objectives must be imposed upon all, in

20

Earlier

Formulations

t h e i n t e r e s t o f p e a c e , o r d e r , security, a n d effective c o o p e r a tion? A g a i n , w e m a y p r o p e r l y be a s k e d — a n d I suspect s o m e of you a r e a s k i n g y o u r s e l v e s at this m o m e n t — w h e t h e r social w o r k is only a p r o c e s s of individual helping, w h e t h e r by this definition it a b d i c a t e s all responsibility a n d d e n i e s its own competence f o r guiding the development or mitigating the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e o u t e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s within w h i c h individuals live a n d w o r k a n d c a r v e o u t t h e i r o w n destiny. Is t h e indiv i d u a l social a d j u s t m e n t t o which, a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s concept, p r o f e s s i o n a l social w o r k a d d r e s s e s its services only an a d j u s t m e n t t o w h a t e v e r is in t h e social o r d e r ; o r does o u r responsibility e x t e n d t o c r e a t i v e a d j u s t m e n t of the social i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e t o t a l social s e t t i n g , which may, unless d e l i b e r a t e l y p l a n n e d a n d c o n t r o l l e d , u n n e c e s s a r i l y b u t irresistibly limit t h e indiv i d u a l ' s c a p a c i t y f o r s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t a n d f o r c o n s t r u c t i v e satisf a c t i o n as a p a r t i c i p a n t in social l i f e ? I shall give you m y o w n a n s w e r s , f o r t h w i t h , f o r it is precisely u p o n t h o s e questions, it seems t o me, t h a t t h e equipm e n t a n d p e r f o r m a n c e of social w o r k e r s , a n d t h e i r r o l e in t h e new w o r l d , m u s t t u r n . T h e reconciliation of t h e collective social i n t e r e s t a n d t h e individual i n t e r e s t , which a l o n e can s u s t a i n t h e r i g h t of p r o f e s s i o n a l social w o r k e r s t o use t h e aut h o r i t y a n d r e s o u r c e s of t h e w h o l e c o m m u n i t y t o h e l p indiv i d u a l s t o find t h e i r o w n unique individual s a t i s f a c t i o n , is t o b e f o u n d in t h e f a c t — w h i c h is d e m o n s t r a t e d in o u r o w n p r a c t i c e a n d in h i s t o r y as w e l l — t h a t t h e collective security a n d p o w e r lie r e a l l y in t h e s t r e n g t h of i n d i v i d u a l s ; t h a t t h a t social o r d e r is m o s t s t a b l e a n d m o s t p r o d u c t i v e , v i e w e d f r o m t h e s t a n d p o i n t of t h e t o t a l collective i n t e r e s t of its particip a n t s , w h i c h m o s t f u l l y uses t h e h i g h e s t c r e a t i v e q u a l i t y of w h i c h e a c h m e m b e r is c a p a b l e .

Professional THE

Social

Work

21

INDIVIDUAL IN R E L A T I O N TO SOCIETY

Self-fulfillment is n o t in itself antisocial. T h e individual, viewed even as a s e p a r a b l e unit, is e n d o w e d with social interests, as well as unsocial interests. H e w a n t s t o be a p a r t of the whole and, at the same time, he w a n t s t o be h i m s e l f . H e is born into a social milieu; he receives all his e a r l y t r a i n i n g in a social relationship, the f a m i l y ; he learns, with a l m o s t his first b r e a t h , not only the beginnings of s e l f h o o d and independence but also the satisfactions of dependence a n d belonging. T h a t society most surely p r o t e c t s itself as a united whole which m a k e s it possible f o r each new m e m b e r to realize, as he g r o w s t o maturity, the satisfaction of social m e m b e r s h i p , p a r t n e r s h i p , interdependence, n o t a p a r t f r o m , o r in opposition to, individuality and independence, b u t a l o n g with it, as one of the faces of t h e same coin. T h e preoccupation of social w o r k e r s with t h e well-being and the progressive d e v e l o p m e n t of individuals, viewed in this light, is merely the application in the r e a l m of all social relationships of the basic democratic p h i l o s o p h y t h a t g o v e r n s our political thinking. F o r the genius of political d e m o c r a c y lies in the fact t h a t , f o r the common g o o d , it t a p s t h e resources of the infinitely various h u m a n beings t h a t c o m p o s e t h e state, not of the relatively n a r r o w and sterile capacities of only a f e w . I t is the creative role of the individual as a political citizen t h a t authenticates the democratic principle in politics; it is the creative role of the individual as a social being t h a t validates the basic principle of social w o r k . B o t h rest on the f u n d a m e n t a l conviction t h a t o r d e r , unity, collective p o w e r , and p r o g r e s s arise f r o m the acceptance and i n t e g r a t i o n of differences, not f r o m their suppression. SOCIAL WORK, AND T H E

COMMUNITY

M y answer to the second question is equally definite and simple. T h e concern of p r o f e s s i o n a l social w o r k e r s with t h e

22

Earlier

Formulations

well-being o f individuals must follow through wherever the creative social interests o f those individuals are involved. As soon as one accepts responsibility, on behalf o f the community, to help individuals free themselves from certain hampering and frustrating conditions o f their own l i v e s , — t o help them to use their powers for more fruitful and satisfying living — o n e carries, perforce, an obligation to help the community accept and establish the conditions under which and within which the services supported by the community can be made effective, so t h a t the community's objectives in helping and the individual objectives in living can actually be attained. W h e r e v e r social work service comes upon conditions, beyond the control o f individuals or o f individual social agencies, which inherently frustrate the purposes to which the community is committed in the service, there the profession o f social work has an inherent and inescapable obligation t o play its part in assuring the relief or the removal o f those conditions. W h e n we focus our services upon the value o f individual development and adjustment, we cannot mean f o r a moment that as a whole profession we confine our help within a relationship to particular individuals in need. W e mean, as well, that we test institutions and social arrangements by their effect upon individuals, and we contribute o f our understanding and skill to helping the community constructively to relate its institutions and arrangements t o the fundamental needs o f individuals. N o t all o f us carry and discharge these two kinds of responsibility in the same way and in the same degree within our particular agency settings or in our daily functional operations, but each of us shares both kinds o f responsibility, and somehow each must find and use some avenue o f effective performance to both ends. A n d here, it is clear, we play an integrative role between individual and community, not for one as against the other, but f o r both, in the interest o f both.

Professional

Social Work

23

T h e r e is one other principle which helps to define and to clarify the basic function and quality of social work. I t is imbedded in the philosophy, derived f r o m our thoughtfully analyzed experience, which underlies the characteristic method and process of professional social w o r k ; namely, the method of cooperation. This principle is that individual fulfillment, and, consequently, the highest contribution of the individual to social well-being, is derived f r o m self-motivated, self-activated effort; this alone results in voluntary cooperation with the society of which the individual is a p a r t . But here again we come upon what may a p p e a r as a contradiction between the principles according to which social workers function and the realities that characterize the society to whom our service is given. Much of social life—its institutions, its customs and its mores—has in it the element of standardization, coercive control, enforced conformity. Law, public opinion, group pressures, moral codes, constantly play upon the individual, molding him to their own shape, imposing limits and directions upon his movement, change, growth, and social participation. W h e r e , in this context of inflexible necessity, do we find the opportunity to be ourselves and to help others to be and to become themselves? So binding in some of its forms and parts does this regimentation sometimes appear to be, that we are tempted—in fact, some of us feel compelled—to deny our desire or our capacity to work as professional people at any spot in the social setting where social authority, in name or in fact, expresses itself baldly and clearly. W e doubt our capacity to work, say, in the courts, in the schools, in institutions, where our help is not freely asked f r o m the beginning by the individuals we seek to help, and where these individuals are not moved in using our service by entirely self-motivated, self-activated interests and wants of their own, rather than by the compulsion of social rules, or by actual physical controls.

24

Earlier Formulations

THE

PROBLEM OF A U T H O R I T Y

I shall not linger over this fascinating technical p r o b l e m of authority as a factor in the individual helping process of professional social work. H o w e v e r , I must point out t h a t it is at the very center of the l a r g e r problem we are facing this evening, of defining and p e r f o r m i n g our role in the l a r g e r world a r o u n d us. T h e democratic world is, of course, fighting the a u t h o r i t a r i a n world. But the democracy we fight f o r is not anarchy, nor unbridled, undisciplined f r e e d o m . T h e democratic w a r world, and the world of democracy t h a t is to follow, is a world still necessarily governed by rules, bounded by limitations sustained by collective authority, and requiring discipline. W e have to come to t e r m s with t h a t w o r l d if we are going to live and serve within it. I would like to suggest certain significant elements in the answer t h a t professional social w o r k e r s may find f o r this conflict between f r e e d o m and authority. T h e rules a n d limits against which we are t e m p t e d to turn our backs, with a certain self-righteous finality, are not in themselves wholly the creations of the devil; they are not demons a r b i t r a r i l y introduced into the paradise of human f r e e d o m . T h e y a r e realities of l i f e ; many of them a r e a p a r t of our common h u m a n nat u r e ; they are born with us and we carry t h e m to our g r a v e s : they are as much a p a r t of us as our capacity to g r o w and to think and to create. T h e r e are limits of physical capacity; limits of mental ingenuity and i m a g i n a t i o n ; limits imposed by the o t h e r fellow's capacity and willingness to c o o p e r a t e with u s ; limits in the conditions upon which we can satisfy self-esteem by winning the esteem of others with w h o m we must live. T o a d j u s t to the life on e a r t h , we meet a n d accept these controls, some of them inside and some of t h e m outside ourselves. Indeed, it is just these limits t h a t o f t e n b r i n g us up short to the point w h e r e we must exercise our innate and

Professional

Social

Work

25

individual powers, in order to select and achieve our highest satisfactions. SOCIAL

CONTROLS

Social institutional controls are of the same order. Definitions of rights, of powers, of the conditions of social participation are the prerequisite conditions of that very social satisfaction which is one aspect of individual satisfaction in living. N o r m a l human beings, capable of reasonable social adjustment, use these outer controls as they use the inner limits of their own powers, as p a r t of themselves. T h e y take over these aspects of social authority and make them their own. T h a t is to say, they discipline themselves in their relations to others and find satisfaction in the process. T h e job of social workers is to help people find fulfillment within the limits which they cannot change, as well as to find the power to move and change the limits which they and their fellows can control, and which, unless controlled, may cramp and distort their lives. But through it all—whether in the maintenance of necessary and unchangeable authority, or in the voluntary individual creative control of our own lives and in the creative helping of others—we shall find the strength of our help in our power to release and muster the inner resources of men f o r the attainment of their own self-determined ends. H o w ever n a r r o w the range of choice, within the inevitable compulsions of their social settings, there must be choice and the choice must be, in the last analysis, their own, if it is to result in satisfaction and productive achievement, either as individuals or as members of society. THE

PLACE

OF PROFESSIONAL

SOCIAL

WORK

Now, what does this have to do with the problem we have set ourselves tonight, of attempting to define the p a r t t h a t

26

Earlier

Formulations

professional social work has to play in the world of today and of t o m o r r o w ? First of all, the one fairly certain factor is the factor of change—not merely an immediate transition f r o m what is now to something else that is different, but constant change itself, the continual facing by everybody of unknowns and even of unknowables. Immensely difficult adjustments lie ahead on that account—individual adjustments, g r o u p adjustments, collective adjustments—that involve strains and stresses within every social relationship and between all the intricately interwoven segments of our society. T w o things are going to happen in that process. Increasing numbers of individuals are going to find it more and more difficult to come to terms clearly and comfortably with these tides of change, to find their way steadily and purposefully to satisfying relationships that have in them the essential ingredients both of security and stability, on one side, and of creative adventure and outlets f o r their own powers, on the other. But, simultaneously, its is also safe to prophesy, there will be new and increasing efforts of many collective forces—government among t h e m — t o master and control these tides of change by setting up standardizing and stabilizing rules, which aim to crystalize, for a time at least, enough of this social structure to avoid what it is naturally f e a r e d may otherwise become chaotic d r i f t or destructive explosion. Individuals who are struggling to recast their own lives, to make good their losses and to find new kinds and sources of strength for themselves, will face also the necessity of submitting to more general and more powerful limitations and social controls than they have ever known before. W i t h i n t h a t setting—of which, in this war, we are just beginning to feel the full force—the old conflicts between self and society, between self-discipline and outside authority, between self-motivation and external manipulation, will rear their heads in broadened and deepened intensity. T h e r e will be plenty of willing agents of regimentation and manipulation

Professional Social Work

27

w h o will be ready to impose their own chosen absolutes of plan and policy on the world, regardless of the will and the w a n t of the individual people in it, and unmindful also of the positive power for constructive progress that resides in those people.

A

CHALLENGE AND AN

OPPORTUNITY

In such a world the profession of social work finds a challenge, an opportunity, indeed, an obligation, of unprecedented dimensions, if it can make itself fit and ready f o r the task. It is a situation that demands the precise specifications to which our professional service is drawn. F o r it demands, first of all, a philosophic base of operations t h a t rests upon a p r o f o u n d faith in the worth and dignity of the individual man, linked at the same time with a clear sense of the necessity of and responsibility to an orderly and stable community life as the indispensable condition of individual fulfillment. It demands, too, an honest recognition of the right and the duty of the community to establish its own reasonable standards, as conditions of free participation in it, and the consequent need and obligation of the individual members of the community to accept and to take on and into themselves a reasonable measure of the authority by which the community maintains those standards. It demands, finally, a wellauthenticated conviction that those standards, if they are to be actually stable and constructive f o r the common good, must themselves be the creation of free individuals and must be directed to the release of the creative power that resides in f r e e human beings. T h e s e prerequisite bases for the effective p e r f o r m a n c e of the unavoidable social duty of mediation and integration, between the individual and the community, are the very foundations of professional social work practice. N o conceivable circumstances could offer a more inspiring hope of perma-

Earlier Formulations

28

nent, positive p r o f e s s i o n a l achievement. T h e times are in v e r y t r u t h m a d e to give us our chance to p r o v e our professional mettle. A r e we ready to fit the t i m e s ? H o w can we m a k e ourselves truly fit and r e a d y ?

THE

BASES

OF E F F E C T I V E

PERFORMANCE

F i r s t of all, I venture to say, we have to come to t e r m s with our times in o u r thinking and feeling. W e have to get into our b l o o d and bones and muscles, n o t merely into words, an acceptance of life as it is, with its limitations as well as its potentialities, its authorities and compulsions, its conflicts and confusions, above all its changes and uncertainties. If we a r e satisfied only with absolutes—absolute goals of our own choosing, absolute s t a n d a r d s of achievement, absolute plans of o r g a n i z a t i o n and absolute m e t h o d s of operation — i f we a r e not, in fact and in practice, as well as in theory, capable of finding satisfaction and of feeling p r o g r e s s in the o t h e r fellow's g r o p i n g slowly f o r w a r d to his own ends, by his own p a t h s , we shall find ourselves t o r n a p a r t and cast aside in a w o r l d t h a t is always moving f o r w a r d but never really arrives a t its predetermined destination. If we a r e unable to accept and cope with conflict in ourselves, we shall never serve effectually in a w o r l d w h e r e conflict, inevitable conflict, sets the p a t t e r n of men's striving out of chaos into something resembling o r d e r . If we are unable to accept a u t h o r i t y — t h e limitations of n a t u r a l f a c t and of o r g a n i z e d community power upon o u r own capacities to achieve our own ends—if we rebel against the inevitable, we shall not find a chance nor have the p o w e r to serve faithfully those o t h e r s whose f r u s t r a t i o n s drive t h e m to unending contest against unchangeable circumstances. If we insist on m a n a g i n g r a t h e r t h a n helping, judging r a t h e r t h a n understanding, controlling r a t h e r than serving, a w o r l d t h a t is

Professional

Social

Work

29

trying to find itself, a democratic f r e e world, will reject us promptly and finally. In the second place, we have to give up, or perhaps better, live down, a concept of our professional function or area of operation that has followed us f r o m our very beginnings in the administration of ancient charity. T h a t is the assumption t h a t social work as a modern professional service, as also when it was only an expression of elemental good will, is somehow bound up with the existence in the community of an especially disadvantaged and disinherited group, who, somehow, are different f r o m the rest of us, in their economic status, their intelligence, their manner of life, and their standa r d of living. T h i s inseparable and decisive association of the profession of social work, in our own minds as well as in the minds of our communities, with w h a t we are pleased to call " t h e p o o r , " inevitably shuts us off f r o m the acceptance of our service as a regular and constituent p a r t of a community's planned provision f o r the broad needs of all its people. It makes us appear like intruders in the planning or the conduct of the community's normal, universal social institutions and services. Yet it is precisely around and through those normal institutions that the planned changes of the world are being f o r m e d and executed, and it is in relation to them that technical skill and knowledge, as well as basic social philosophy, will find its m a r k in the lives of us all. Little by little, slowly and somewhat reluctantly, we have come to have a part, in recent years, in these communitywide, universally sustained and supported services of the school, the court, the church, the hospital, industry itself, where a cross section of the community, without distinction of kind or status, can find and use the professional knowledge and skill we profess to have in our keeping. T h i s grudging extension of our services has been almost in spite of ourselves, r a t h e r than because of anything we have done to claim, on the basis of our specific competence, a chance to

30

Earlier

Formulations

help people meet the problems that come to them in their everyday social living. T h i s extension has come, perhaps, because of an increasing awareness of the basis of our own professional service, but we do not all possess that awareness. As a group we have yet to affirm that a profession grows out of the nature of a problem, not its extent or degree or setting; that it is marked out by a specific body of skill and knowledge which is applicable to the treatment of that problem and to the attainment of specific objectives related to it; t h a t a profession must be capable of following t h a t problem through and of applying its appropriate knowledge and skill wherever the problem appears, among whatever class or in whatever shape it manifests itself.

A

FALSE

CONCEPT

OF SOCIAL

WORK

It is little wonder that the professional ingredient and quality in social work find such painfully slow and grudging acceptance when we ourselves have tolerated, even nurtured, a concept of our own service that relates it not to a type of problem, about which technical professional understanding can be brought to bear, but to a kind of person or situation or status having no genuine relation to the technical service to be rendered. T h i s outmoded concept has been expressed in another r a t h e r fashionable slogan which we have allowed, sometimes apparently with a good deal of pride, to characterize the nature of the responsibility which we carry as professional workers. W e are told, and we have sometimes rather proudly asserted ourselves, that the primary job of social work is " t o make itself unnecessary." T h a t slogan has an air of selflessness about it that is rather beguiling. But it has implications which, in the world of today, may f r u s t r a t e the performance of the constructive service which social work in its highest estate is capable of adding to the community's

Professional Social Work

31

resources f o r rebuilding and sustaining its own s t r e n g t h s . I t implies t h a t social work as now practiced, or as conceived by those who accept this characterization of their tasks, is dependent f o r its continued existence upon the continuance of aberrations and deficiencies of o t h e r n o r m a l social institutions ; t h a t it has nothing to offer of its own, as an inherently necessary and definitely useful element in human affairs, but, r a t h e r , t h a t it has a selfish stake, a sort of vested interest, in the failure of the community to right its wrongs. A n y community has a valid basis to suspect the disinterestedness or the capacity of a g r o u p t h a t allow their own claim to respect to r e s t upon such a concept.

E N V I R O N M E N T AS A FACTOR IN SOCIAL

ADJUSTMENT

F u r t h e r m o r e , and p e r h a p s even m o r e i m p o r t a n t , is the implication in this concept of a totally and exclusively environmentalistic interpretation of the process of social adjustment. I t assumes, in effect, t h a t the defects and difficulties t h a t a p p e a r in the social relations of individuals are the p r o d uct wholly of imperfect social institutions. C r e a t e , it says, a new and different economic o r d e r , an adequate educational system, a just legal and political mechanism, and, p r e s t o ! , individual human beings will inevitably and automatically find the incentives and the capacities f o r meeting all the problems of daily social living. I t necessarily follows t h a t social workers, if they are true to their own faith, should f o r t h w i t h seek to abandon all their palliative, mediative, remedial effort with individuals and enter upon a determined crusade to remake the environment within which all h u m a n beings operate. T h i s position rests finally upon a r a t h e r der o g a t o r y estimation of the dignity and w o r t h of individualized service itself. I t is the a b a n d o n m e n t of professional self-respect, and the denial of any p r o p e r claim of p r o f e s sional social w o r k to the respect of others, f o r the over-

Earlier

32

Formulations

whelmingly m a j o r p a r t of present social w o r k tasks are in the various f o r m s of individual helping. I t behooves us, t h e r e f o r e , t o examine with some care t h e basis of this assumption. U p o n w h a t evidence can this conception of the static n a t u r e and conditions of social adjustment and the p a r t played in it by human beings be genuinely v a l i d a t e d ? Is it n o t infinitely more t r u e to the lessons of o u r own experience, of our own professional practice, to affirm, since life is g r o w t h , change, movement, the realization of new interests and of new differences a m o n g people, t h a t satisfying relationships of h u m a n beings cannot be created upon one finished p a t t e r n ; t h a t each one must, if he is to realize his own potentialities, find his own design f o r living, must choose a m o n g m a n y a l t e r n a t i v e s ; t h a t each one must, t h e r e f o r e , reconcile each day, the interests and purposes t h a t a r e uniquely his and those t h a t he shares with o t h e r s ; and t h a t t r u e social a d j u s t m e n t is the reciprocal process between individual a n d environment, is c r e a t e d anew each day, and, under the best of circumstances, m a k e s exacting d e m a n d s t h a t o f t e n require m o r e insight, imagination, strength, and flexibility than m a n y of us can m u s t e r ? T o assume f o r an instant t h a t within the channels or mechanisms of any type of social organization, however true to o u r present ideals, all t h e infinite variations of h u m a n impulse a n d feeling and w a n t a r e t o find perfectly harmonious outlet in perfectly constructive social relationships, is to h a r b o r an optimism t h a t is n o t only blind to the lessons of experience and the teachings of science but also idealizes the very antithesis of the sort of life to which social w o r k e r s have been dedicating their services f o r a generation. I t extols a life of status r a t h e r t h a n g r o w t h . THE

TRUE

FUNCTION

OF SOCIAL

WORK

T h e justification of social work, its right to claim a p a r t in t h e responsible t r e a t m e n t of the problems of the new w o r l d ,

Professional

Social

Work

33

rests not in any such barren and unreal phantasy. I t stems f r o m no temporary pathological phenomenon in our society. I t is inherent in society itself and in human nature. I t grows out of a few simple facts. First of all, social structure as a whole is not a specific creation in time. It is the product of a constant evolution. It is the steadily changing expression of the temporary balance of a host of conflicting human interests and purposes and wills. Its parts do not grow or change at the same pace or in response to the same conflux of forces. Within each more or less separable segment, and between all the parts, strains and tensions inevitably develop. T h e y are themselves expressions of the growth process, of the constant reorganization and redirection of the varying strengths that compete or combine to attain their own fulfillment In the second place, these are human forces; they have their genesis in the human beings who compose society; and these human beings are not themselves consistent integrated wholes. T h e y are torn by conflicts in themselves. T h e y want change, but they fear it, too, and resist it. T h e i r interests and capacities develop not regularly, evenly, harmoniously f r o m day to day, but in different ways and degrees and speeds. Society, in its own growth, may express at different times, perhaps, f o r some of us more or less fully and satisfactorily, one or another aspect of this complicated texture of human wants and impulses. But it also constantly limits and confines and diverts others of them, creating frictions, tensions, conflicts, between individuals and groups and between these and society as a whole. It is within this perfectly normal setting, not in some isolated sector of the whole, but in all, t h a t the need and the value of social work arise. It is a normal, useful, constructive social instrument in itself, a necessary p a r t of the structure of a civilized, well-planned society, because it is directed to helping individuals meet the problems of their constantly shifting relations with one another and with the whole, and to helping

34

Earlier

Formulations

the whole society, at the same time, adjust its demands upon its members and its services to them, in accordance with the real needs of the individuals that compose and determine its life. T h i s is a positive, not a negative concept. It does not deny the validity and the value of individual helping; it does not evade responsibility for participating in general social change. It is not a process of protecting a barely tolerable and relatively sterile adjustment of individuals to a destructive or stagnant social environment. N o r is it the impossible, fantastic effort to manipulate the total environment, once and f o r all, so as to meet the irresponsible and undisciplined wants of an infinite number of different human beings at the same time. I t is, rather, the objective application of organized knowledge and systematically tested experience to the task of helping both individuals and communities to understand and to discharge their reciprocal responsibilities, with mutual consideration, respect, and planful collaboration. I t is able to render this help because it knows individuals, knows the conditions t h a t release their full strength, and knows the ways in which social institutions and processes operate upon the individual and compel him often to waste his effort in fighting against the forces that f r u s t r a t e and envelop him, rather than for the positive ends to which both he and society are dedicated.

SOCIAL W O R K E R S

AND THE

NEW

WORLD

All this simply means that if professional social workers are to find their place in this new world, their real and r i g h t f u l place, the place that is waiting to be filled, they must represent in their daily practice social work as it truly is—not a temporary evil necessity, but a permanent, normal, useful g o o d ; they must see it whole, must have secure and mature f a i t h in its total and not its partial function in society, and they must

Professional Social Work

35

b e able a n d willing t o t r u s t it t o succeed, b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e l i v e d w i t h it, m a d e it a p a r t of t h e m s e l v e s , a n d h a v e seen it w o r k u n d e r t h e i r o w n h a n d . T h e y m u s t t r u s t its r e a l l y p r o f e s s i o n a l i n g r e d i e n t s — k n o w l e d g e , skill, a n d discipline. T h e y m u s t p o s s e s s a n d apply a k n o w l e d g e t h a t centers, first a n d f o r e m o s t , in the n a t u r e a n d m e a n i n g of h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t a n d b e h a v i o r as it expresses itself in difficult social s i t u a t i o n s . T h e y m u s t d e v e l o p a n d use a skill t h a t involves, p r e e m i n e n t l y , a c a p a c i t y t o initiate, develop, a n d sustain a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s and g r o u p s of p e o p l e , within which p e o p l e can d i s c o v e r a n d use, f r e e l y and w i t h o u t f e a r , t h e i r own capacity to m a k e r e s p o n s i b l e choices a n d decisions, a n d can m u s t e r t h e ability t o give a n d t o accept h e l p w i t h confidence a n d c o u r a g e . T h e y m u s t accept a n d use a discipline of oneself which e n a b l e s o n e t o c a r r y responsibility w i t h o u t f e a r , t o be self-critical w i t h o u t losing self-confidence, t o suffer d i s a p p o i n t m e n t a n d d e f e a t w i t h o u t d i s m a y , t o meet a t t a c k w i t h o u t c o u n t e r a t t a c k , to be a l e r t t o t h e consequences of d i f f e r e n t courses of action w i t h o u t b e i n g p a r a l y z e d by indecision; a b o v e all, t o find success a n d s a t i s f a c t i o n in t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s of t h o s e w h o a r e striving f o r their own self-fulfillment, w h e t h e r or not they r e c o g n i z e o r value t h e help given t h e m . Social w o r k e r s w h o express t h e s e t r a i t s of a g e n u i n e p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m , b o t h in individual h e l p i n g a n d in c o m m u n i t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n , will find t h e m s e l v e s a t h o m e in a w o r l d of c h a n g e . T h e y will p r i z e unity, b u t n o t u n i f o r m i t y ; t h e y will seek o u t difference, t h e i r own a n d o t h e r s ' , a n d will f a c e it, affirm it, a n d use it in t h e c r e a t i o n of new v a l u e s ; t h e y will accept l i f e as it is and w o r k w i t h i t ; t h e y will h u m b l y seek, and b r a v e l y face, the o p p o r t u n i t y t o serve, with all t h e h a z a r d o u s responsibilities it involves ; they will k n o w h o w t o c o o p e r a t e and t o s h a r e , while h o l d i n g firm to t h e i r own defined o b l i g a t i o n s and d u t i e s ; they will k n o w a n d r e s p e c t t h e i r own l i m i t a t i o n s of f u n c t i o n , of c o m p e t e n c e , a n d of achievem e n t . Social w o r k e r s will, in s h o r t , p l a y a sincere, h u m b l e , a n d

36

Earlier Formulations

useful part in the common l i f e of their time, in building and sustaining a w o r l d fit f o r f r e e men, and in helping men to live fully and happily in it. A n d social workers will thereby win, because they will have earned, the respect, the confidence, and the cooperation of their fellow citizens of this new, live, growing, democratic world of today and tomorrow.

Social Work and Social Action Address delivered at the National Conference of Social fVork, June 194S, and published in the Proceedings of that year

article is meant to answer, f r o m one simple point of view, certain questions which have long divided the profession o f social work, its sponsors and supporters, and which have disturbed and retarded the development of constructive relations between the profession and other groups in our communities w h o share many of our objectives and are struggling earnestly and effectively f o r their attainment. U p o n the answers to these questions depend, not only the unity and strength and, therefore, the ultimate status and development of the profession as an instrument of service, not only the scope and nature and quality of that service, but, in truth, the very existence of our right and our opportunity to serve at all. It is not necessary that we immediately find final answers upon which we can all a g r e e ; but it is essential that we shall honestly seek agreement, shall search f o r sound professional principles by which to measure the discharge of professional responsibilities and to guide all of us in coming to terms with the practical problems of our day-to-day relationship with forces of social change and social planning. It is supremely important that we shall not allow ourselves to divide into w a r r i n g camps, around differing concepts of our role in the world, and shall not find a kind of exhilarating satisfaction in hurling epithets at each other across the chasm that may temporarily divide us on this issue. W h a t e v e r other principles THIS

37

38

Earlier Formulations

m a y be at stake, it is surely sound p r o f e s s i o n a l practice t o recognize, respect, and explore our differences, r a t h e r t h a n merely to d o g m a t i z e or fight about them.

DEFINITION

OF SOCIAL

ACTION

F o r the p u r p o s e of this discussion we shall define social action as the systematic, conscious effort directly to influence the basic social conditions and policies out of which arise the problems of social a d j u s t m e n t and m a l a d j u s t m e n t to which our service as social w o r k e r s is addressed. T h i s definition itself may not satisfy all of us t o begin with, f o r it h a s at least one debatable limitation. W h i l e it does n o t deny, neither does it specifically acknowledge or emphasize, the potential and actual indirect influence upon the t o t a l social scene which may emanate f r o m the specific services social w o r k e r s r e n d e r to particular individuals and groups, t h r o u g h the t r a d i t i o n a l p r i m a r y task of helping people to find and use their own strength and the resources a r o u n d t h e m f o r the solution of their own problems and the fulfillment of t h e i r own lives. I am inclined to believe t h a t the importance a n d value of this indirect social action, inherent in our day-to-day service, a r e o f t e n unduly minimized or even f o r g o t t e n in o u r discussions of social action. But f o r the present, it is n o t really in controversy, and I am quite sure t h a t none a m o n g us would w a n t to limit his professional service, either in scope or m e t h o d , so as to preclude these potential, indirect, social gains. I t is in relation to the direct, deliberate application of our effort to general social change t h a t our problems and our differences principally develop. W i t h reference to this issue, let us state some of the disturbing questions plainly. F i r s t of all, the basic question : D o e s social w o r k as a profession bear any specific responsibility to apply its k n o w l e d g e a n d skill t o the end of a d j u s t i n g social institutions and ar-

Social Work and Action

39

r a n g e m e n t s to the n e e d s of h u m a n b e i n g s , o r is its responsibility limited to h e l p i n g p e o p l e find the u t m o s t o f s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d a c h i e v e m e n t w i t h i n the social circumstances t h a t surr o u n d them, w h a t e v e r those c i r c u m s t a n c e s m a y b e ? I f the p r o f e s s i o n d o e s h a v e s o m e responsibility to particip a t e in social change, w h a t a r e the b o u n d a r i e s of that r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ? H a s it any r e a l b o u n d a r i e s ? C a n it be defined o r m e a s u r e d in such a w a y as t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e the responsibility of social w o r k in social action f r o m that o f o t h e r g r o u p s dev o t e d to o t h e r f o r m s o f h u m a n s e r v i c e ? O r is o u r responsibility unlimited, all-inclusive, subject only to a constantly c h a n g i n g and e x p a n d i n g definition of w h a t constitutes social need and social b e t t e r m e n t ? I f , as a p r o f e s s i o n , w e h a v e an inherent, definite responsibility f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in social action, is it an individual responsibility, b o r n e b y e v e r y one o f us, each in his o w n place a n d s t a t i o n ? O r is it essentially a collective responsibility only, to be d i s c h a r g e d p r i m a r i l y by chosen r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f the w h o l e p r o f e s s i o n , on b e h a l f o f a l l ? O r is it p e r h a p s a responsibility to be d e l e g a t e d by all o f us to a f e w especially i n t e r e s t e d and c o m p e t e n t i n d i v i d u a l s , e m p l o y e d in agencies d e v o t e d to this p a r t i c u l a r p u r p o s e ? U n d e r any o f these concepts can the d i s c h a r g e of this responsibility be b r o u g h t under a n y t h i n g like p r o f e s s i o n a l disc i p l i n e ? W h a t is the r e l a t i o n of the p e r f o r m a n c e of these t a s k s to o t h e r aspects of p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r f o r m a n c e ? H o w d o e s it affect, f o r instance, o u r direct s e r v i c e r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h c l i e n t s ? C a n this p r i m a r y p r o f e s s i o n a l service r e l a t i o n ship be u s e d in any w a y as an a v e n u e f o r d i s c h a r g e o f a prof e s s i o n a l responsibility f o r social a c t i o n ? A n d h o w d o e s our p r o f e s s i o n a l r e l a t i o n to a p a r t i c u l a r a g e n c y — w h i c h is an a l m o s t uniquely significant f a c t o r in the p e r f o r m a n c e of our p r o f e s s i o n a l f u n c t i o n — a f f e c t the scope o r n a t u r e of o u r responsibility f o r social a c t i o n ? D o e s it define, c o n t r o l , limit, o r m o d i f y this r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ?

40

Earlier

Formulations

R O L E OF T H E PROFESSIONAL

ASSOCIATION

W h a t is the place of the professional association in this whole problem? Is there anything in its function or its composition, or in our relation to it, that determines or defines the use we can make of it in discharging our responsibility f o r social action? And what of the union? Can we use it—how or to what extent can we use i t — f o r this professional purpose? Finally, what of our professional relation to political action, especially partisan political action? W h a t part, if any, can we play as professional people in this recurring contest between opposing social interests and concepts and those that represent or uphold them ? Does such participation necessarily violate professional standards because it involves the abandonment of our primary obligations or the destruction of essential professional relationships? In this regard does it make a difference whether we act as individuals, or in groups, or as a total profession? Can we, indeed, act as individuals or as groups, without involving our whole profession or entangling our primary professional services with divisive and extraneous public issues? T h e history and the generally accepted basic philosophy of social work point to a definite answer to our first question. Social action, once more commonly called social r e f o r m , has always been an integral and often a decisive element in social work practice as a whole. F r o m the early days of the charity organization and settlement movements in England, down to the mental hygiene and public welfare movement of our own time, there has never been a moment when professionally conscious social workers have been content wholly to separate their day-to-day service of particular individuals and groups f r o m some measure of responsibility for controlling or preventing some of the broad social factors t h a t caused, complicated, or intensified the problems with which they

Social Work and Action

41

d e a l t . A n d t h e r e a s o n , I believe, is t h a t t h e r e is n o possibility of such s e p a r a t i o n in f a c t . I n a c c e p t i n g responsibility f o r adm i n i s t e r i n g p a r t i c u l a r services, social w o r k e r s accept a l s o t h e i n h e r e n t o b l i g a t i o n t o see t h a t t h o s e services find t h e i r m a r k , so f a r as possible, in t h e lives of t h o s e t h a t seek a n d use t h e m . T h e special k n o w l e d g e a n d skill a n d discipline u p o n w h i c h t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l c h a r a c t e r of o u r w h o l e f u n c t i o n r e s t s , is d i r e c t e d precisely to t h a t end. O t h e r w i s e it w o u l d be e m p t y p r e t e n s e . But suppose, in t h a t e f f o r t , we discover circums t a n c e s b e y o n d the i m m e d i a t e c o n t r o l of o u r s e l v e s o r o u r clients which f r u s t r a t e o r o b s t r u c t t h e full a n d f r u i t f u l use of o u r s e r v i c e ? T h a t c a n n o t a b s o l v e us f r o m o u r i n h e r e n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to m a k e o u r service a v a i l a b l e and u s e f u l in f a c t , as well as in t h e o r e t i c a l p u r p o s e . A n d h o w can we d i s c h a r g e t h a t f u l l responsibility w i t h o u t u n d e r t a k i n g s o m e h o w t o h e l p in r e m o v i n g the o b s t r u c t i o n s t h a t c o n f r o n t us a n d o u r clients ? A n d w h a t is this but social a c t i o n ? I n a f f i r m i n g this basic concept t h a t social w o r k , as a p r o f e s s i o n , necessarily involves a n d includes social action as a p r o f e s s i o n a l f u n c t i o n , we a r e b r o u g h t close t o an a n s w e r f o r o u r second question, as t o t h e n a t u r e a n d scope of t h a t responsibility. Social w o r k is not t h e w h o l e of social w e l f a r e e n t e r p r i s e . I t is n o t t h e exclusive c u s t o d i a n o r c a p t a i n of social p r o g r e s s . T h e social w e l f a r e , in a t r u e sense, is t h e c o m m o n u l t i m a t e objective of every social i n s t i t u t i o n ; it is t h e c h a r a c teristic aim of m a n y p a r t s of o u r m o d e r n c u l t u r e . Social w o r k c a n n o t possess, it can only s h a r e , t h a t o b j e c t i v e . W e h a v e l e a r n e d t h r o u g h experience the essential p r a c t i c a l v a l u e , as well as t h e t h e o r e t i c a l validity, of a l i m i t e d a n d defined f u n c tion as t h e basis of o u r d i r e c t p r o f e s s i o n a l service t o clients. W e k n o w t h a t we need t h a t l i m i t a t i o n as t h e focus of o u r o w n d e v e l o p m e n t in skill a n d k n o w l e d g e , a n d as t h e solid f r a m e w o r k t h a t sustains and sanctions o u r h e l p i n g process. W e k n o w t h a t the client n e e d s it, t o o , a m o n g o t h e r r e a s o n s , in o r d e r t h a t he m a y k n o w w h e t h e r t h e service we offer m e e t s

42

Earlier

Formulations

his need, and whether he can use it with satisfaction and success. T h e same principle applies with equal force to t h a t secondary aspect of our task which concerns our participation in helping the community effect broad change in itself. W e need to know the limits within which we can truly help, as a basis f o r the development of our own skill and the f o r m u lation of our own criteria of the validity of change. T h e community needs to know the area of our special knowledge and capacity, as the basis of its discriminating acceptance and use of our help. W h a t , then, defines the province within which, as a professional, we carry responsibility f o r social action? I t cannot be bounded once and for all by the range of the human problems with which it is concerned, in terms of the aspects of human living identified with those problems. One decisive characteristic of social work as a total professional field is the fact t h a t there is no problem of human living in society which is not likely, appropriately, to come within the orbit of some of its professional practitioners. Problems of health, work, play, education, of family life, parenthood, childhood, of every social relationship within which people must find their place are grist to our mill. Yet, obviously, t h a t cannot mean that our specific professional capacity and responsibility extend to the understanding and treatment of all the infinite ramifications of human life as a whole, or of any of these problems in their entirety. T h e r e is, however, one focal point at which all our professional services converge, whose specific significance sets off our tasks f r o m every other p a r t of social welfare enterprise. T h a t is our concern with the actual impact of any or all of these problems upon the individual life, and the way in which human beings face and meet these problems, and thus attain, through social relationships, their mastery over them. W e do not know, f o r instance—we have no way to find out through our own professional service or training

Social Work

and

Action

43

— w h a t constitutes a good and complete health p r o g r a m in any community, in terms of the technical components of such a p r o g r a m . W e do know and we must know, because we are responsibly helping people face their health problems as factors in their social adjustment, what stands in the way of the maintenance of health and the full use of health resources. W e know the effect upon individual people of inadequate or inaccessible health resources, inadequate provision f o r meeting the economic hazards of illness, inadequate appreciation, and, therefore, inadequate provision of integrated treatment, of the interacting physical, social, and emotional factors of illness. W e know some of the conditions, mechanisms, and processes that are prerequisite f o r the attainment of recognized standards of health. W i t h respect to these aspects of the community's health problem we have a clear professional responsibility to make our help available, not only in the realization, but also in the formulation of its own health standards and health program. T a k e another example : W e do not know, nor can we conceivably learn—as a p a r t of our own professional study and practice—all that must go into the organization and operation of an adequate and satisfying economic system. But we do know the impact of economic factors of life upon individual human beings and groups, and we know the problems that people face in the actual process of adjusting to these fundamental realities of social living because we have been responsibly and studiously engaged in helping people through that actual process. W e do know, therefore, not only the fact, but the meaning to real people of inadequate income, of intermittent employment and unemployment ; we know the meaning to the individual of real work, of creative, free, self-respecting participation in the economic process and in the determination of his own working conditions. T h i s does not entitle us to prepare or to endorse a detailed blueprint of a total r e f o r m of the economic system. I t does obligate

44

Earlier

Formulations

us to contribute of our special knowledge and our professional judgment to the formulation of acceptable criteria of the validity of economic arrangements, and to exert our influence toward the introduction into our economic structure of those mechanisms and processes that make it possible for people continuously to find positive satisfactions, through sound relationships, in all their working life. T h e province of professional social work, then, either in its direct service or in its social action, does not encompass the total life problem of anybody, nor the whole of any problem. W e are concerned with social process—the impact of social structure and policy upon individuals, and the process by which people are enabled to meet and master the problems this impact presents. It is obvious, if this be true, t h a t the responsibility of social work f o r social action is both an individual and a collective responsibility. It cannot be entirely separated f r o m individual practice; it cannot be wholly entrusted to a special group of workers charged exclusively with the specific set of tasks involved in social action; it cannot be delegated by each of us to a few chosen representatives of all of us. Individually we carry a dual responsibility : first, to p e r f o r m with all the competence and faithfulness we can muster the particular services entrusted to us by the particular agency with which we are identified; second, to contribute steadily of our understanding and skill, derived f r o m this experience, to help the community constructively to relate its institutions and arrangements and services to the fundamental needs of human beings as these are disclosed in our service relationships. N o one of us can know all about all these needs; each of us can and must know a part, and each of us must be responsible, therefore, f o r contributing his own p a r t to the larger whole. T h e r e are four kinds of relationship within which this responsibility must be defined and controlled, if professional standards are to be discovered and upheld. T h e r e is the client-

Social

Work

and

Action

45

worker relationship ; the agency relationship ; the relationship to the profession as a whole; and the relationship with other organized forces of social change and control in the larger community. I t seems clear that the client-worker relationship itself must be held clear f o r service, and f o r service only. Any use of that relationship, f o r the attainment of any goal other than that to which it is dedicated in advance—the service of a particular need upon which the agency has offered help, through the worker—is a betrayal of the client's confidence, of the agency's purpose, and of the worker's professional obligation. T h e process of service itself, by helping to discover and release strength and energy in clients, which they may ultimately turn, along with others, if they choose, toward the conscious change of social policies that affect them, may indirectly promote social change. But this must always remain one of the incidental, unpredictable, and undesigned outcomes of service—never its goal. T h e professional social worker's agency relationship is of another order. H e r e he is somewhat free to participate directly in social action affecting the problems encompassed within agency function. As an individual he discharges this aspect of professional responsibility in helping the agency mold its own p a r t of the total social structure to the needs of those who seek its help. By the consistent and continual registration of the worker's actual experience, and the circumstances surrounding the client's need and his use of agency service, through the established agency channels, the worker contributes responsibly to that alert awareness of, and readiness for, change, which is the hallmark of every effective social agency. By sensitive and discriminating participation, at every appropriate time, in the formulation and expression of progressive agency policy, geared to clients' needs, the individual worker helps to mold this little p a r t of the total organized community. T h i s is no negligible contribution.

46

Earlier

Formulations

Given an agency under professional leadership, in which there is a constant two-way flow of creative interest and experience, among board, administration, and professional staff, the habit of sensitive response to the changing needs and new meanings of its own service is bound to grow into an expanding concern for factors beyond agency control that cause or complicate the problems with which agency service is concerned. And that kind of agency is going to feel an obligation to contribute, as a whole—not only through its professional elements—to the pool of community feeling and understanding out of which new and more serviceable social structure and policy will emerge. I venture to affirm that every social agency, expressing as it must in its own function the community's purpose to meet a specific need, is obligated to help the community to fulfill that purpose completely, by removing the obstructions that prevent the service from reaching its mark in the lives of people, and by relieving the conditions that steadily augment or intensify the need. But it is also true that every agency necessarily carries, in practice if not in theory, a limited function. Its responsibility for social action—and, hence, the opportunity of professional workers to discharge their responsibility through it—is limited to the area of need with which it is functionally involved. Furthermore, the agency is composed of both lay and professional elements. It can only act, as an entity, within the area of its own internal agreement. It may not, at a given time and place, be ready to act, or be capable of acting effectively, toward ends that its professional staff or some of its members consider to be necessary, for the full discharge of their professional responsibilities. Does this circumstance absolve the individual professional worker of all further responsibility? Or, to put it another way, is the professional staff member estopped from further professional social action beyond that which he can discharge through the agency or within it ?

Social Work

and

Action

47

O n the c o n t r a r y : P r o f e s s i o n a l responsibility is individual. I t cannot be s u r r e n d e r e d o r e v a d e d . W i t h i n the bounds of one's direct functional service, the p r o f e s s i o n a l w o r k e r is, of course, the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the agency and f a i t h f u l l y applies its policy, expressing his p r o f e s s i o n a l self in the process of helping clients use agency function and policy to the utmost f o r their g o o d . B e y o n d those boundaries one still carries one's own individual p r o f e s s i o n a l responsibility to f r e e oneself f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r f o r m a n c e in accordance with one's own prof e s s i o n a l standards. I t is here that the p r o f e s s i o n a l association, as an instrument of p r o f e s s i o n a l social action, serves an indispensable purpose. H e r e the limitations of an individual service responsibility, and the limitations of a particul a r agency function, are e r a s e d ; here, as a m e m b e r of the total p r o f e s s i o n a l g r o u p , the w o r k e r finds an avenue through which to bring to expression his whole p r o f e s s i o n a l self, in behalf of the highest p r o f e s s i o n a l standards. A s a united body, pooling the experiences and the resources of all its members, the p r o f e s s i o n is f r e e to establish its own criteria of social structure and policy, to articulate its own total contribution to the guidance of social change, and to participate in social action to that end in accordance with its own deliberately accepted standards and methods. T h e circle of individual responsibility and influence is thus w i d e n e d ; one's own interests and purposes and standards are measured and tested against others. In the end, one can join confidently and h e l p f u l l y in support of p r o f e s s i o n a l interests and aims even f a r beyond those bounded by one's own specific experience. T o help the p r o f e s s i o n a l association s e r v e that useful purpose, with c o u r a g e , with f o r e s i g h t , with consistent determination in social action, is one of the solemn obligations p r o f e s s i o n a l w o r k e r s accept with their membership in the association. H e r e again there are prerequisite conditions t h a t must be o b s e r v e d and maintained. T h e association unites p r o f e s s i o n a l

48

Earlier

Formulations

w o r k e r s a r o u n d o n e basic i n t e r e s t — t h e discovery, p r o g r e s s i v e d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d consistent use of t h e h i g h e s t p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a n d a r d s of service. I t is c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e a c t u a l p e r f o r m a n c e of social w o r k e r s , t h r o u g h t h e a c c e p t a n c e a n d e n f o r c e m e n t of such s t a n d a r d s . I t s m e m b e r s a r e n o t a s k e d t o check t h e i r religious, t h e i r political, even t h e i r economic a n d social convictions a n d differences a t t h e d o o r . T h e y a r e a s k e d t o join in s u p p o r t of certain c o m m o n s t a n d a r d s of p e r f o r m a n c e , w h a t e v e r o t h e r differences m a y divide t h e m . T h e u s e f u l n e s s of t h e association as an i n s t r u m e n t of social action is necessarily l i m i t e d by t h a t p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n a l concern w i t h p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a n d a r d s . A n d even within t h i s a r e a of interest, its p r a c t i c a l u s e f u l n e s s d e p e n d s u p o n t h e d e g r e e of its actual i n t e r n a l a g r e e m e n t . It is f o o l h a r d y a n d d a n g e r ous f o r t h e a s s o c i a t i o n t o p r e s u m e o r p r e t e n d t o s p e a k f o r t h e w h o l e p r o f e s s i o n u p o n any issue, even issues affecting o r affected by p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a n d a r d s , w h e n actually p r o f e s s i o n a l a g r e e m e n t d o e s n o t exist. I t is s o u n d principle a n d serviceable p r a c t i c e t h a t h a v e led the a s s o c i a t i o n usually to limit its u n d e r t a k i n g s in social action to t h o s e t h a t , a f t e r s t u d y a n d discussion by t h e w h o l e m e m b e r s h i p , c o m m a n d t h e convinced s u p p o r t of a clear m a j o r i t y . T h e r e is, of c o u r s e , d a n g e r in this concept of t h e l i m i t a t i o n of association r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . E n d l e s s s t u d y , aimless t a l k m a y b e c o m e an easy r e f u g e f r o m t h e perils i n v o l v e d in clear conviction a n d decisive a c t i o n . T h e b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n intelligent d i s c r e t i o n a n d u n c o n f e s s e d cowardice is s o m e t i m e s difficult t o d r a w , b u t w e m u s t d e p e n d u p o n a g r o w i n g , v i t a l sense of t r u e p r o f e s s i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to p r o t e c t us a g a i n s t yielding t o ignoble f e a r s .

FUNCTION OF THE

UNION

W e can a l s o d e p e n d u p o n v i g o r o u s i n d i v i d u a l a n d g r o u p action, s u p p l e m e n t i n g u n i t e d association e f f o r t ; f o r , j u s t as

Social IVork

and Action

49

the individual's professional responsibility f o r social action is not completely absorbed into agency function, so the individual's responsibility is not completely submerged in the professional group. Each of us continues to carry that responsibility f o r living up to his own standards, and f o r finding a way to discharge this responsibility, whether or not the whole profession supports and sustains it. It is right here that the union in social work finds a suitable and effective place in the discharge of individual responsibility f o r social action. T h e union opens, in a way, a still wider circle of interest and effort and influence than that of the association. As the professional association breaks down the barriers of individual specialization, of experience, and of agency function, in relation to the worker's responsibility f o r social action, so the union levels the walls enclosing a narrow professionalism. It unites professional workers not only with other workers in social agencies, but also with the whole wide labor movement. It may thus open avenues f o r the effectual application of concerted conviction upon m a t t e r s about which all professional workers are not now and may never be united. It offers, therefore, to groups of professional workers an instrument for effective use on matters beyond the area of association function and association agreement. T h e r e is also a true functional limitation. T h e union in social work, like any other labor union, is united around common economic interests. It is an a p p r o p r i a t e and effective instrument for protection and realization of those interests. It is certainly not the most appropriate agency f o r the determination or formulation of professional standards, nor f o r the articulation of programs involving the application of professional standards. T h a t is a professional responsibility f o r which professional workers are accountable to their peers, and which they cannot share with nonprofessional colleagues. As the professional association more and more consistently and courageously represents truly professional interests in

so

Earlier

Formulations

social action; as it recognizes the value, even t o itself, of f r e e i n g g r o u p s of its m e m b e r s to unite with o t h e r w o r k e r s in p r o m o t i n g causes, upon which the whole profession is n o t and probably cannot be u n i t e d — i t is t o be hoped t h a t the union need no longer seem to be an intruding competitor in professional circles, but an additional instrument t h r o u g h which individual professional w o r k e r s may p r o m o t e some of their legitimate professional interests in social action.

POLITICAL A C T I O N A F F E C T I N G

SOCIAL

WORK

U p o n the same basis rests the validity of individual and g r o u p action of professional w o r k e r s in the political arena, where many social issues come inevitably to final settlement. I t is obvious t h a t a social agency, dedicated to a specific service, about which, alone, its sponsors and its supporters are united, cannot ethically or practically expend its energies or resources to ends not directly r e l a t e d to t h a t service. I t s social action must be confined to the interpretation of its own experience, in t e r m s of chosen objectives, accepted principles, and incontestable facts, c o m m e n d e d on their merits, as fact o r s in the determination of community policy affecting its service. I t cannot take responsibility f o r measuring t h e relative importance of this aspect of public policy, as comp a r e d with others, as decisive f a c t o r s in a political contest. I t would be wholly i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r an agency, t h e r e f o r e , to espouse a particular p a r t y cause or candidate. T h e professional association is in a somewhat similar position. I t is united upon objectives and principles, on the basis of professional s t a n d a r d s . I n all b u t t h e r a r e s t instances, it cannot command the j u d g m e n t of its members, or bring t h e m to agreement, as to the relative w e i g h t to be assigned t o these agreed concepts, as c o m p a r e d w i t h other issues involved in a political campaign, n o r as t o t h e relative capacity and determination of opposing candidates to carry these concepts

Social Work

and Action

51

t o r e a l i z a t i o n in p u b l i c policy. I t w o u l d b e u t t e r l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e , it seems to m e , f o r t h e association, as such, t o t h r o w its influence in b e h a l f of o n e o r a n o t h e r p a r t y o r c a n d i d a t e in a political c o n t e s t in w h i c h o t h e r t h a n strictly social issues were at stake. B u t d o e s t h e s a m e set of l i m i t a t i o n s b i n d t h e i n d i v i d u a l p r o f e s s i o n a l w o r k e r ? T o a n s w e r t h a t q u e s t i o n in t h e a f f i r m a tive seems t o me t o t h r e a t e n t h e i n t e g r i t y b o t h of t h e indiv i d u a l a n d of the p r o f e s s i o n as a w h o l e . T h e i n d i v i d u a l n o t only can b u t m u s t exercise his j u d g m e n t as t o t h e r e l a t i v e w e i g h t of issues a t s t a k e ; h e m u s t m a k e a final choice as a citizen. I f , in his h o n e s t a n d c o n s i d e r e d j u d g m e n t , social issues a r e p a r a m o u n t , a n d if his choice is m a d e b e t w e e n p a r t i e s o r c a n d i d a t e s o n t h e basis of t h e i r p o s i t i o n o n t h e s e p r o b l e m s a n d of t h e i r r e l a t i v e capacity a n d d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o solve t h o s e p r o b l e m s by m e a s u r e s t h a t c o n f o r m w i t h p r o f e s sional principles, m u s t h e stifle t h o s e convictions, r e m a i n silent, a n d r e f u s e t o m a k e his j u d g m e n t as a social w o r k e r available to anybody else? A n d because the professional g r o u p as a w h o l e is p r e v e n t e d by its collective r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d f u n c t i o n f r o m d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n on t h e political level, m u s t social w o r k h a v e n o voice at all in t h e m o m e n t of decision ? T h e individual m u s t , if he is t r u e t o his o w n p r o f e s s i o n a l responsibility, r e m a i n f r e e t o act as an i n d i v i d u a l b e y o n d t h e level of a g r e e m e n t of all his colleagues. I t is t h a t f r e e d o m , t h a t p e r s o n a l o b l i g a t i o n of t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o be an i n d e p e n d e n t c r e a t i v e unit w h i c h is t h e essence of p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m . I t is likewise t h e source of t h e p r o g r e s s a n d a c h i e v e m e n t of t h e p r o f e s s i o n as a collective w h o l e . I t is of special consequence t o t h e p r o f e s s i o n of social w o r k t h a t t h i s f r e e d o m s h o u l d be c o n s e r v e d a n d p r o t e c t e d . I t is of t h e n a t u r e of p r o f e s s i o n a l social w o r k practice t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l p r a c t i t i o n e r shall n o t be c o m p l e t e l y f r e e in t h e p e r f o r m a n c e of specific service. H e is, a n d m u s t be, t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of a social agency, b o u n d t o o p e r a t e w i t h i n its

52

Earlier

Formulations

policies, which cannot always express his own highest ideals of service since they must incorporate also the differing viewpoints of nonprofessional sponsors and supporters. H e is protected against the loss of professional integrity, in this complete identification with agency, by his active and responsible participation in the development of agency policy, on the one hand, and by his membership in the professional association, where s t a n d a r d s are sustained, on the other. If, however, his identification either with agency or with association, limits or nullifies his independence as a professional person in the realm of social action in pursuit of professional objectives, then he has no further means of protecting his professional integrity—the fulfillment of his own sense of professional responsibility. H i s independence even as a citizen is qualified and limited. T h e r e is risk in this individual freedom which we affirm — r i s k to the individual, to the agency, and to the profession. But that risk is as nothing compared to the danger of placing social workers and their profession under the suspicion that any considerations other than honest conviction and the analyzed outcomes of their study and experience can determine the part they shall play in decisive struggles f o r the realization of social ideals. T h e perfect pattern of political action affecting social work would be achieved, I firmly believe, only when every administrator, every b o a r d member, every practitioner of every rank, in every social agency, would r e g a r d it not only a s a privilege, but an obligation, frankly and openly to relate the knowledge and judgment derived f r o m his own social work experience to contested public issues, and thus to m a k e his special sincere contribution to the formulation of enlightened public judgment and decision. I would have no f e a r of divided counsels in the field. I would welcome them in the open forum, where differences could be defined and tested, and where, in the end, social work would surely find a voice worthy of its own potential role in human affairs.

Part

II

Public Welfare

A Plan for the Treatment of Unemployment The

Report

Philadelphia,

of a Committee summarized

the S u r v e y , March

of the Community by Mr.

Pray

Council

of

and published

in

igjj

UNEMPLOYMENT is the consequence o f obscure economic diso r d e r s . Its p r e v e n t i o n d e p e n d s u p o n slow and difficult c h a n g e s in the w h o l e economic process, and these m u s t be c o u r a g e o u s l y u n d e r t a k e n if w e a r e to h a v e a stable social o r d e r in t h e f u t u r e . B u t no one can f o r e t e l l the time w h e n A m e r i c a w i l l m u s t e r the collective p o w e r to assure continuous, r e m u n e r a t i v e e m p l o y m e n t f o r all its p e o p l e ; m e a n w h i l e w e shall h a v e unemployment—a

c e r t a i n a m o u n t o f chronic, casual,

and

s e a s o n a l u n e m p l o y m e n t , p o s s i b l y increasing t e c h n o l o g i c a l une m p l o y m e n t , d o u b t l e s s r e c u r r i n g p e r i o d s o f s e v e r e depression o r cyclical u n e m p l o y m e n t . W i t h o u r v i v i d r e a l i z a t i o n o f the distress and loss w h i c h this entails, comes an o b l i g a t i o n to r e m o v e its m o s t s e r i o u s consequences, even t h o u g h w e cannot a t once eliminate all its causes. A c o m p r e h e n s i v e p r o g r a m f o r t h e t r e a t m e n t o f u n e m p l o y m e n t w h e n it a p p e a r s will also c o n t r i b u t e t o its p r e v e n t i o n , b o t h because o f its indirect effect in s t a b i l i z i n g economic

activity,

and because

of

the

incentives

it

may

a f f o r d to direct p r e v e n t i v e m e a s u r e s . FUNDAMENTAL

CONCEPTS

Such a p r o g r a m f o r the t r e a t m e n t of u n e m p l o y m e n t w i l l r e s t u p o n certain g e n e r a l principles : 66

56

Public

Welfare

U n e m p l o y m e n t in the m o d e r n world is a m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f collective mistakes, not o f individual inadequacy. O n l y a negligible n u m b e r o f those at present out o f w o r k are in any sense personally responsible f o r their m i s f o r t u n e . H o n e s t y , diligence, ambition, sobriety, t h r i f t — w h i l e still a d m i r a b l e are no l o n g e r a p r o t e c t i o n against idleness and want. T h a t protection waits upon the b e t t e r collective control o f our social and economic relationships and the m o r e effectual disc h a r g e o f our common responsibilities. T h e needs o f those w h o are suffering f r o m these social mistakes are human needs, not m e r e l y animal needs. T h e value to the community o f the human beings w h o compose it cannot be m e a s u r e d in pounds o r e r g s o r calories. I t resides in them as persons, whose feelings and beliefs, j u d g m e n t s and choices a r e vital elements in any sound community life. W e cannot be solely concerned with the negative task o f keeping people alive. W e must maintain t h o s e positive but intangible values which alone give r e a l meaning and worth to physical existence. N o civilized community can survive, o r ought to, which consigns a considerable p a r t o f its people to s t a r v a t i o n o f soul o r o f b o d y — e i t h e r swiftly, by withholding all help, o r slowly, by imposing a t o t a l l y inadequate s t a n d a r d o f living. S o long as the t o t a l fund o f w e a l t h suffices, means must be found t o provide suitable help when needed. O u r p r o b l e m is t o discover w h a t amount is indispensably required to relieve distress, and then to determine how the necessary funds can be provided m o s t equitably and with the most s a t i s f a c t o r y effect upon n o r m a l economic l i f e . T h e r e is obviously no wisdom in unrestrained largess, e i t h e r public o r p r i v a t e ; there is need f o r scrupulous economy and care at every point. B u t the actual minimum need o f the unemployed and their families must be fully m e t . T h e p r i m e responsibility f o r the r e l i e f o f unemployment should rest upon g o v e r n m e n t , the agent o f the w h o l e com-

Unemployment

57

munity, r a t h e r t h a n u p o n p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s o r g r o u p s . I n crises like t h e p r e s e n t , w h e n v a s t n u m b e r s a r e afflicted, o n l y t h e collective p o w e r of g o v e r n m e n t can u n i f o r m l y a n d universally p r o t e c t essential h u m a n v a l u e s a n d d i s t r i b u t e t h e cost equitably a m o n g t h e w h o l e p e o p l e . T h e i n h e r e n t v a l u e s of individual initiative a n d v o l u n t a r y service m u s t b e p r e s e r v e d , of course, a n d w i d e o p p o r t u n i t y m u s t be o f f e r e d f o r t h e i r continued o p e r a t i o n a n d g r o w t h . F r o m t h e m is d e r i v e d t h a t concept of social r e s p o n s i b i l i t y w h i c h , by an extension of i m a g i n a t i v e insight, l e a d s t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o wish t o act as effectively t h r o u g h g o v e r n m e n t t o m e e t t h e n e e d s of all f e l l o w citizens in need, as he desires t o s e r v e t h o s e f e w h e sees a n d knows. P h i l a d e l p h i a is n o t an i s o l a t e d , s e l f - c o n t a i n e d social o r economic entity. I t s p r o b l e m of u n e m p l o y m e n t is n o t local, in origin, kind, o r e x t e n t . I t s relief p r o g r a m , t h e r e f o r e , m u s t be a p a r t of, a n d d e p e n d e n t u p o n , a l a r g e r p r o g r a m of s t a t e wide and n a t i o n w i d e p l a n n i n g a n d a c t i o n . A sound special p r o g r a m f o r t h e t r e a t m e n t of u n e m p l o y m e n t d e p e n d s f o r its full effectiveness u p o n t h e m a i n t e n a n c e intact of certain r e g u l a r c o m m u n i t y services, such as t h o s e of public h e a l t h , public e d u c a t i o n , public r e c r e a t i o n , public welf a r e , h o u s i n g c o n t r o l , a n d t h e p r o t e c t i o n of r e a s o n a b l e s t a n d a r d s of w a g e s a n d w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s . I t is j u s t at such t i m e s as t h e p r e s e n t — w h e n t h e security of t h e h o m e , a n d t h e satisf a c t i o n s of r e g u l a r c r e a t i v e l a b o r a r e m o s t t h r e a t e n e d o r alt o g e t h e r lost, a n d w h e n t h e p o w e r of s e l f - m a i n t e n a n c e a n d s e l f - p r o t e c t i o n is m o s t w e a k e n e d — t h a t c o m m u n i t y p r o v i s i o n f o r these vital n e e d s is m o s t i m p e r a t i v e l y r e q u i r e d . T o s h o r t e n l i b r a r y a n d m u s e u m h o u r s , t o close r e c r e a t i o n cent e r s , t o dismiss public h e a l t h nurses, t o cut off a d u l t e d u c a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s , t o l e n g t h e n h o u r s of l a b o r a n d r e m o v e p r o tections a g a i n s t accident a n d e x p l o i t a t i o n in i n d u s t r y , all in t h e n a m e of e c o n o m y , is in t h e l o n g r u n t h e h e i g h t of comm u n i t y e x t r a v a g a n c e . T h e r e c l a m a t i o n of slum a r e a s ,

58

Public

Welfare

t h r o u g h f a r - s i g h t e d investment and c o o p e r a t i o n o f p r i v a t e citizens and public authorities, under suitable legislation, yet t o be enacted in P e n n s y l v a n i a , t a k i n g a d v a n t a g e o f l o w e r e d costs and p r o v i d i n g constructive employment, is one o f the m o r e spectacular ways in which a socially minded community will p r o t e c t individual w e l f a r e and the public interest. T h e prevention o f u n w h o l e s o m e crowding o f existing dwellings and the vigilant e n f o r c e m e n t o f existing laws

protecting

s a f e t y and s a n i t a t i o n a r e less d r a m a t i c but equally i m p o r t a n t public services. Finally, all public services, w h e t h e r p e r m a n e n t o r temp o r a r y , affecting the s a f e t y and well-being o f every citizen, must be m a n n e d on the basis o f fitness, and must be p r o t e c t e d against political i n t e r f e r e n c e . A l w a y s i m p o r t a n t , this becomes positively essential with the inevitable expansion o f g o v e r n m e n t ' s social and economic activities.

A

SPECIAL

PROGRAM

A special p r o g r a m o f t r e a t m e n t o f unemployment has two great aims:

(i)

t o r e s t o r e to idle hands and b r a i n s the

chance to w o r k , and so to renew, as quickly as possible, f o r the individual and t h e community, n o r m a l social and economic l i f e ; and ( 2 ) t o establish, so f a r as possible, some m e a s u r e o f security and continuity o f income f o r those unavoidably deprived o f the chance t o w o r k . T h e main provisions o f such a p r o g r a m fall into five main groups : F i r s t , the collection and dissemination o f dependable facts as t o the extent, t h e kinds, and the location o f employment and unemployment so t h a t the initiation and administration o f necessary m e a s u r e s m a y be p r o m p t l y adapted t o actual conditions and needs. Second, the provision o f suitable means f o r bringing tog e t h e r j o b - h u n t e r s and available j o b s so t h a t , a m o n g o t h e r

Unemployment

59

gains, the period of unemployment f o r each individual may be as short as possible. T h i r d , the provision of a long-time p r o g r a m of necessary public works construction, local, state, and national, the timing of actual expenditures to be adjusted inversely to general economic activity so that permanently useful governmental action may take up some of the slack in demand for labor and may thus somewhat retard the cumulative effect of unemployment. Fourth, the provision of reserve funds, accumulated in times of prosperity to be distributed in times of adversity, to those thrown out of work through no fault of their own in order not only that the individual may be spared the worst consequences of his misfortune, but also that he may retain f o r a time at least a p a r t of his purchasing power in the general market. F i f t h , the provision of adequate means for meeting the primary necessities of those who fall outside the protection of these measures and who cannot provide f o r their own needs. These are, of course, not distinct and separable f o r m s of action. All are essentially interdependent, yet there is a certain logical priority among them under present circumstances. T h e relief of immediate suffering is the first and most imperative obligation of this moment. T h a t cannot wait upon any other measure. I. Relief Basic Objectives and Criteria. Certain practical criteria must be met in any satisfactory relief system. Relief must be available on terms of equality to all in equal need, below a definite level of self-maintenance. I t must be p r o m p t and timely, not delayed until personal and social disintegration have progressed to the danger point.

60

Public Welfare

I t must be adequate to meet, along with w h a t e v e r other resources are available, the elemental needs of human beings f o r the preservation of health and decency. I t must be continuous and certain, and so organized as to adapt itself readily, in f o r m and amount, to the changing circumstances of the individual beneficiary and of the community. It must be administered in such a w a y as to enlist the cooperation, protect the self-respect, and sustain the personal rights and p o w e r s of its recipients, while preserving the social unity and economic stability of the community. Practical Standards. W h a t would a sound relief p r o g r a m require, in its practical details? 1 . Eligibility. I t would clearly define and candidly announce ( a ) the specific conditions under which any individual or f a m i l y becomes eligible f o r community help; ( b ) the specific schedule of relief allowances available under v a r y i n g conditions; ( c ) the procedures by which eligibility and need will be determined by the community's agents. It would thus seek to make its service available to all who truly need relief according to these objective standards, including those w h o may be too proud or sensitive to seek it in time to save themselves f r o m i r r e p a r a b l e injury; at the same time it would save unnecessary trouble, expense, and disappointment f o r those w h o now seek aid in vain because, despite their limited means and h a r d struggles, they still do not f a l l below that level which the community deems a minimum standard of living in this emergency. 2. Relief A l l o w a n c e s f o r Families. Relief allowances would be sufficient to permit families to provide f o r themselves their minimum requirements not only of f o o d , but also of shelter, heat, light, clothing, and housekeeping supplies, recognizing all of these as real necessities of life. T h e s e minimum requirements inevitably would be less than any standard of living w o r t h y of the name American, since they omit all

Unemployment

61

considerations of such essentials as health service, recreation, household furnishings, insurance, c a r f a r e , church and organization dues, or reading matter. Only extreme ingenuity, selfsacrifice, and self-help can make this strict limitation of budget to bare essentials possible f o r any considerable length of time. Anything less than this is a compromise with the exigencies of the situation that may seriously impair the morale and the health of the individual. Relief in any particular instance would be g r a n t e d in such an amount as to bring the total family resources up to this minimum level. In order, however, that a somewhat higher standard of living than this low minimum may be encouraged r a t h e r than absolutely prevented, and t h a t industry and ambition may not be penalized or wasted, a p a r t of any family earnings would be retained by the family, in addition to the full proper measure of relief. On the same principle, t h r i f t would be recognized as a community and individual asset, and the total collapse of economic independence would be averted where some vestige of it remains, by awarding relief on the basis of current need and income, not withholding it because of a family's possession of limited assets, such as partial or complete home-ownership, which cannot be converted into ready cash in an emergency without great loss, if at all. Similarly, where a family holds insurance in a limited amount, calculated to meet the contingency of death and burial, the relief allowance would not be reduced on account of the present cash value of such insurance. N o t only is this reserve valuable as a protection of the community against the same contingent expense; it is o f t e n also the family's last material symbol of economic selfmaintenance, and as such is worth f a r more to the community in the long run than its present cash value. I t is at such points as this that our defense of the spiritual forces of our stricken neighbors can be powerfully maintained, without adding substantially to the community's total burden.

62

Public Weifart

3 . Relief f o r H o m e l e s s and Detached Individuals. Some thousands of unemployed men and women are not living in f a m i l y groups, but alone, in single rooms, or with no permanent abode at all. Obviously, they, too, are entitled to adequate help. F o r those who have homes, or f o r whom suitable lodgings can be found, individual relief at home, on the same minimum standard as that allowed to those in f a m i l y groups, is clearly called f o r by prudence and justice. Of the others, many are ill or enfeebled by age, with little prospect of reemployment or satisfactory readjustment in the community. F o r such as these, temporary and spasmodic care, on a disaster level, is not only cruel but ineffective. T h e y should have permanent help in suitable institutions, or better still, through old-age pensions or regular relief allowances in boarding homes or with friends or relatives. F o r a considerable number of the more employable group, though f e w e r than commonly believed, temporary shelter and relief in special institutions must be provided, until, as economic conditions change f r o m season to season and f r o m year to year, they can find their w a y back independently into more or less stable occupation in the community. F o r these, too, something more than bare protection against starvation and death f r o m exposure is called f o r . T o the extent that they find, in their contact with this community service, some understanding of their needs and wants, some appreciation and tolerance of their feelings, and to the extent that their daily life, even in these most barren and limited surroundings, includes some opportunity f o r useful occupation and f o r selfselected activity on any decent level to which they may aspire — j u s t so f a r have we strengthened the inner sources of their future adjustment to an orderly, constructive community membership. 4. F o r m of R e l i e f . Relief in Pennsylvania has taken f o u r f o r m s . T h e largest part, at present, is being paid in f o o d orders, redeemable at retail stores in the neighborhood of

Unemployment

63

the recipient's home, supplemented in cases of extreme need by the provision of fuel, shoes, and clothing. Another relatively small part is being paid in return f o r work, provided by public authorities or private groups, at least a p a r t of this payment being often made in cash. A f u r t h e r and increasing p a r t of relief is being provided through commissaries, sometimes called community food markets, at which all food orders are redeemed. Finally, a portion of unemployment relief is being distributed in cash, chiefly through private agencies but also by some public poor relief authorities. All these forms of unemployment relief have certain advantages, and all involve certain dangers and difficulties. W o r k relief is a desirable part of a sound program. T h e r e is undoubted value in work, especially f o r those to whom enforced idleness means, as it often must, the dulling or entire loss of valuable skills and work habits, the increasing feeling of personal futility and failure, the diminishing sense of personal responsibility f o r self and family. W o r k relief also may create important material values f o r the community. T w o obstacles have stood in the path of made work as a mode of relief. T h e first is the simple mathematical fact t h a t so long as we propose only to keep people alive, this can be done more easily and with less cost through direct relief than by the difficult organization of a work p r o g r a m . T h e establishment of relief at the level of adequacy which seems wise and feasible would practically eliminate this obstacle. T h r e e days of work per week, paid at the going rate of wages, would probably cost little more than outright adequate relief. T h e second obstacle is the problem of finding enough work tasks f o r those now unemployed, without seriously impairing the economic security of those still employed in the open market. T h e r e would be little gain in employing the idle, if thereby we threw others into idleness. F u r t h e r m o r e , these tasks must be diversified, t o accommodate the various abilities

64

Public

Welfare

and interests of the workers. T h e y must be accessible, through wide distribution, yet they must be in as large units as possible, f o r effective and inexpensive supervision. T h e y must have a proportionately high labor content, so t h a t funds may not be too largely spent for materials. T h e y must be little affected by inclement weather, out of regard both for poorly clad workers and f o r the permanence of the work itself. In small communities many of these requirements can be fairly readily met. In a great city like Philadelphia, viewed as a whole, they are practically unattainable, except possibly through a huge public works program, planned carefully in advance and cautiously adjusted to the whole economic situation. T h i s is, for the present, out of the question. Practically, therefore, work relief here and now must be regarded as a supplementary measure, not a main reliance, and chiefly applicable to those whose skills do not unduly compete with the skills of workers now engaged in industry, and for whom tasks not primarily involving mechanical labor may be discovered or devised. Food orders provided a bare subsistence, but obviously they do not meet all the other essential needs, the burden of which must t h e r e f o r e be borne in other ways by individuals and groups, to whom the community as a whole thus unjustly transfers a p a r t of its own responsibility. Landlords, corner merchants, doctors, sorely pressed neighbors, through credit and other aid, carry a load f a r beyond their proper share of the community's total relief provision. At the same time the community is thus tolerating and encouraging the deliberate avoidance by its beneficiaries of obligations which they recognize as just and proper. Even within the n a r r o w limits of a bare subsistence budget, the flexible use of funds by recipients to meet actual total needs would have enormous moral value, and probably some material advantage as well. T h e food market, or commissary, has two possible advantages over the food-order system. It provides f o r mini-

Unemployment

65

m u m f o o d needs at less financial cost, and it insures the provision of a better balanced and m o r e nutritious diet t h a n w o u l d o f t e n be p u r c h a s e d by beneficiaries u n d e r t h e f o o d o r d e r plan. Its economy of o p e r a t i o n is at least p a r t l y counterbalanced, however, by the necessarily high cost of organiz a t i o n and administration, and by t h e f u r t h e r f a c t t h a t such public exhibitions of relief-giving tend to stimulate d e m a n d s n o t wholly justified by reasonable s t a n d a r d s of eligibility and need, while d e t e r r i n g m o r e sensitive a n d needy citizens f r o m seeking help b e f o r e it is t o o late to r e p a i r w i t h o u t g r e a t cost the broken f r a m e w o r k of their lives. I t s value in t h e protection of physical health depends u p o n the actual consumption in the home of the entire c a r e f u l l y balanced r a t i o n dispensed at the m a r k e t , an end by no m e a n s certain to be achieved. I t s d i s a d v a n t a g e s are many and i m p o r t a n t . I t is necessarily s o m e w h a t inflexible, insensitive to vital differences of need a m o n g individuals and between race a n d nationality g r o u p s ; it is relatively heedless of those likes a n d dislikes, habits and attitudes, which cannot be wholly d i s r e g a r d e d even in choosing a diet f o r h e a l t h f u l n e s s . I t subjects innocent citizens to cruel public humiliation, to unnecessary travel and trouble. I t t h r u s t s our public authorities into business on a huge scale, and w i t h o u t due r e g a r d f o r the possible effect of this revolut i o n a r y step upon the whole fabric of retail t r a d e , a l r e a d y severely t h r e a t e n e d by the depression a n d b u r d e n e d by credit and service which n e i g h b o r h o o d m e r c h a n t s h a v e extended to unemployed citizens while the c o m m u n i t y slowly and reluct a n t l y mobilized its assistance. T h e decisive consideration, h o w e v e r , is t h a t the ends of h e a l t h and economy, if gained, are p u r c h a s e d at costs beyond t h e i r w o r t h . W e should n o t violate in this gross f a s h i o n the p e r s o n a l f r e e d o m and dignity of those w h o h a v e committed no offense and w h o are defenseless t h r o u g h no p e r s o n a l f a u l t ; we should not p r o p e r l y o r safely impose a dictation upon

66

Public

Welfare

them, in the name of economy or health, which we are unwilling or unable to impose upon ourselves. Cash relief to families and individuals with whom reasonably continuous contact can be maintained seems the most satisfactory and constructive f o r m of unemployment relief. I t is the only f o r m which sustains the integrity of the recipient and capitalizes f o r the long-time benefit of the community his sense of responsibility and his capacity to make a little go a long way. So long as we are concerned only with keeping people alive, regardless of what life may mean to them in the absence of the least right of self-determination, and regardless of the social feelings and attitudes which such absence invites, this consideration may seem unimportant. But as soon as the community undertakes to carry the whole proper burden and to meet the minimum true need of its unemployed citizens, its help should be granted in such a way as to permit the flexible and responsible use of it by the beneficiaries. T h e r e will be occasional indiscretions and wastes, it is true, in the use of cash relief. T h e r e are such losses now, t h r o u g h collusion and ignorance. But the gains in the spirit of cooperation, in candid acceptance and discharge of all responsibilities, on a planned and self-respecting, though partial, basis, will amply compensate for occasional mistakes. Barter, as a means of affording work outlets on a self-respecting, morale-building basis, f o r some of those unemployed, and as a lever to lift some what the present intolerably low level of physical and spiritual existence, may prove in this crisis a highly important instrument. I t cannot be r e g a r d e d in any sense as a substitute f o r community relief in other forms. I t is valuable as a means of bringing idle hands into touch with idle capital and machinery, especially within those areas where exchange of goods and services can fairly easily develop out of the active efforts of the unemployed themselves. T h e difficulties confronting such an effort on a large

Unemployment

67

scale in a g r e a t metropolitan city a r e enormous, but their possible values w a r r a n t serious experiments, under the leadership and with the help of responsible g r o u p s in the community, including such agencies as the C h a m b e r of C o m m e r c e and the F e d e r a t i o n of L a b o r . It is important that these efforts be totally divorced f r o m relief administration and conducted only with surplus funds not required f o r direct relief. I f so o r g a n i z e d , barter experiments may p r o v e a f r u i t f u l field f o r cultivation and assistance by city, state o r national governments, especially, perhaps, the Reconstruction Finance C o r poration. 5. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of R e l i e f . G o v e r n m e n t has accepted, under pressure of necessity, the chief responsibility f o r providing and administering relief. T h i s is not wholly new. U n t i l recently the local government has been chiefly concerned with the task of caring f o r those in need. E v e n b e f o r e the present emergency, however, the state h a d actively intervened, with financial aid and especially with supervision, h a v i n g taken practically complete responsibility f o r the mentally ill and d e f e c t i v e , a l a r g e share in the support of w i d o w e d mothers and of the sick, and increasing protection of dependent children and other groups. Still more recently the f e d e r a l government, t h r o u g h financial subsidies, research and education, has shown increasing concern f o r the adequate treatment of many social problems, such as the rehabilitation of w o r k m e n inj u r e d in industry and the protection of m o t h e r s and infants. In the present crisis it w a s inevitable as well as logical that the l a r g e r units of government should steadily expand their functions, as the resources of local units declined. T o d a y , two-thirds of all current funds expended f o r unemployment relief in Philadelphia are drawn f r o m the f e d e r a l treasury. T h e need f o r sound organization f o r effective cooperation between all three branches of government is obvious. T h e locality should be effectively o r g a n i z e d f o r the direct administration of relief. T h e first requisite is a suitable social

68

Public

Welfare

w o r k personnel, adequate in numbers and competence, preferably trained intensively for a least a short period in advance of appointment, and continuously t h e r e a f t e r , especially t h r o u g h highly competent supervision, supplemented by staff conference and discussion. T h e state, f r o m which should emanate general policies, should establish and enforce reasonable minimum standards and procedures in the interest of economy, efficiency, and sound social service, and should equalize burdens and resources among the local communities on the basis of reasonable objective criteria of need. T h e federal government, in addition to the continuous investigation and study of conditions throughout the country, f o r the purpose of equalizing through its own funds the burden of relief borne by the different states, in proportion to available resources, and for the f u r t h e r purpose of establishing and maintaining sound standards in the administration of such funds, should accept the special function of providing adequate care and treatment of the increasing army of transient and homeless individuals and families set a d r i f t by present economic dislocations. Some permanent provision f o r the proper handling of this problem, preferably by direct federal action, or by special grants to the states, should be one of the gains made in the present emergency. Certain clear principles govern the organization and operation of all three branches of service alike. In each an independent board should have administrative authority in this field, probably associated with that department or bureau primarily concerned with other social welfare studies and activities, but autonomous within its own province. It should be composed of citizens especially qualified by experience, representative of informed, progressive opinion in this field, and not otherwise employed in the public service. T h e boards local, state, and national must, of course, be utterly divorced f r o m politics or f r o m partisan influence. Each should delegate

Unemployment

69

r e s p o n s i b l e executive l e a d e r s h i p t o a g e n e r a l d i r e c t o r , t h o r o u g h l y qualified by t r a i n i n g a n d e x p e r i e n c e in social w o r k , w h o s h o u l d be assisted by an a d e q u a t e staff of office a n d field a s s i s t a n t s , chosen w h o l l y f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l qualifications, a n d a b s o l u t e l y p r o t e c t e d a g a i n s t political i n t e r f e r e n c e o r r e m o v a l . U n e m p l o y m e n t relief is b u t one a s p e c t of t h e age-old p r o b l e m of h e l p i n g individuals a n d f a m i l i e s in n e e d , h i s t o r i c a l l y k n o w n as p o o r relief, w h o s e l o n g t r a d i t i o n h a s n o t y e t y i e l d e d f u l l y t o t h e d e m a n d s of a c h a n g i n g social o r d e r a n d p h i l o s o p h y . U n t i l this c h a n g e c o m e s t o pass, u n e m p l o y m e n t relief should r e m a i n s e p a r a t e f r o m g e n e r a l p o o r r e l i e f , u n d e r its o w n special a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n , a t p r e s e n t k n o w n in P e n n s y l v a n i a as t h e S t a t e E m e r g e n c y Relief B o a r d , a n d in P h i l a d e l p h i a as the P h i l a d e l p h i a C o u n t y Relief B o a r d . I t is to be h o p e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t o u t of o u r experience in t h i s crisis m a y come an i n c r e a s e d d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o build in e v e r y county a p e r m a n e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n , p e r h a p s a c o u n t y d e p a r t m e n t of w e l f a r e , which shall c a r r y on in t h e w h o l e field of public relief a n d w e l f a r e t h e t r a d i t i o n of c o m p e t e n t , d i s i n t e r e s t e d , and n o n p a r t i s a n service w h i c h bids f a i r t o g r o w o u t of this u n e m p l o y m e n t - r e l i e f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The Place of Private Agencies. W h e r e , in this p i c t u r e of c o m p r e h e n s i v e public service, is t h e place r e s e r v e d f o r t h o s e p r i v a t e p h i l a n t h r o p i s t s and agencies w h o h a v e so l o n g h e l d t h e f r o n t lines while o u r public r e s e r v e s w e r e slowly b e i n g mobilized ? I f t h e y a r e f r e e d f r o m t h e impossible b u r d e n of c a r r y i n g t h e c o m m u n i t y ' s w h o l e relief responsibility, t h e y can p e r f o r m t h e i r o w n logical f u n c t i o n s with c l e a r e r vision a n d intensified p o w e r . F i r s t , t h e y will e x p l o r e t h e causes a n d discover n e w m e t h o d s of t r e a t m e n t of needs a n d p r o b l e m s t h a t c o m p l i c a t e all f o r m s of economic disability. T h e intensive a p p l i c a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l i z e d study a n d t r e a t m e n t to t h e s e p e r s o n a l needs, r e q u i r e d a flexibility n o t r e a d i l y d e v e l o p e d in a public agency, l i m i t e d by u n i f o r m rules of eligibility a n d p r o c e d u r e , o f f e r s

70

Public

Welfare

a wide field f o r the indefinite f u t u r e . Second, experimentation and pathfinding in the handling of less specialized problems, a n d the testing of m e t h o d s applicable to the general services of a public agency, will lay the f o u n d a t i o n of f u r t h e r steady progress. T h i r d , in the field of relief itself, they will give supplementary help a m o n g families in which economic security on a minimum level is not sufficient to sustain a d e q u a t e social a d j u s t m e n t — f a m i l i e s , f o r instance, in which their whole culture a n d status in their g r o u p requires specific expenditures not generally deemed essential; families in which health f a c t o r s require special attention, or w h e r e special educational o p p o r t u n i t y may release g i f t s of real consequence to the individual and the community. Finally, t h e r e will be t h a t w a t c h f u l a n d helpful cooperation with public authorities which stimulates b o t h private thinking and public planning in the social field. Sources of Funds. T h i s p r o g r a m of relief obviously depends upon the provision of increased f u n d s . F r o m w h a t sources can they be d e r i v e d ? T h e r e is but one source, at present, f r o m which the g r e a t bulk of relief f u n d s can be p r o v i d e d , namely the f e d e r a l government. T h e continuation of f e d e r a l appropriations, on a larger scale than ever, is indispensable and inevitable. F u r t h e r m o r e , they should be definite grants, n o t loans, and should be distributed on the basis of objective criteria of need a m o n g all the states. A m o n g the decisive reasons f o r imposing the g r e a t e r p a r t of the burden u p o n the f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t a r e these t w o : I t s b o r r o w i n g p o w e r is still entirely adequate to meet t h e need, while most local governments and many states, including our own, have reached or nearly a p p r o a c h e d t h e limit of their b o r r o w i n g capacity under constitutional restrictions or otherwise. T h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t also has the a d v a n t a g e of an established g r a d u a t e d income-tax system, which distributes the b u r d e n of carrying and paying this debt w h e r e it can be most readily borne, without imposing undue restric-

Unemployment

71

t i o n s upon business r e c o v e r y . R e a l and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , the m a i n sources of local g o v e r n m e n t a l r e v e n u e s , a r e uncert a i n , o f t e n u n f a i r , a n d at p r e s e n t t o t a l l y i n a d e q u a t e b a s e s o f t a x a t i o n . G e n e r a l sales taxes, w h i c h tend to r e s t r i c t p u r c h a s e s j u s t w h e n expansion of business is m o s t n e e d e d , a n d w h i c h b e a r with undue s e v e r i t y upon the r e l a t i v e l y inpecunious t a x p a y e r , a r e not soundly a d a p t e d to the p r e s e n t p u r p o s e . T h e state should c a r r y a substantial p a r t o f the b u r d e n , a n d will doubtless be c o m p e l l e d to d o so, if it is to receive its s h a r e of f e d e r a l f u n d s . S u b s t a n t i a l increases in the h i g h e r b r a c k e t s of the inheritance tax, sound economies in g e n e r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and the continuance o f e m e r g e n c y t a x a t i o n , including the sales t a x if n e c e s s a r y , coupled w i t h the possible use o f some surplus f u n d s e a r m a r k e d by p r e s e n t l a w f o r special p u r p o s e , m a y meet the s t a t e ' s m i n i m u m o b l i g a t i o n , as the basis o f f e d e r a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n s . T h i s sum r e q u i r e d m a y r e a c h w e l l b e y o n d $ 8 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 f o r the c o m i n g biennium. F o r the f u t u r e , h o w e v e r , P e n n s y l v a n i a s h o u l d place itself p r o m p t l y , by constitutional a m e n d m e n t , in a position to imp o s e a g r a d u a t e d income tax, so that it m a y be r e a d y to t a k e up the p e r m a n e n t burden when the n a t i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t l a y s it d o w n a f t e r the e m e r g e n c y . T h e local community s h o u l d accept a f a i r s h a r e o f the burden, if f o r no o t h e r r e a s o n than to insure a f u l l sense o f responsibility f o r c a r e f u l and economical a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n d a l i v e l y a p p r e c i a t i o n o f the p r a c t i c a l p r o b l e m s i n v o l v e d . I t is u n f o r t u n a t e t h a t P h i l a d e l p h i a ' s financial p l i g h t at this moment a p p a r e n t l y precludes the d i s c h a r g e of this p r o p e r oblig a t i o n in f u l l . T h e decisive consideration at the moment, h o w e v e r , is the i m p e r a t i v e need f o r a d d i t i o n a l f u n d s . A n y p r o d u c t i v e t a x , i m p o s e d by any t a x i n g a u t h o r i t y , is b e t t e r than n o n e . T h e use o f g o v e r n m e n t credit f o r this p u r p o s e , w h e t h e r b y nation, s t a t e , o r locality, in any a m o u n t indispensably r e q u i r e d , is justified if t a x r e v e n u e s d o n o t suffice. C a r e f u l l y p l a n n e d ex-

72

Public

Welfare

periments in the use o f self-liquidating scrip, as a t e m p o r a r y substitute f o r cash funds in the p a y m e n t o f at l e a s t s o m e p o r tions o f r e l i e f , deserve c a r e f u l consideration, if all o t h e r sources p r o v e inadequate.

I I . Public

Works

O f t e n confused with r e l i e f , especially w o r k r e l i e f , but essentially distinct f r o m it and r e q u i r i n g its own c a r e f u l o r g a n i zation and administration, is the p r o g r a m o f e x p a n d e d public works in a p e r i o d o f economic depression. A s i d e f r o m its importance as a device f o r s t a b i l i z i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g n o r m a l business, it has a definite value as a m e a n s o f providing employment f o r a p a r t o f those t h r o w n out o f w o r k by the decline o f p r i v a t e undertakings. I t has been carefully e s t i m a t e d , on the basis o f extensive studies o f actual necessary expenditures by local, state, and f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t s o v e r e x t e n d e d periods, t h a t by the advance planning o f n o r m a l construction needs and by t h e t h o u g h t f u l timing o f activities and required expenditures, so t h a t the volume o f public construction m a y v a r y inversely with the volume o f p r i v a t e construction, a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 0 per cent o f those who a r e unemployed in a city like P h i l a d e l phia could h a v e been furnished employment in such p r o j e c t s . T h r e e conditions are prerequisites f o r the successful operation o f such a plan, none o f which h a v e existed in the present emergency. F i r s t , there must be really l o n g - r a n g e planning. Public w o r k s p r o j e c t s cannot be improvised in a crisis without g r e a t waste and delay f a t a l to their effectiveness f o r the purpose under discussion. N o t only should the m a i n items o f such a p r o g r a m be d e t e r m i n e d in advance, but the actual engineering and business details should be a d v a n c e d just as f a r as possible to the point w h e r e , when the need arises, operations can begin. T o this end public w o r k s construction and p r e p a r a t i o n , in each unit o f g o v e r n m e n t , should be central-

Unemployment

Ti

ized u n d e r the direct supervision of a single a d e q u a t e l y equipped a u t h o r i t y . Second, t h e r e must be a d v a n c e provision of m e a n s f o r financing p r o j e c t s when u n d e r t a k e n . T h e m o s t s a t i s f a c t o r y m e t h o d of m a k i n g this provision is by the r e s e r v a t i o n of borr o w i n g p o w e r . I f , in times of p r o s p e r i t y , the indebtedness of g o v e r n m e n t a l units shall be r e d u c e d , t h r o u g h the imposition of a d e q u a t e taxes, which will n o t at such times unduly b u r d e n the t a x p a y e r or r e t a r d business, t h e g o v e r n m e n t will be able t o b o r r o w on f a v o r a b l e t e r m s in times of emergency, to pay the cost of necessary and serviceable public w o r k s . T h i r d , a u t h o r i t y t o d e t e r m i n e the timing of the execution of the items of the long-range p r o g r a m m u s t be concentrated in t h e h a n d s of a c o m p e t e n t , nonpolitical executive agency. U n d e r o u r system of legislative r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , the t e m p t a tion t o expend available f u n d s f o r benefits to local constituencies, t h a t can be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e energy and influence of political representatives, is a l m o s t irresistible. U n d e r this " l o g - r o l l i n g " or " p o r k - b a r r e l " system, long-range, planning is h a m p e r e d ; u s e f u l distribution of public w o r k s according to need, either f r o m t h e long-range o r the emergency point of view, is impossible; t i m i n g of p r o j e c t s to meet the swing of economic activities is effectually p r e v e n t e d , and only by chance can the financial r e s e r v e s f o r a flexible p r o g r a m of construction be assured. I t is absolutely essential t o this whole p r o g r a m , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the legislative body, in city, state, and nation, shall d e l e g a t e t o a responsible executive b o a r d its u l t i m a t e p o w e r t o d e t e r m i n e the timing of these projects, while r e s e r v i n g to itself the decision as to the extent and content of the p r o g r a m as a whole.

III. Unemployment

Reserves

But all f o r m s of relief so f a r r e f e r r e d t o are at best relatively p o o r substitutes f o r continuity of income, based on

74

Public

Welfare

service, which is the essential condition of economic and social security f o r the individual and of stable economic activity f o r the community. T h e s e conditions can be much m o r e nearly realized through unemployment reserves t h a n by any other means. I t is now too late f o r us to reap the benefit of such reserves in the present emergency, but we shall begin now to make provision f o r the f u t u r e . W e have passed beyond the time when it is necessary to argue at length in behalf of this reasonable protection of the human f a c t o r in industry, as we customarily p r o t e c t plant, machinery, and invested capital against the depreciation consequent upon enforced idleness. Significant experiments have been m a d e by a number of individuals and corporations in America, not only indicative of a wider sense of the social responsibility of industry but also immensely instructive in clarifying all the problems involved. T h e continuance and expansion of these experiments in voluntary unemployment reserves will contribute f u r t h e r to public knowledge and interest, and will add directly to the security and well-being of increased numbers of persons engaged in industry. But it is obvious t h a t these isolated and p a r t i a l voluntary efforts, at the present or prospective r a t e of progress, cannot adequately meet the problem. N o t only to they cover merely scattered f r a g m e n t s of the field of industrial employment, while the whole area should be equally p r o t e c t e d ; they are themselves somewhat limited and t h r e a t e n e d by competition in the open m a r k e t with concerns t h a t do not w i t h d r a w any p a r t of the working capital and profits f o r this social use. W h a t is needed, to m a k e the unemployment-reserve principle effective, is its adoption and operation over the total economic area within which it can be feasibly administered. T h i s can best be achieved by compulsory establishment of unemployment reserves, under government sanction and

Unemployment

75

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , w i t h basic r e q u i r e m e n t s g u a r a n t e e i n g certain minimums of p r o t e c t i o n and service, but w i t h sufficient flexibility to be a d a p t a b l e to the special conditions of d i f f e r e n t industries and sections. I t w o u l d p r o b a b l y be wise, if it w e r e p r a c t i c a l l y possible, to exercise the p o w e r o f the f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t to this end, since economic competition is in the n a t i o n a l a r e n a , and o n l y action o v e r that w i d e a r e a can w h o l l y e q u a l i z e the conditions of t h a t competition. B u t it is g e n e r a l l y conceded t h a t the f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t , u n d e r existing constitutional restrictions, cannot take the f u l l responsibility. F o r the present, a t least, w e must look to the states, under their b r o a d police p o w e r , f o r initiative. W h i l e the difficulties o f d e t e r m i n i n g the d e t a i l s o f an equitable plan are e n o r m o u s , they a r e not insuperable, if w e b e a r in mind certain f u n d a m e n t a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s : ( ι ) T h e s e p u r e l y industrial r e s e r v e s should only be e x p e c t e d to m i t i g a t e the shock of u n e m p l o y m e n t f o r a limited p e r i o d , b e y o n d which the burden necessarily becomes a social one, to be b o r n e by the community as a w h o l e , t h r o u g h s e p a r a t e relief f u n d s d e r i v e d chiefly f r o m t a x a t i o n and a d m i n i s t e r e d on principles w e h a v e a l r e a d y outlined. ( 2 ) A plan f o r r e s e r v e s must b e so d e v i s e d as to g i v e industrial m a n a g e m e n t inducement t o p r e v e n t u n e m p l o y m e n t , but must not unduly p e n a l i z e industries e n t r a p p e d in circumstances b e y o n d i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r o l tending to produce a b n o r m a l l y w i d e fluctuations. ( 3 ) T h e w o r k e r must be p r o v i d e d w i t h e v e r y incentive to seek reemp l o y m e n t and to reestablish p e r m a n e n t e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y . R e a s o n a b l e mobility of l a b o r w i t h o u t loss o f benefit m u s t t h e r e f o r e be p e r m i t t e d . ( 4 ) Security, i m p a r t i a l i t y , and efficiency in a d m i n i s t r a t i o n must be g u a r a n t e e d f r o m the begining, b y wise exercise of state a u t h o r i t y , but g r o w t h a n d c h a n g e , in the light of experience, must a l s o b e a n t i c i p a t e d , and suitable a d m i n i s t r a t i v e flexibility p r o v i d e d in a d v a n c e .

76

Public

Welfare

( 5 ) Room must be left f o r voluntary experimentation by employers, but subject to certain standards adequately protected by governmental inspection and supervision. Pooled statewide reserves, administered by the state, are generally favored by students of the problem, in preference to separate reserves of particular industries or groups of industries. Such pooling of reserves increases the security of the protection by spreading the burden; it permits greater mobility of labor f r o m section to section and f r o m trade to t r a d e ; it reduces administrative costs. H o w e v e r , we clearly recognize the ready adaptability of the individual plant reserves to American conditions. As between those two methods there is no necessity for a dogmatic attitude. Either should be encouraged in states where there is a chance of immediate success. If the system of pooled reserves is adopted, however, there must be some method of merit rating, in o r d e r that efficient, social-minded management, resulting in stabilization of employment, may be encouraged and rewarded, and the contrary may be discouraged and penalized. I t is probable that in Pennsylvania some provision must be m a d e for certain separate classifications in special industries in order that the special h a z a r d s and handicaps they face in competition may not be intensified, and that the excessive burdens of unemployment which these conditions impose upon the state may be equitably borne. W h i l e it may be logically contended t h a t in the long run industry and the consumer should carry the whole burden, there are sound practical reasons f o r asking employes to make a contribution to the fund, at least at its beginning. On this basis the fund will accumulate m o r e rapidly than it would do under any conceivably feasible contributions by employers alone. T h e s e larger funds will permit increased amounts and longer duration of benefits available. Above all, perhaps, the contributory plan will insure, t h r o u g h the culti-

Unemployment

77

vation of an attitude of p a r t n e r s h i p and joint responsibility, a f a i r and c a r e f u l administration, under the w a t c h f u l eye of both parties. Contributions by e m p l o y e r and employe, respectively, of about 2 per cent and ι per cent of the p a y r o l l , it is estimated, w o u l d establish a f u n d a d e q u a t e to b e a r the anticipated burden f a l l i n g upon it. T h e essential conditions of eligibility and extent of benefit in any state must be subject to m o r e t h o r o u g h studies of the special conditions in that state, such as the State C o m m i t t e e on W o r k e r s ' Security will doubtless r e p o r t . C e r t a i n elements can, h o w e v e r , be predicted in g e n e r a l terms. A r e a s o n a b l e length of service in a given employment will be a requisite f o r participation in the benefits. C e r t a i n g r o u p s of w o r k e r s , at least at the beginning, will p r o b a b l y h a v e to be excluded entirely, owing to the difficulty and expense of administration, such as domestic servants, casual l a b o r e r s , and p r o b a b l y agricultural w o r k e r s . A reasonable w a i t i n g p e r i o d , of t w o or three weeks of total unemployment o r f o u r to six weeks of partial unemployment, between s t o p p a g e of w o r k and payment of benefit, can be justifiably established, both f o r administrative reasons and as a r e a s o n a b l e inducement f o r personal effort p r o m p t l y to obtain r e e m p l o y m e n t . Obviously voluntary w i t h d r a w a l f r o m employment, either by individual or collective action, cannot be compensated by p a y m e n t s f r o m these reserves, but others unemployed must not be compelled to accept p r o f f e r e d w o r k in a plant w h e r e industrial conflict has caused v o l u n t a r y w i t h d r a w a l . Benefits should be r o u g h l y proportionate to length of service and to a v e r a g e weekly earnings, the weekly benefit being equal to a half to twothirds of the weekly w a g e , over a period r a n g i n g f r o m three to six months according to length of p r e v i o u s employment, up to a reasonable maximum. T h e r e must be adequate public machinery f o r determining eligibility and to insure f a i r and impartial protection of all interests in d o u b t f u l cases. W h i l e the conditions of eligibility, c o v e r a g e , and extent of

78

Public Welfare

benefit must depend upon the rate of accumulation of the fund, if it is to remain solvent, in determining the rate of contribution consideration should be given to the obvious f a c t that the wider and more extensive the protection, the more fully will the values of the reserve principle be realized, in its promotion of the w e l f a r e of both individual and community. T h e custody and administration of the f u n d should be in the hands of an independent state commission, closely related to the public employment service, with its widely distributed facilities f o r registration of the unemployed and f o r the discovery of potential opportunities f o r w o r k . I t should also be in close contact with the employment statistical service and with other authorities in contact with employers and w o r k e r s . I t should t h e r e f o r e presumably be associated with, but not an autonomous p a r t o f , the Department of L a b o r and Industry of the State. W e suggest that the present legislature establish the general f r a m e w o r k of principles and organization along these lines, creating the permanent state commission, to lay the foundation of administration machinery, but d e f e r r i n g the operation of the plan itself until 1 9 3 5 , allowing the administrative commission the intervening time to gather the data upon which the detail of the p r o g r a m can be definitely confirmed at the next legislative session. T h o u g h the state must take this initial and main responsibility, the f e d e r a l government has a highly important function to discharge at once. B y the extension of the present income-tax exemptions allowed f o r corporate contributions to unemployment reserve funds, it can effectually remove whatever u n f a v o r a b l e handicap is borne in national competition by employers in states that have accepted this social p r o g r a m . A f u r t h e r important role awaits the f e d e r a l government in its active leadership and participation in an integrated federal-state employment exchange service.

Unemployment

79

Unemployment is only one of the potentially insurable h a z a r d s to which workers in modern life are exposed, and whose possible consequences involve large social costs. So f a r as we can systematically provide reserves against contingent costs of all these hazards—such as illness, the disabilities of old age, the costs and perils of maternity, perhaps, ultimately, of widowhood—just so f a r have we strengthened the total security of the individual and, therefore, the welfare of the community. T h e satisfactory introduction and operation of unemployment or any other social insurance depends in considerable measure upon the development alongside of it of adequate provision f o r equally certain relief of those who are not eligible f o r this protection f r o m industrial reserves, or whose claim to its benefit has expired. Industrial reserves and relief must be so related to each other as to permit the prompt and easy movement of individuals, according to their changing circumstances, f r o m the protection of one to the care of the other, without delay or loss. And beyond both, through the promotion of cooperation with private social agencies supplemental relief should be readily available to those who need it. W i t h o u t these protections against the pressure of excessive relief needs upon the limited resources of the reserve funds, the value of the insurance principle and its preservation under special strain, may easily be sacrificed.

IV. Public Employment Exchanges Public employment agencies play their p a r t in the treatment of unemployment at very important points. T h e y are centers of information as to the supply and demand of labor, both in the local community and elsewhere, and can therefore reduce the duration of unemployment for the individual and eliminate useless and costly travel in search of work. T h e y are a ready means of registration of the unemployed, which, with

80

Public

Welfare

the introduction o f unemployment insurance, can be a l m o s t complete. T h e y constitute the logical basic m e c h a n i s m f o r effective administration o f unemployment insurance, by affording the means o f offering the a l t e r n a t i v e o f a p p r o p r i a t e w o r k , b e f o r e the individual becomes entitled t o insurance benefits. T h r o u g h expert knowledge o f a d a p t a b l e skills and study o f occupational trends, they can assist in the r e p l a c e m e n t and guide the r e t r a i n i n g o f w o r k e r s displaced by t e c h n o l o g i c a l changes, o r by r e m o v a l , decline, o r d e a t h o f p a r t i c u l a r industries, and also help in p r o m o t i n g effective v o c a t i o n a l guidance and training in the public schools. T h e y can c o o p e r a t e with public works and w o r k - r e l i e f agencies in the selection and ref e r r a l o f w o r k e r s competent to serve in p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t s . F i n a l l y , they m a y be a p o w e r f u l f o r c e in sustaining the m o r a l e o f the unemployed person, by affording one a p p r o p r i a t e spot where he, as an individual person, has a p e r f e c t r i g h t to be, and w h e r e he can v e r i f y o r correct his own limited o r dist o r t e d impression o f the situation which engulfs him. Obviously employment agencies cannot m a n u f a c t u r e j o b s where none exist, n o r can they render their m o s t valuable services in an emergency unless they a r e p r e p a r e d by successful operation in n o r m a l times to have the confidence o f employer and w o r k e r , t o have accumulated data and experience concerning employment problems and trends, and t o acquire the o r g a n i z a t i o n and the special skills f o r dealing with b o t h employer and w o r k e r on an individual, understanding basis, with sound vocational guidance going hand in h a n d with placement. T h e upbuilding o f a nationwide system o f adequately equipped employment offices is one of the i m p e r a t i v e needs o f the immediate future in A m e r i c a . T o t h a t end it is i m p o r t a n t t h a t concerted efforts be renewed t o found such a system, under state direction, with f e d e r a l c o o p e r a t i o n and support directed to coordination, s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n , r e g i o n a l service, u n i f o r m statistical reports, a l o n g with suggestive experimentation.

Unemployment

81

While such a complete public employment exchange system is the ideal toward which we must strive, private commercial agencies will long survive. W e must therefore protect t h a t service against the possible corruption and waste which have sometimes marked its operations, by strengthening the license laws, giving the state adequate authority to set standards and to refuse and revoke licenses, in creasing the bond required as assurance of faithful performance of function. Nonprofit-making employment bureaus, conducted under the responsible auspices of business and professional associations, can serve a useful end in specialized fields, where training, research, and experimentation need to be emphasized. It should be an important p a r t of the task of the public agency to assist in the development of useful mutual relationships among these agencies and to integrate their services with the more general ones of the public agency. N o statement of the problem of vocational guidance and placement as a factor in the treatment of unemployment would be complete without emphatic reference to the need, vital in times of economic stress, f o r the continued exercise and advancement of special skills which may otherwise waste utterly away through disuse. T h e loss of earning power is by no means negligible. Fully as important is the spiritual wound it may leave, in the frustration of cherished interests and hopes. Centers of voluntary occupation, training, and retraining for the cultivation of vocational and avocational skills, with adequate provision for personal counseling and f o r individual help in finding a market f o r special abilities, are a valuable link in the chain of services t h a t should be open to the unemployed in time of depression as in normal times.

V. Unemployment Statistics It is clear that all these activities, if they are to be timed and adjusted to current needs, depend upon the systematic

82

Public

Welfare

collection and dissemination of dependable facts about unemployment. It is plain that the statistics must be : ( ι ) current, that is, gathered quickly enough and at short enough intervals to reflect rapidly changing conditions. ( 2 ) accurate, ( 3 ) comprehensive, that is, covering the largest possible portion of the total employment area, both geographical and occupational, (4) continuous and cumulative, giving a sound basis of comparison from time to time and from place to place, in order that emerging trends may be promptly identified; ( 5 ) promptly available in order that appropriate action may follow directly upon observed needs. Philadelphia is peculiarly fortunate in the quality of the statistical service devoted to this problem. Through the Federal Reserve Bank we have dependable monthly and cumulative figures covering employment facts on a thoroughly representative basis in substantially four-fifths of all the different occupational fields in this state. Through the Industrial Research Department of the W h a r t o n School of Commerce of the University of Pennsylvania, we have the results of careful periodic surveys of actual unemployment in a large number of typical Philadelphia districts, from which fairly reliable conclusions can be drawn as to the total volume and character of unemployment in the city. Together these surveys of employment and unemployment afford a reasonably satisfactory index of the whole situation, although there remains a certain margin of unavoidable error. Until some form of unemployment insurance requires the registration of all the unemployed, we must continue to rely upon the voluntary cooperation of reporting firms, supplemented and checked by periodic censuses and surveys to prevent the accumulation of error. T h e present need is for the extension of such services over a steadily widening area. Since, under any plan of long-time treatment of unemployment, the federal government must carry certain financial and administrative responsibilities which are dependent upon

Unemployment

83

definite knowledge of conditions throughout the country, it is essential that it shall establish a clearing center f o r employment data on a nationwide scale. T h e Bureau of L a b o r Statistics, in the federal D e p a r t m e n t of L a b o r , has recently been empowered by Congress to gather comprehensive statistics, though it has not received an appropriation adequate f o r this purpose. It is imperative that such an appropriation be granted at the earliest possible moment, and t h a t under trained and skilled leadership, with adequate competent staff, the Bureau seek to meet the full needs of the situation. In that event it is to be expected that the services and results of satisfactory private and public agencies, wherever they exist, will be fully utilized and not duplicated, but t h a t the Bureau itself shall have the initiative to fill in the gaps where no adequate service is now available. In the absence of such complete data, even f o r our own state as a whole, on which correct estimates of unemployment, f o r the purpose of allocating relief funds, can be based, it is highly desirable if not essential to undertake at once a complete census of unemployment in Pennsylvania urban areas. Such a census at this time could be used as an unemployment work-relief project. T h e r e are large numbers of capable, well-trained clerical and professional workers out of work and in dire need, to whom such a project offers, along with its material compensation, the important value of constructive public service in which their own skills are appreciated and used. T h i s is one point at which so-called " m a d e work" can be introduced without serious difficulty or excessive cost, without any potential interference with normal economic processes, and with enormous practical advantage to the community. T h e one necessary condition f o r the success of such a project is, of course, its total divorce f r o m politics. T h e selection of a director f o r the entire state, equipped by special experience in the conduct of such surveys and empowered to appoint

Public

84

Welfare

regional assistants, would insure impartial and scientific central administration. T h e director and his assistants would then appoint and briefly train some three thousand local supervisors and enumerators, f r o m among competent unemployed citizens. T h i s force could complete the whole census, we are reliably informed, f o r a total expenditure of not over $ 1 2 5 , 000. Such an investment, to insure equitable distribution of these vast funds, is a measure of true economy. T h e Philadelphia Committee KENNETH L . M . PRAY, Pennsylvania School of Social and Health W o r k ELIZABETH MCCORD, Community Council JACOB BILLIKOPF, T h e Federation of Jewish Charities EWAN CLAGUE, Community Council JOHN W . EDELMAN, American Federation of Full Fashioned Hosiery W o r k e r s ALEXANDER FLEISHER, Philadelphia Child H e a l t h Society H E L E N HALL, University House

DOROTHY C. KAHN, Jewish W e l f a r e Society BETSEY LIBBEY, F a m i l y Society

WILLIAM N . LOUCKS, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania KARL DE SCHWEINITZ, Community Council EMMETT H . WELCH, Industrial Relations Department, University of Pennsylvania JOSEPH H . WILLITS, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania M R S . GEORGE BACON WOOD, Y . W . C . A . , a n d P h i l a d e l p h i a

County Relief B o a r d

T h e Role of Individualized Services In a Public Welfare Program Address delivered at the Minnesota State Conference of Social Work, September IÇJ7 (Not Previously Published)

ONE axiom underlies all constructive discussion of this topic: T h e problems with which any public welfare p r o g r a m is concerned, whatever else they may involve, are always and everywhere the problems of individual human beings. Classify them as we will, the problems are the same, also the people, whether the latter are awaiting thir turn in the corridors of a city hall or a county courthouse, or are filing in and out of the doorway of a private philanthropic society. They have not changed merely because the community as a whole, rather than only a p a r t of the community, has recognized a need, has come to appreciate it as a threat to community wellbeing, and has accepted responsibility f o r doing something about it. A corollary of this simple truth is the fact that the individuality of human beings—arising inevitably f r o m their different personal heritages, their different experiences, their different relationships—necessarily particularizes every problem. Its meaning and importance to the individual, the weight it carries in his total social adjustment, and, therefore, its ultimate meaning and importance to the community as a whole vary. Furthermore, treatment of the problem involves f o r each individual an experience always different in degree and usually different in quality. Hence the effectiveness of that 85

86

Public

Welfare

treatment must depend in large measure upon the particular nature and outcome o f this unique experience. Illustrations of these simple but basic facts abound in daily life, as well as in social work experience. Parents are aware of the difference in the efficacy of punishment as the starting point of permanent change in the behavior of their children— how deeply personal and emotional are the reactions of the one, and how lightly and easily another accepts and assimilates the painful consequences of his own socially unacceptable acts. A wise parent takes these differences into account in dealing with his children's wants and needs. T h e r e are many in this audience who have intimate knowledge of the differences that characterize the reactions of persons who for the first time must accept relief—how deep and lasting may be the wound to self-respect in one, and how quickly and easily the scar may heal in another. W h a t can the uniform, impersonal, perfunctory handing-out of a relief check do, and what can it not do, to the personal and social attitudes of those two different people ? Doctors are aware of the deep, though often outwardly suppressed, emotion that dominates some persons who face for the first time a major surgical operation, in contrast to the cool confidence with which others approach the same ordeal. A wise physician does not leave out of account, even as a factor in physical recovery, this deep psychological element in the patient's problem, although the apparent physical needs may be substantially the same. T h e ease with which family crises are met and conquered in one united household, and the light and fragile character of the family tie in another, make totally different experiences and perils out of the threat or the actuality of family deprivation, separation, or discord. Can the full significance of any policy or action, affecting a family's standard of living, for instance, or the treatment of a deserting father, or the care of a dependent child, be foreseen or assured, in the absence o f a

Individualized

Services

87

recognition of its different meaning to each individual or to each family group? The meaning and value of work in the lives of people range in unaccountable fashion all the way from an ugly, monotonous servitude to physical necessity, up to an exalted satisfaction in creative achievement in even the simplest of occupations. Can a program involving work opportunities or requirements be formulated and applied successfully, in the lives of great masses of persons, if it takes no heed of these differences in its meaning and value to those involved? These are the common elements of a public welfare program—these intimate experiences of human beings in trouble. And these differences are affirmed by common sense, and by the highest of scientific testimony as having fundamental significance in personal and social adjustment. In the light of these vital facts the real problem before us lies not in the appraisal of the fundamental value of the principle of individualization of treatment, as such, wherever it can be practically applied, but rather in determining how it must be qualified and adapted to some of the difficult problems which appear in overwhelming number and intensity from time to time. F or it is easy to forget the individuals that make up the mass of unhappy people who turn to us for help. Indeed, we may be tempted to make a principle out of an expedient, and to clothe mass treatment in the attractive garments of liberty, equality, and democracy. With our unprecedented problem of public relief and assistance, and with our new-born humanitarian zeal for establishing social and economic security for the masses of our population we now confront such a situation. And we are prone to assume that these mass problems must be attacked by mass measures alone, and that disregard of the individuality of people and of the wide diversity of many of the circumstances that govern their lives is now not only permissible but obligatory.

88

Public

Welfare

L e s t t h e r e b e misunderstanding o f this emphasis on t h e individuality o f human problems, and lest its implications be construed t o o generally, may I express at once m y p r o f o u n d conviction o f the reality and vitality o f the influences outside the individual, in shaping the f r a m e w o r k o f his l i f e and in helping to c r e a t e his p r o b l e m s . N o one would deny t h a t t h o s e environmental f o r c e s — t h e defects o f economic and social institutions and the deficiencies o f group l i f e — a r e o f t e n dominating f a c t o r s in bringing people to the need f o r public w e l f a r e service. O f t e n , it is true, some simple means o f meeting an environmental problem affecting many people m a y leave a l a r g e number o f them free and able to m a k e a f a i r l y complete a d j u s t m e n t t o their situations. I e m p h a s i z e h e r e , however, the plain lesson o f experience, t h a t this, too, is an individual, not a class, o r a mass, m a t t e r ; t h a t the r e l a t i v e weight o f a single f a c t o r o f need in a total adjustment and the relative value and satisfying quality o f a single o b j e c t i v e service in a complicated l i f e situation v a r y f r o m individual t o individual; and t h a t a public service which ignores differences in individual need, h o w e v e r little it may be able t o do about any one o f them, is limiting its value to the people it serves and to the community o f which they are a p a r t . B e f o r e examining these new mass problems o f public welf a r e , in an effort to discover how f a r the principle o f individualized service is a p p r o p r i a t e and practicable in their t r e a t m e n t , t h e r e may b e profit in briefly reviewing events and trends in some o f the m o r e f a m i l i a r and m o r e t h o r o u g h l y established branches o f public service f o r individuals. W e shall find in t h a t r e c o r d many o f the same obstacles t o individualized t r e a t m e n t t h a t c o n f r o n t us now, buttressed by many o f the same a r g u m e n t s and interests, but we shall also find a r e c o r d o f continuous p r o g r e s s t o w a r d the integration o f the principle of individualization with w h a t e v e r elements o f mass t r e a t m e n t and classification are essential o r useful.

Individualized

89

Services

T h r e e examples will suffice f o r our present purpose : Public education, public health, and public penal and correctional treatment.

INDIVIDUALIZATION

IN PUBLIC

EDUCATION

A p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 children and young people h a v e returned this week to their desks in A m e r i c a n s c h o o l s — a mass problem if there ever w a s one, reaching into every home in e v e r y town and village in the land. T i m e w a s when the u n g r a d e d school w a s the typical educational agency o v e r a l a r g e p a r t of this country. T i m e w a s when sixty or seventy children f o r each teacher in the public schools w a s the characteristic and accepted s t a n d a r d in all but a f e w extraordin a r y communities. T i m e w a s when day by d a y , hour by hour, f r o m San Francisco, C a l i f o r n i a , to P o r t l a n d , M a i n e , some millions of youngsters of the same age w e r e plodding at the same moment o v e r the same identical p a r a g r a p h in the same textbook, making the same mistakes and p a y i n g the same penalties. T h a t w a s almost unadulterated mass treatment, and it rested on much the same bases as now uphold current p r o p o s a l s to substitute mass and class service in the public assistance field f o r any semblance of individualization. In the first place, the volume of the task, the immense numbers to be p r o v i d e d f o r , seemed to preclude anything more than the rudimentary elements of universal education. T h e cost of this basic service alone, which w a s a relatively new venture in public service and expenditure, seemed almost prohibitive. A n y t h i n g more than this w a s deemed utterly impossible. Second, it w a s generally assumed that the differences in human beings w e r e f a r less important than the likeness of their one common need. E q u a l i t y w a s r e g a r d e d as the essence of democracy. F i n a l l y , education w a s commonly thought of as merely a process of handing something out, or of putting

90

Public

Welfare

something on—knowledge, in this case—and provision of the same amount and kind of knowledge was expected to operate alike f o r all, and to be f o r the good of all. But the leaders of American education never ceased to fight f o r an educational practice that took account of a steadily deepening understanding of the importance of individual differences. T h e y demanded adjustment of the curriculum, of equipment, and of teaching method to the needs of different types and groups of children, who had different educational objectives, and of individuals within those groups. T h e y saw nothing undemocratic in recognizing that some children were primarily verbal-minded and some were motor-minded; that some could deal acceptably and happily with abstract concepts, and some chiefly with concrete things; that some were interested in literature, languages, sciences, and would find satisfaction in advanced learning, and that others were largely concerned with the world immediately about them and would find their satisfaction in the familiar arts and occupations of daily living. T h e y demanded smaller classes and more and better teachers f o r all these children, whatever their special interests or needs, because these educational tools and policies were worth the added cost in the personal equipment and the social fitness of each of the products of the schools. A n d these educational leaders are winning their fight despite occasional setbacks. T h e one mass problem of educating 26,000,000 American children up to a minimum uniform level has been broken down into 26,000,000 individual problems, and the ultimate goal of the educational program is the maximum educational attainment f o r each one, a maximum determined only by the individual's educational purposes and capacities. T h i s process of individualization has, of course, been incorporated in, and not substituted f o r , the practical basic classifications and group procedures f r o m which sound understanding and treatment of individual need can most easily start, and out of which the individual

Individualized

91

Services

himself often builds the foundations of his own ambition and achievement. INDIVIDUALIZATION IN P U B L I C

HEALTH

T h e development and achievement of the public health program are so widely recognized and appreciated that it is interesting to point out that the public health service of 1 3 0 , 000,000 Americans has increasingly been conceived, in the recent years of its supreme accomplishment, as fundamentally consisting of the problems of 1 3 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 individual persons. M a s s measures of sanitation, education, quarantine, and the like, have been found to be effective only up to a certain point, and that point was f a r f r o m the ultimate goal of actually stamping out some of the most serious health hazards. These lay in the ignorance, the fear, the indifference, the habits and living conditions of individual human beings—the victims and carriers of disease germs that were a menace to community well-being. T h e anti-tuberculosis campaign, one of the public health movement's most successful achievements, has largely turned to seeking ultimate victory in the painstaking search f o r individual victims, followed by the patient application of particular preventive, protective, and curative measures, in accordance with the circumstances and possibilities of the individual case. Syphilis, too, is apparently now for the first time expected to yield to determined conquest, through the same patient process of identifying and treating its individual victims, through their own cooperative participation in scientific measures. E v e n the administration of preventive and immunizing serums, involving the application to all alike of a uniform formula in a fashion closely approaching mass treatment, is still held strictly under the supervision of qualified practitioners, who are on the alert f o r reactions and complications which scientifically trained persons have learned to foresee and to meet on an individual basis.

92

Public

Welfare

T h e obstacles to successful individualization in public health service were much the same as in the field of education, and, as we shall see, in the field of public relief. First was the f e a r on the p a r t of many of those affected that some stigma would attach to them, a feeling that a recognition of their individual need and difference somehow invaded their personal rights, their equality of status among their fellows. Next, was the fear of the cost and the difficulty of meeting on an individual basis so vast a problem. Finally, there was doubtless a lack of general conviction in the community that the problem was really so serious as it was painted, and this led to a lack of deep and consistent faith either in the genuine efficacy of the scientific method or in the competence and disinterestedness of professional leadership. Notwithstanding these obstacles, we are moving rapidly toward a universal public health service based upon sound scientific policies, which now include the discovery, diagnosis, and treatment of individuals who need help, f o r their own good and that of the community, and who are willing to cooperate in such treatment. P U B L I C P E N A L A N D CORRECTIONAL

TREATMENT

A particularly interesting segment of public welfare administration, f o r our present consideration, is that concerned with penal and correctional practice. H e r e practically unif o r m mass treatment is entrenched in a thousand years of legal tradition and philosophy, and supported by a swarm of f e a r s and prejudices. T h e principle of absolute equality of t r e a t m e n t of persons guilty of the same offense, expressing a certain attractive concept of abstract justice, has been long supported also as a protection of the equal right of the individual before the law and as a preventive of a r b i t r a r y discrimination. Accordingly the lockstep and striped uniform joined to a rigid schedule of automatic penalties, which as-

Individualized

Services

93

sumed to measure the need of punishment in quantitative terms only, without real regard f o r the quality of the offense or the nature of the offender, have been the conventional symbols of our correctional philosophy and practice f o r generations. But, despite the tremendous momentum, intellectual and emotional, behind this habit of mass treatment, individual treatment of the offender has made headway in this country to the point where vast sections of the public expect and demand this differentiation, not only as a matter of justice and mercy to the offender, but as the most effective protection of society's own general interest. Fictitious and abstract notions of equality have given way to a realistic and foresighted application of flexible, constructive, far-seeing justice. T h e indeterminate sentence ; the social, psychological, and psychiatric study of the offender before sentence; probation and parole; flexible institutional regimes, with classification of institutions, individualized systems of academic and vocational training, case study and treatment of personal needs and the social relationships of each offender—these are becoming integral parts of the correctional and penal p r o g r a m of most states. Again, these measures have not supplanted such mass measures as education, policing, and general community organization, which have the object of affording adequate opportunities and incentives on a mass basis f o r the development of cooperative and creative social habits in all the state's citizens. N o r have they been substituted f o r the necessary group measures and classifications of custodial care. But they have been added to them. Courts and leaders of the bar have joined with spokesmen of the developing social sciences and arts to proclaim and demonstrate that social adjustment has individual, as well as common, roots; that it cannot be compelled nor created f r o m without alone, and that, in addition to the uniform community stimulants and controls of habit

94

Public

Welfare

and conduct, help in the rehabilitation of thwarted individuals, through their cooperation, affords the strongest hope of assuring constructive social behavior throughout the community. T h i s requires a degree of public organization and an amount of technical service undreamed of a generation ago, and it costs money, but it is now seen to be justifiable. I t is true t h a t the public welfare p r o g r a m s we have cited thus f a r are distinguished by the fact that they render services to meet specific personal needs which are not primarly economic, and t h a t they do not usually require the giving of direct financial assistance by the community or the acceptance of it by the beneficiary. T h e actual money value to the recipient may be very great, and the final aggregate cost to the community may be staggering, but no cash directly changes hands between the two.

PUBLIC

RELIEF

AND

ASSISTANCE

W h e n we turn to the area of public relief and assistance, economic need is a prime determinant, and money is the symbol of the state's aid. It is astonishing how completely that appears to t r a n s f o r m the whole relationship in our common thinking about the matter. Dependency upon public aid f o r the necessities of life, symbolized by dollars and cents, takes on a wholly different character in our minds f r o m dependency upon public aid f o r the maintenance of health or the acquisition of a fundamental education. I t would be interesting to attempt to analyze just why this should be. N e a r the heart of the matter, doubtless, would be found the tradition of a pioneer society, which, for its own safety and f o r its rapid development, came to place a great store upon individual economic initiative and self-sufficiency. In the presence of apparently inexhaustible economic resources and opportunities, such a society, quite logically for its circumstances and its time, placed the stigma of indolence or inferiority

Individualized

Services

95

upon the individual w h o was not able t o maintain his economic independence, to accumulate something f o r his old age, and to give his children a better s t a r t t h a n he h a d enjoyed. M o n e y , p r o p e r t y , economic progress, in those days, inevitably symbolized success; the lack of it r e p r e s e n t e d failure and loss of social status. T h e stigma remains long a f t e r the logical basis of it h a s d i s a p p e a r e d . I t is obvious that this is true, when, t h r o u g h no f a u l t of their own, hundreds of t h o u s a n d s of persons are constantly unable to find employment, and millions m o r e are in t h a t dilemma at f r e q u e n t intervals, and yet these victims of economic dislocation are n o t infrequently charged with p r e f e r r i n g relief to w o r k . A l t h o u g h the stigma, generally speaking, is false and cruel, it still persists. I t is p a r t l y because we have vaguely w a n t e d to correct t h a t injustice, but yet have not d a r e d to give up our allegiance to the essential tradition t h a t creates it, t h a t t h e whole developm e n t of public w e l f a r e p r o g r a m s , f o r a century and a half, has been in the direction of s e p a r a t i n g segments of public assistance f r o m the historic nucleus of it all, p o o r relief, with its plaguing taunt of " p a u p e r i s m " to its beneficiaries connoting inadequacy, inferiority, and failure. W e took dependent and neglected children out of the " p o o r h o u s e , " first into special institutions, then into family homes. W e removed the mentally ill and the defective f r o m the p o o r h o u s e to scientific institutions and hospitals. Twenty-five years ago we began to set up new and different agencies, a p a r t f r o m poor-relief administration itself, f o r the assistance of widowed m o t h e r s and their young children. I t is significant t h a t in all these instances, the first step t o w a r d eliminating the stigma attached t o the acceptance of public aid, was t h e r a t h e r negative one of setting up a new classification, representing a new or s o m e w h a t different basis of help. But the final stage of this process, which was actually decisive in p r o t e c t i n g the members of these groups against unjust and destructive aspersions

96

Public

Welfare

upon them, was the development of individualized scientific treatment, which helped them as individuals to achieve a selfrespecting place in the normal community life. W e are now moving into a new period of classification. U n d e r another new name, "social security," we have set up new devices f o r serving many groups of persons, who through some special h a z a r d have suffered, or are especially likely to suffer, social or economic misfortune. As in our earlier efforts in the same direction, we have tried to give these new forms of assistance a somewhat different content and quality, by granting their benefits to all who meet certain rather simple and objective tests of eligibility, without too minute an examination of their specific individual needs. T o the same end we have clothed their purposes in new theories. Unemployment compensation may be theoretically described as d e f e r r e d wages, payable when employment ceases. Old age benefits under the federal act are, in part, the result of compulsory savings during earlier working years, presumably a f u r t h e r protection against the stigma, or the actual danger, of "pauperization," even though only a minor p a r t of the ultimate benefits accruing to any individual is derived f r o m his own compulsory contributions. Other forms of assistance, also now cloaked in the mantle of "social security" through inclusion in the federal act bearing this title, still rest, partially at least, upon the traditional assumption underlying all earlier public relief, namely, the existence of specific need rather than inherent right alone. T h e r e is a tendency, however, even here as in old age assistance, or in aid to dependent children, or in aid to the blind, to subordinate somewhat the concept of individual need and to emphasize a certain kind of inherent right, by defining eligibility in r a t h e r direct, objective terms and by tending to standardize, at a fairly uniform level, the amount of aid available to members of eligible groups. T h e fundamental purpose and feeling underlying these

Individualized

Services

97

changes a n d innovations, as of the earlier public w e l f a r e developments, are laudable, progressive, and sound. T h e y represent a momentous advance in the certainty, the promptness, the adequacy, and the motive with which public help is given to those w h o need it. I t is an advance in social sympathy and in economic intelligence alike. Its a b a n d o n m e n t would be unthinkable. Indeed, many of us are waiting eagerly to see unemployment relief and general relief take their places as logical and essential p a r t s of a complete p r o g r a m of genuine "social security," enlisting the interest and participation of every level of American government. But this striking achievement in the broadening and strengthening of public responsibility raises the insistent question w h e t h e r it shall end, as it began, at the point of classification, or shall go on, as other similar p r i o r advances h a v e done, to the full discharge of t h a t responsibility, and the full realization of its ultimate purposes, by incorporating within its administrative processes a genuine respect f o r the personality of each of those individuals to w h o m our collective help is addressed. M u s t the state's obligation to persons in need of its help be reduced, under any name or by any system of classification, to the b a r e bones of an impersonal financial t r a n s a c t i o n ? O r is there still r o o m f o r the possibility of t h a t rational differentiation of help which t h e infinite v a r i a t i o n s of circumstance and quality and purpose in human lives require, as a m a t t e r of justice to the individual and in the interest of community solidarity and p r o g r e s s ?

PHILOSOPHY

AND

PRACTICE

SOCIAL

OF

INDIVIDUALIZED

HELPFULNESS

I submit t h a t it is precisely h e r e t h a t American experience has a unique contribution to m a k e to m o d e r n social organization a n d practice. W h i l e o t h e r countries showed us the way to social security on a mass and a class basis, we have led

98

Public

Welfare

the w o r l d in t h e philosophy and practice of individualized social helpfulness. I n the integration of the t w o concepts, n o t in the exclusive devotion t o either one, it seems to me lies the surest hope f o r the p e r m a n e n t protection of b o t h the community's highest interest and the happiness and well-being of the individual citizen. I t is significant t h a t the underlying spirit of the two movements is really so nearly one. A t the h e a r t of each is a prof o u n d faith in the value of individual life, in the capacity of human beings to m a s t e r their own lives, and in their inherent and inalienable r i g h t to do so. T h e r e a p p e a r s to be a deep misapprehension u p o n this point in the minds of some of those who most earnestly d e m a n d measures of mass t r e a t m e n t and classification, to the total exclusion of individualized service. T h e y a p p e a r to believe t h a t individualized service, as represented specifically by social work, introduces a repulsively inquisitorial, intrusive, coercive element, which is d a m a g i n g to the self-respect and violative of the personality of the recipients of aid, a n d which is totally incompatible with the philosophy we have ascribed to it. I t is necessary, t h e r e f o r e , to declare, once again, w i t h o u t reservation, and with all the force at our command, t h a t if t h e r e is one thing which modern, competent social w o r k is not, it is just t h a t . Indeed, it deliberately avoids and vehemently condemns those evils, as a m a t t e r of f u n d a m e n t a l philosophy and s t a n d a r d practice. I t recognizes, as an ethical imperative, t h a t every individual shall have the inherent r i g h t to choose his own goals and his own r o a d s to their a t t a i n m e n t . I t recognizes, f u r t h e r , as a practical scientific fact, t h a t help which does n o t find its authority in the voluntarily recognized need and w a n t of the recipient himself, and in his own voluntary cooperation, is b a r r e n and futile. T h e supreme achievement of social w o r k e r s in t h e administ r a t i o n of public relief and assistance in the recent emergency h a s been in their f a i r l y consistent success in avoiding coercion,

Individualized

Services

99

spying, a n d intimidation, and in discovering and utilizing a spirit of voluntary cooperation a n d a sense of community responsibility a m o n g the overwhelming number of those they served. T h a t m e t h o d and objective p r o v e d a f a r firmer protection of the public treasury t h a n any external policing could possibly provide, and in addition, it helped to salvage f o r the f u t u r e well-being of this country, the self-respect a n d feeling of personal w o r t h and dignity of millions of citizens, upon which alone constructive citizenship and community solidarity in the f u t u r e can be built. N o , the d a r k - l a n t e r n detective, snooping a r o u n d cellars a n d alleys, suspicious, censorious, commanding, is no kin of the qualified social worker. I t is the spirit and m e t h o d of sound social work, and only social w o r k at its highest level, which h a s a r i g h t f u l place as an individualizing f a c t o r in the administration of public assistance. I t begins with an u n d e r s t a n d i n g and acceptance of the individual client's feeling, as he faces the critical m o m e n t when he must ask f o r help, an u n d e r s t a n d i n g which g r o w s and expresses itself at every step d u r i n g the trying experience, through the o f t e n p a i n f u l processes of investigation and confirmation of the essential details of eligibility, to the point of acceptance or rejection, and to every subsequent reconsideration and reexamination of the changing circumstances of the individual case. I t finds its m a r k , if at all, in m u t u a l respect and cooperation, and it makes possible a relationship t h a t is defined, responsible, dignified, and constructive. T h i s aspect of true individualization can take some of the curse f r o m mass t r e a t m e n t of human beings. I t is as applicable to the administration of social security benefits, and even of social insurance, as to any other f o r m of public assistance. One cannot, however, lose sight of o t h e r opportunities f o r individualized t r e a t m e n t and service. Economic dependency, privation, or displacement is itself a strain upon the family, f o r instance ; at the low level of most of o u r present s t a n d a r d s

100

Public

Welfare

of help, it may be an actual menace to health. In any event it is a discouraging, soul-searing experience, which may shut its victims off f r o m normal human relations and f r o m all customary cultural contacts in the world outside. It inevitably intensifies the problems and the needs t h a t not only the poor, but every one of us has felt, even in times of relatively f r e e and happy social living, f o r the security and strength afforded by an understanding and objective friend, detached f r o m the pressures and conflicts of a tangled, emotionally charged situation. Can there be any real doubt that many a recipient of public help, struggling with such problems, may find the possibility of such aid and counsel—always, it is understood, to be used only as he wants and only if he sees fit—an added element of strength in facing and mastering his own situation and in sustaining a sound relation to the community and its resources ? Is there any reason, then, that such help should not be made available ? I am prepared to concede two points, which may somewhat console those who fear the extension of individualized services in association with public financial assistance, as a confusing and complicating factor in an already burdensome situation. I admit, in the first place, t h a t such service should not be entirely dependent upon the acceptance of financial assistance, but should ideally be available to any member of the community who wants and needs it. Public and private agencies together, either by an agreed division of labor, or by friendly supplementation of each other's efforts, should meet the whole need of the total community f o r such aid, just as medical care, f o r those who need it and cannot provide it f o r themselves, should be available to all, whether they receive other help or not. It may be possible, too, that a separation of some of the supplementary individualized services f r o m the routine administration of financial assistance, either by specialization of personnel within a single organization, or by differentiation

Individualized

Services

101

of f u n c t i o n s a m o n g s e v e r a l p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e agencies, m a y p r o v e , as t h e e m e r g e n c y p a s s e s , a m o r e e c o n o m i c a l a n d m o r e effective m o d e of m e e t i n g t h e s e b r o a d e r p r o b l e m s t h a n conc e n t r a t i o n of all services a t a single p o i n t in a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Such a s e p a r a t i o n m i g h t h e l p t o b r e a k d o w n s o m e of t h e p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t t h e g i v i n g o r t a k i n g of i n d i v i d u a l i z e d services by d i s s o c i a t i n g t h e m f r o m exclusive r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h financial d e p e n d e n c y . In t h e second place, I a d m i t t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d service w i t h i n t h e b r o a d a r e a I h a v e s u g g e s t e d as a p p r o p r i a t e , req u i r e s a skill a n d a self-discipline, an experience a n d knowledge, on t h e p a r t of public s e r v a n t s , w h i c h a r e r a r e in r e l a t i o n t o t h e v a s t n e s s of t h e n e e d . T h e r e a r e by n o m e a n s e n o u g h of such t h o r o u g h l y qualified w o r k e r s in all A m e r i c a t o m e e t t h e p o t e n t i a l n e e d s of a single g r e a t s t a t e . T h e d a n g e r s of t u r n i n g unskilled a n d inexperienced w o r k e r s l o o s e in this a r e a of vital h u m a n n e e d s a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e m a n y a n d serious. I t is p r o b a b l y i m p e r a t i v e , t h e r e f o r e , t o limit a n d c a r e f u l l y define, w i t h i n t h e r e a s o n a b l e b o u n d s of a v a i l a b l e p e r s o n a l a n d financial r e s o u r c e s , t h e f u n c t i o n of a public agency in t h e public assistance field. I t is f a r b e t t e r t o c u l t i v a t e a small a r e a w i t h c o m p e t e n c e a n d efficiency, t o l i f t s t a n d a r d s of financial help, f o r instance, f r o m an e m e r g e n c y level t o t h a t r e q u i r e d f o r r e a s o n a b l e h e a l t h a n d decency, a n d t o m e e t t h e p r e s c r i b e d d u t i e s in such a n a r r o w field w i t h p r o m p t n e s s a n d a d e q u a c y , t h a n to r e a c h o u t i n t o w i d e r a r e a s of service, only t o l e a v e t h e m all h a l f - t i l l e d , a n d t o d i s a p p o i n t b o t h clients a n d c o m m u n i t y in t h e kind a n d quality of service t h e agency offers. I m a y r e m i n d you, in p a s s i n g , h o w e v e r , t h a t this difficult choice of g o a l s a n d definition of f u n c t i o n s , w i t h i n t h e limits of a v a i l a b l e resources, is n o t t h e exclusive p r o b l e m of t h e public agency. N o r a r e t h e d a n g e r s i n h e r e n t in a dissipation o f e n e r g y a n d a scarcity of skills f o r t h e p r o b l e m in h a n d exclusively t h o s e of public a u t h o r i t y . P r i v a t e agencies s h a r e

102

Public Welfare

with those responsible t o t h e whole community, the s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses of h u m a n nature, and especially t h e obstacles and limitations of this difficult and uncertain transitional stage in the development of social policy and the planning of new social services. Indeed, it is now fairly certain t h a t the f e a r s and prejudices which once peculiarly s u r r o u n d e d the adventures of g o v e r n m e n t in the service of individual social needs h a v e largely passed. G o v e r n m e n t is in the business of social service to stay. F u r t h e r m o r e , given t h r e e f u n d a m e n t a l conditions—some of which you may deem r a t h e r distant h o p e s — t h e public service can suitably u n d e r t a k e and effectively p e r f o r m any function of individualized h u m a n helpfulness t h a t the most highly specialized p r i v a t e agency can safely administer. T h e first of these conditions is the employment of competent personnel, selected, trained, supervised, retained, a n d p r o m o t e d on the basis of m e r i t alone, and without the slightest taint of p a r t i s a n political interference or control, the servants of the whole community, not of a fractional p a r t of the community. T h e second condition is the recognition, by the community as a whole, of the full value of the service which such a personnel is p r e p a r e d to render, supported by a confidence in its professional competence, its good f a i t h , and its sense of public responsibility. A n d t h i r d is, of course, the existence of a genuine need and a real w a n t f o r t h a t service on the p a r t of those to w h o m it is addressed. W h e n t h a t state of affairs comes t o pass, the public w e l f a r e p r o g r a m s of American communities, growing in b r e a d t h and d e p t h of purpose and insight, with the expanding vision of the American people a n d with the increasing complications and perplexities of their life, will discover ever finer and m o r e f r u i t f u l means of serving the infinitely various needs of the h u n d r e d s of millions of individual human beings t h a t compose their constituencies.

Individualized

Services

103

T h e refinement and the increased f r u i t f u l n e s s of the m e a n s employed to those ends will depend upon the a p p r o p r i a t e a n d h a r m o n i o u s application n o t of one only, but of three, essential principles of social action and administrative m e t h o d : F i r s t , the discovery and candid recognition of the responsibility of the community as a whole, in its economic, social, and political institutions and a r r a n g e m e n t s , f o r m a n y of the conflicts and obstacles which create m a l a d j u s t m e n t and need a m o n g its citizenry—the recognition of the mass n a t u r e of the problem, and the necessity, t h e r e f o r e , n o t only of fund a m e n t a l mass measures of social and economic r e f o r m , b u t of universal provision—also mass measures, if you p l e a s e — f o r those who are victims of our common sins and neglects. T h i s is the principle of mass action. Second, the discriminating study and identification of p a r ticular problems in the lives of particular g r o u p s of persons, and the provision of a p p r o p r i a t e , differentiated services t o meet the common dominant needs of those g r o u p s — t h e recognition of the value of a variety of so-called categorical f o r m s of assistance, wherever such classifications will operate effectively either to awaken public opinion to the importance and volume of special problems, or to segregate t h e m f o r intensive scientific study and t r e a t m e n t o r , finally, to enlist the cooperation of those in whose lives a special p r o b l e m a p p e a r s with particularly violent effect. T h i s is the principle of sound classification. T h i r d , the clear perception of the differences within the mass and within each of these groups, a p r o f o u n d respect f o r the individual personalities t h a t compose them, and a determined effort to apply to all the old and simple concept, t h a t the essence of equality, the f o u n d a t i o n of justice, a n d the practical basis of mercy, is to t r e a t unequal things unequally. T h i s is the principle of individualized service in t h e public w e l f a r e p r o g r a m , necessary now and always, because

104

Public f f tifare

it protects both the individual right and the community interest, because it compels the honest and brave recognition of the essential realities of every social situation, and because it carries forward into daily practice our cherished democratic faith in the inherent worth of the individual life.

N e w Emphases in Education For Public Social Work Condensed from an address delivered at the annual meeting of the American Association of Schools of Social Work January 1938, and published in Method and Skill in Public Assistance, volume 2 of the J o u r n a l of Social W o r k Process, 1938

THERE is an ancient canon of architectural and engineering design which social architects and engineers have not always sufficiently appreciated and applied in the practice of their own arts. It is embodied in the deceptively brief but comprehensive formula, " F o r m follows function." J u d g e d by that simple and dependable standard, columns that support nothing, towers that protect nothing, gingerbread filigrees that symbolize nothing, of the faith and the life within— whether these be fashioned of stone, or of law, or of social practice—are the signs of a decadent, not a creative, era. In a period like the present, when all social relationships and usages are in a state of exceptionally rapid change, the forms and processes of social work, and, by the same token, the content and method of social work education, must face anew each day this functional test of fitness f o r a genuinely creative age. T h e facts of social change press upon us with such compelling force, however, that sometimes the temptation to embrace novelty too eagerly, to change base too quickly, may exceed in its dangers the more obvious evils of complacency and stagnation. A t least it may be worth while to remind ourselves that there are many elements in our own past ex105

106

Public

Welfare

perience and present practice which will certainly retain their fundamental values in the world that is now coming into being. Indeed, probably the most vital contribution which we, as a profession, have to make to the planning and forming of that new world is the persistent effort to perfect our own present processes and to incorporate certain central elements of our own philosophy and practice into the structure and operations of all our common social institutions. It is by the integration of new areas of knowledge and experience with the solid core of past and present function and achievement, not by the heedless substitution of one for the other, nor by the casual addition, one a f t e r another, of new and separate concepts not organically related to the f o r m e r whole, that the process of effective adaptation to the newly required tasks can be genuinely furthered.

MOTIVATIONS A N D M E A N I N G S INDIVIDUAL

OF

BEHAVIOR

T h e world, in any social order, will still be filled with human beings, who, science clearly teaches, have not essentially changed in their fundamental makeup and in their primary wants since the earliest observations of their behavior were recorded, and who will not be f a r different in any future that can be foreseen. Probably the most significant thing about those human beings, which social work has helped to disclose and to act upon in the past fifty years, is their individuality—an individuality that expresses itself especially in their feeling about themselves and others, and about the problems of social adjustment which they face. M o d e r n social work has built its own service upon that fundamental concept. I t is embodied philosophically in a p r o f o u n d respect f o r individual personality; it is imbedded in a practice that leaves the individual free to be himself, to face his own problems, to develop strength by exercise of his own powers with-

Public

Social

Work

107

in the limitations of his own situation, and to choose and t o use available opportunities according to his own wants and capacities. W e have come also to judge of institutions in terms of the effect of their operations upon the individuals subject to t h e m — t h e degree to which they enlist, utilize, and permit development of the personal initiative and strength of these individuals. T h i s is the solid base f r o m which we must proceed in our consideration of preparation for possible changes of professional function, which may be required in a society t h a t is moving rapidly toward a larger reliance upon collective, r a t h e r than strictly individual, action. T h i s base is not the base of social casework alone. I t permeates the philosophy and practice of sound social group work, as well, and it underlies the important differentiation of what we have sometimes called "community organization," as a social work function and process, f r o m many somewhat similar activities undertaken by other undisciplined and unprofessional leadership. Our concern f o r the conservation of the values of the individual life has made us sensitive to what is happening to the individual in the process of helping and cooperating, whether in single face-to-face relationships, or in groups, or in mass movements. T h e constructive development and management of t h a t process, rather than the attainment of a particular preconceived product or goal, has become the principal measure of our progress in technical proficiency. A n d we have come to recognize at the heart of that proficiency an awareness and mastery of ourselves in our relationships with others. N o w , w h a t happens to all this core of social work principle and practice when government accepts the responsibility f o r meeting a larger and larger p a r t of the needs of its citizens for security and f o r opportunity? A r e these citizens any the less individuals because all of us collectively, rather than only a few of us individually, have recognized their problems as

108

Public

Welfare

a m a t t e r of concern to the community and have accepted responsibility f o r doing something about t h e m ? Is the process of helping, and all that is happening to the individual person in t h a t process, any the less important, because the whole community now sponsors and supports it? On the contrary, may it not rather be true that these factors take on increased significance in view of the fact t h a t the proffer of governmental service to individuals is no longer directed only to a small and rather isolated p a r t of the people of any community, nor to the circumstances that peculiarly handicap and f r u s t r a t e the especially underprivileged groups with whom social work in the past was largely concerned. M o r e and more, the ameliorative, as well as the preventive and constructive, services of government are being m a d e available to all citizens throughout every stratum of society. Medical care, education, cultural opportunity, employment adjustment and vocational guidance, family counseling, all the social insurances, even many aspects of police protection and ordinary law enforcement, are bringing public aid within the orbit of daily living of all of us, through regular social institutions t h a t reach into every sector of community life. T h e further these public services penetrate into individual lives—not merely of a small part, but of all, of the citizens of every community—the more important becomes the spirit and the method of their administration. If we believe in the inherent dignity and worth of the individual personality, we must believe t h a t public w e l f a r e enterprise in every f o r m requires f o r its highest achievement the same self-aware, self-critical approach to the service of individual human beings that modern social work in its highest estate has learned to exemplify. I t is evident, too, t h a t the schools of social work which have undertaken to offer educational preparation for this field cannot relax in the slightest degree their effort to afford to students an educational experience adequate to fit them f o r that kind and t h a t level of per-

Public Social Work

109

formance, and f o r no lesser ones. T h o s e elements of the present curriculum, then, which afford a basic understanding of the motivations and meanings of individual behavior, and which provide the basis of discipline and personal development of the student, in his capacity f o r free, flexible, constructive relationships with others, remain essential in any suitable p r o g r a m of professional education f o r public social work. POLITICAL,

ECONOMIC, A N D SOCIAL

PLANNING

It is likewise clear, however, that whether social workers are going to continue to cultivate with increasing effectiveness only the functional fields they now claim as their own, or whether they shall be permitted to make a larger contribution at related and significant points in other newly developing public services, they will have increasing need, as surrounding institutions expand, f o r a broader interest and a deeper understanding of these basic environmental forces. W e may properly expect students to have acquired in their underg r a d u a t e study something more than a passing acquaintance with social and economic history, and with the problems and methods and trends in the social sciences. I t is the peculiar task of the professional school to afford to g r a d u a t e students an opportunity and an incentive to orient themselves anew in the changing social scene, not on the basis of a series of f r a g mentary scientific views, but by way of an experience that demands the application of all their integrated knowledge in choices and decisions which involve specific professional responsibilities in dealing with indivisible social situations. I t is this which makes a professional school professional. H e r e students experience problems, not merely r e a d or think about them. H e r e they are accountable to a functioning agency, to the human beings whom the agency is endeavoring to serve, to the critical judgment of professional colleagues. It is by such an experience that the social sciences become truly

110

Public

Welfare

integrated with the creative arts of social w o r k . T o be admissible to the professional curriculum, these sciences must h a v e been subjected to the tests of professional need and utility; they must be constantly reexamined by students and teachers in terms of their meaning in the f o r m u l a t i o n of professional responsibility and practice. T h e r e is a place, then, and a vital increasing need in t h e professional curriculum, both in organized subject m a t t e r of reading and class discussion, and, so f a r as humanly possible, in practical responsible field experience, f o r varied opportunities to face and deal with real problems of political, economic, and social planning and operation. In the school of p r o f e s sional social work, these problems will be met in t e r m s of their effect upon individual lives and in relation to the tests a n d s t a n d a r d s imposed by a professional responsibility f o r the m a n a g e m e n t of social forces in the interest of individual wellbeing. W e shall have increased discussion, t h a t is to say, of such community problems as housing, labor o r g a n i z a t i o n , social legislation, and many o t h e r aspects of political, economic, and social o r g a n i z a t i o n and control. But they will be much less t h a n in the past isolated studies of historical and c o n t e m p o r a r y fact or theory, such as any alert a n d socialminded citizen might properly feel an obligation to recognize and u n d e r s t a n d . T h e element of professional function and responsibility will color the whole m a t t e r .

D E F I N I T I O N A N D LIMITATION OF PROFESSIONAL F U N C T I O N

T h i s is n o t to advocate the perpetuation of a n a r r o w or static professional function, nor one o p e r a t i n g within rigid preconceived boundaries, nor yet one c o m f o r t a b l y isolated f r o m the practical pressures and conflicts of real social life. I t is only to encourage such a definition and redefinition of professional function, in t h e light of our own special competence and in relation t o a clear view of the changing social setting

Public Social Work

111

within which we operate, as will m a k e our contribution to the community, wherever we touch its life professionally, clearcut a n d effective, avoiding the inevitable pitfalls a n d confusions t h a t follow f r o m irresponsible meddling, on the basis of undisciplined emotion and u n i n f o r m e d g o o d will. A

NEW

EMPHASIS ON P U B L I C

ADMINISTRATION

T h i s emphasis upon a definition and limitation of specific p r o f e s s i o n a l function, as the basis of curricular content, runs counter to another educational development which bids f a i r to influence p r o f o u n d l y the relation of schools of social w o r k to the area of governmental administration. T h i s is the emergence of a new emphasis upon public administration, as a professional specialty in itself, regardless of the subject or object of t h a t administration. T h e f u n d a m e n t a l issues of p r o f e s s i o n a l education involved a r e sometimes obscured by an u n f o r t u n a t e tendency in some q u a r t e r s to identify this new m o v e m e n t with the progress of the merit system or of a career service in government. T h o s e issues are clarified when one asks the simple question : W h a t is to be administered and to w h a t e n d ? I t is clear t h a t the subjects of administration are services, not elements of an o r g a n i z a t i o n nor wheels in a mechanism. T h e objects of administration are the protection and assistance of h u m a n beings, not the m a n a g e m e n t of items of statistics, or pins on a m a p , or lines on a chart. If the services t h a t are being administered involve professional functions, as we believe do those of the w e l f a r e service, f o r example, they require f o r effective p e r f o r m a n c e the operation of a united organization, permeated f r o m tip to toe by devotion t o s t a n d a r d s r e l a t e d at every point to the quality of t h a t service. By the very n a t u r e of professional service, which necessitates independent responsibility, the requirements of the service must determine administrative policy and procedure ; mere administrative ef-

112

Public

Welfare

ficiency and convenience f o r its own sake cannot govern the service. Standards of judgment and points of view which would adequately serve in the direction of street paving or public works, in the control of a detective bureau or the management of fiscal accounts, might be utterly destructive of a health p r o g r a m or a system of public assistance. Social services must be protected by sound professional social work leadership, just as we would also insist that a conservationist should be at the head of a conservation department, an engineer at the head of a public w o r k s organization, and an educator at the head of an educational system. I t is possible, of course, as we have discovered during the recent emergency, f o r administrators unfamiliar with professional social work to acquire, a f t e r a time, f r o m association with strong, well-qualified assistants an appreciation of technical s t a n d a r d s and an acceptance of professional goals and methods which permit the continuance and development of sound policy and performance in professional tasks. T h e r e may even be, at times, a value in the challenge thus presented to trained subordinates to reexamine their basic assumptions, to clarify their aims, and to justify their accomplishments under the scrutiny and subject to the ultimate approval of a lay representative of the lay public—which is, in the last analysis, being served. But this challenge should be raised not within the unified administration, but between the administration as a whole and a body of observant citizens, either organically related to the administration f o r that purpose, or independent of it. Otherwise, there is a costly reversal of the relative importance of professional service and administrative management. T h e r e is no adequate substitute for the systematic p r e p a r a t o r y education of the public administrator in the f u n d a m e n t a l content of professional principle and practice, b e f o r e he undertakes to accept full responsibility and final authority in a specialized professional field.

Public

Social Work

113

By the same token, however, with the increase of public administration in the welfare field, making professional practitioners accountable not to a small g r o u p of sympathetic and lenient supporters, but to the whole skeptical and sensitive public, some way must be found more adequately to equip professional leaders with the qualifications required f o r effective organizational planning, administrative control, and public interpretation. T h i s equipment must be added to, not substituted for, a substantial p a r t of the basic training of a social worker. It is our common experience, I believe, that despite the steady rise in the age level and in the background of education and experience of students who are now entering upon systematic professional education f o r social work, there are still few students who, during two short years of professional study, reach a point in their development where sound professional attitudes and practices are so genuinely a p a r t of themselves as to make them ready to turn their learning interest toward problems of administrative structure and management. T h i s interest remains, quite naturally and properly, preoccupied with problems of service r a t h e r than structure. In some measure every student is compelled to give consideration to administrative standards and policies as problems affecting professional performance and suitable attention should, of course, be paid in the curriculum to the identification and clarification of these problems. A p a r t f r o m these, however, even students who are definitely looking f o r w a r d to general administrative tasks may probably well d e f e r a systematic study of special administrative problems to a subsequent period of special preparation, following successful professional practice. It is barely possible t h a t such a conclusion may help to reconcile our present insistence upon sound education f o r a specific professional function, with the growing movement f o r specialized education f o r public administration, as such, by helping to make the f o r m e r prerequisite f o r the latter. I t might then m a t t e r relatively little whether both

114

Public

Welfare

were finally mastered in a school of social work, or under diff e r e n t auspices. E M P H A S I S ON D E T E R M I N A T I O N

OF

ELIGIBILITY

U p to this point we have been considering possible changes in trends in professional education f o r the whole field of welf a r e tasks p e r f o r m e d under public auspices. Granting the prevalence and importance of the common problems of all social work, in the light of this expansion of public service, are there also any special differences of professional function that must be allowed to govern, in a measure at least, sound p r e p a r a t i o n f o r specific basic service in a publicly supported agency? Such differences as there are revolve chiefly around the central fact that the so-called " i n t a k e " of public agencies cannot be selected by the administration either arbitrarily or flexibly ; service must be made available to all who meet relatively fixed, and usually r a t h e r objective, tests of eligibility. T h i s has two significant effects : First, it tends to increase the volume of the service required, without at the same time affording adequate personnel and facilities f o r flexible adjustment either to changing numbers or to newly discovered needs; and, second, it establishes certain kinds of help as a right of the eligible beneficiary, r a t h e r than as a privilege based upon the fundamentally philanthropic motivation of private social work in the past. These differences do affect practice. W e must admit, however, t h a t they are strictly practical, r a t h e r than theoretical, differences. Volume of operation does not in itself necessarily modify the essential function to be p e r f o r m e d ; but, when inadequacy of staff imposes upon the individual worker a volume of duties which limits the time and exhausts the energy available, performance of function necessarily suffers. Similarly, the administration of a service which an individual beneficiary may claim as a right, is, as

Public Social

Work

115

a process, not essentially different f r o m any other helping process. T h e feeling of the client in making the request may be—indeed, o f t e n is—different, but the worker's responsibility f o r recognizing that feeling and dealing with it in a way t h a t is consistently helpful and constructive remains the same. One important consideration in the helping relationship established under these circumstances is that the scope of the service has been clearly defined in advance, and that it may be somewhat more strictly limited. A r o u n d this point there is much discussion and no little confusion. Does emphasis upon the determination of eligibility, as a factor in public administration, completely differentiate this service f r o m the individualized service that we have become accustomed to administer in social casework agencies? Does this relatively limited definition of function alter the inner character of the whole task ? One difference it makes is this, that the exercise of a limited and defined service requires a greater self-discipline of the worker than the exercise of a more flexible, expansible function, which appears to bear less of the withholding quality and more of the giving. F u r t h e r m o r e , the applicant or beneficiary must carry a larger measure of unavoidable responsibility when he starts f r o m a known and fixed base of recognized realities and possibilities. W i t h the understanding cooperation of a skilled worker, the client may find through such an experience the opportunity and incentive to rally his own resources to meet other problems with more clarity and vigor. I t is clear that into the most limited of relationships, once defined and so accepted on both sides, can go as much of understanding and sensitivity to feeling and to the meaning of behavior, as in any other. Indeed, there are here present the essential conditions of truly effective casework skill. W e must, therefore, completely disregard any suggestion that we should dilute or abbreviate training f o r the public service on the assumption that it requires less insight and discipline.

116

Public

Welfare

Some of the present obstructions to sound practice resulting f r o m practical differences t h a t now characterize public social w o r k — t h e enormous case loads, the inadequate resources, the destructive conflict between professional and unprofessional and even anti-professional purpose and policy, the lack of a united and informed public conviction about the whole m a t t e r — h a v e created a cleavage between the students' practice in the field and the ideals which develop in the more protected precincts of school conference and discussion, which raises enormous educational difficulties. T h e s e must be met by the f u r t h e r systematic development of field supervision. U p o n field supervisors inevitably devolves a steadily increasing share of educational responsibility. T h e necessity f o r helping students in specific situations where they are carrying professional responsibility, to see beyond the temporary and accidental limitations of the moment, to the genuine meanings and actual achievements of practice, to broaden experience by broadening insight into experience, and to relate t h a t experience to the integrated whole of professional education, imposes an obligation upon the supervisor which is positively monumental in its proportions. I t can be met adequately in the long run, only if we are able progressively to define the elements of an effective supervisory process and to make consistent provision of satisfactory specialized preparation f o r its performance. T h i s will become, more than ever, a central and decisive element in our whole educational p r o g r a m . SUMMARY A N D

CONCLUSION

In summary and conclusion, I submit, then, these considerations as basic in a p r o g r a m of training f o r professional p e r f o r m a n c e in public social work in the light of expanding functions of government : First, continued and increased faith in the central hypothe-

Public

Social

Work

117

sis f r o m which modern social work and social work education have so f a r progressed, namely, that individual human life is supremely significant, and that the helping process, to which social work skills are directed—whether in individual, group, or mass relations—is ultimately validated, not, primarily, by its particular goals, however important they may seem, but by what happens to the individual persons involved through the means employed and the relationships set up in that process. Educational p r o g r a m s , more than ever, perhaps, in the midst of the pressures of a standardizing collective economy, must initiate and sustain, in students' development, those skills and understandings that result in free, flexible, constructive relationships between individuals. Second, the recognition and application of the positive values inherent in the inevitable limitation and clear definition of specific function which law and political organization of social services preeminently involve. A n d finally, steady enrichment of curriculum and of the whole educational experience, to broaden interest and deepen understanding with respect to government and other pervasive social institutions and the forces that underlie them, but always upon the level of responsible professional grappling with the real problems of real, whole people, in whole situations. U p o n these solid foundations, in which our past practices find common ground with new undertakings, we may hope to build a growing professional competence capable of coping with the emerging needs of a rapidly changing society.

T h e Child Welfare Field What is Expected in Today's Total Program? Condensed from a paper read at the New England Regional Conference of the Child Welfare League of America, April 1944 and published in the Child W e l f a r e League Bulletin, December 1944

IN speaking of " t o d a y ' s total p r o g r a m , " by which I assume we mean today's p r o g r a m of social work in America, there is one implication which requires brief examination at the outset, because it gives a clear clue both to the importance and to the difficulty of answering the question we have set up f o r discussion. W h a t is that program? Is there, in actual fact, anything that can rightly be called a "total program of social w o r k " in America t o d a y ? Is there anything like a planned, concerted effort to attain deliberately chosen goals by deliberately selected steps and processes, each one related in scope and method to all the rest and to the other forces of social change, of social construction and reconstruction, that are at work around us ? T h e r e is, of course, a vast amount of social work being done. M o s t of it is directed, furthermore, to one general purpose, which does give a thread of unity to it all, the purpose of making the world a better place to live in and of helping people to find satisfaction and achievement in the world in which they live. M u c h of it, too, is being done by the systematic application of technical knowledge and skill, which helps it to find its mark in people's lives. But can it be called a p r o g r a m ? D o e s it have the kind of clarity and consistency which enables its sponsors and practitioners—much 118

Child Welfare

Field

119

less the world at l a r g e — t o know w h a t it is up to, w h a t it can and cannot do, how it fits into the pattern of social help and social change that is taking f o r m under the impact of events and t h r o u g h the conscious and unconscious strivings of all sorts of people everywhere? L A C K OF COMMON CONCEPTS I N SOCIAL

WORK

One is reminded of the small schoolboy's definition of a great city. H e said it was "a large body of strangers, living close together, entirely surrounded by noise and dirt, usually going in different directions in a great h u r r y . " I am not sure t h a t an observer on M a r s , turning his telescope t o w a r d today's social work activities in America, might not describe our efforts in much the same terms—a large number of organizations, working side by side, somewhat shrouded in r a t h e r confusing philosophic fogs, doing many different things in many different ways, driven by powerful and conflicting inner motivations and by terrific external pressures of time and circumstance, without a clear picture of specific individual goals, much less of common ones, and without a very discriminating choice of the roads and the next steps to be taken to reach whatever ends they do see ahead. T h e r e is nothing particularly discreditable in that situation, viewed in historical perspective. Social work is relatively young, as a self-conscious, organized movement. I t is not surprising t h a t it has not achieved complete clarity of purpose, definition of its own task and its true place in the world, or full unity of guiding principle. But in a moment of history as significant as this, as full of conflict, as inviting to the release of every latent prejudice and separate interest, as deeply in need of sure-footed leadership and efficient technical performance of every common, essential service, our lack of a common concept of our own role, of our own capacities, and of our common program, is nothing less than a

120

Public

Welfare

tragedy. I t is an unhappy reminder of the state in which we were caught at the beginning of the depression in the thirties, when we were apparently unprepared either to define or to assume the responsibilities which our experience in helping people out of trouble should have equipped us to discharge. Indeed, there is another significant parallel in the situation we then faced and the one we face today, which underscores the seriousness of our problem. W e were suddenly catapulted then, almost against our will, out of the relative seclusion and security of a limited service to a limited group of clients, who were somewhat set apart, and f o r the most p a r t out of sight, f r o m the g r e a t body of citizens of our communities. W e were plunged into the very center of the social scene, where we were called upon to serve not an isolated segment but a cross-section of all the people. W h a t we did and the way we did it was no longer only our own private professional concern, or t h a t of a few interested and informed citizens associated with us, but of all members of every community. T o d a y , even more clearly and emphatically than then, we are operating in the white light of an alert, wide public interest and knowledge ; we are serving folks who never b e f o r e have felt the slightest need of our ministrations ; we have even been designated by the highest authority as "essential" to the fulfillment of the universal need and purpose of our whole people. T h e degree and the way we relate ourselves and our agencies to the basic interests and feelings and needs of these people will certainly determine f o r years to come the way they feel t o w a r d social work and social workers, the demands they make upon us, the opportunities they open to us, the participation they invite or permit us to have in the great common effort of realizing the good life f o r all. W e cannot, of course, conjure up a total unified p r o g r a m over night, where none in fact exists, nor can each of us wait until such a p r o g r a m has come into being before undertaking to find our own place and to do our own p a r t in the world as it

Child

Welfare

Field

121

is. But the very lack of such a defined and integral p r o g r a m in social work does impose upon each of us, upon each field of service within this potential whole, a special responsibility. N o t only must we mark out f o r ourselves our own place in the total social work scheme of things in o r d e r to make sure that we are doing with the utmost of proficiency what now needs to be done within the specific area of our own technical service; we must also find our own place in the total social setting within which we operate. W e have to come to terms with our times, each for himself, if we are not able to do it all together. WHAT

T A S K S IN B E H A L F OF

CHILDREN?

It is perfectly obvious that a special obligation rests upon the child welfare field at this juncture of affairs. T h i s is not only because the children of the world, f o r whom we labor, have a peculiar stake in the solution of the world's present problems, and are peculiarly sensitive victims of its disorders and confusions. I t is not only because of the peculiar stake which the world holds in its children, as the very substance of the future. I t is also because, as a m a t t e r of practical and insistent fact, the social protection and care of children reach out into and are bound up with every social institution and relationship—the family, the school, the church, the law, the economic system, the whole vast network of cultural influences which constitute the basic structure of modern society. T h e child is near the focus of every dynamic interest and effort of the whole community. T o state that fact is to disclose the first element in the answer to that question we are asking ourselves in this discussion. W e cannot expect of ourselves, nor will others expect of us, that we in social work shall take over this whole problem. W e cannot possess the problem of the child as the community sees and feels it. W e can only share it ; we can be a

122

Public

Welfare

part, not the whole, of the structure which society will use to protect and serve its children. Our first task, therefore, is to determine for ourselves, and to make clear to others, what particular aspects of the problem of childhood we are equipped to do something about and how we propose to go about doing that part of the total job, and then to get at those defined and limited tasks with all the understanding and skill we can muster. COOPERATION WITH

R E L A T E D SERVICES

ESSENTIAL

Our second task is to enter into the closest possible cooperative relations, on the basis of the fullest possible mutual understanding of functions and methods, with all those who are at work in adjoining and sometimes overlapping areas of service within the framework of social work itself, thus bringing into effective collaboration and integrated usefulness, all the different and specialized insights and skills developed out of different and specialized experience. Our third task is to contribute to the common pool of knowledge and feeling upon which the community draws in the process of choosing its own goals for children and in formulating its own plans for them. Our understanding of children, of their needs and their reactions to those needs, of the conditions prerequisite to the fulfillment of need, is derived from a kind of responsible, creative experience with them which is unique in its depth and breadth, in its nature and quality. T h e community is entitled to a chance to avail itself of that specific source of understanding, different from any other at its disposal, and we are obligated to give them that chance. And, finally, our fourth task is to follow through, into vigorous, persistent collaboration with all those elements of the community that are directly and actively concerned with the welfare of children, in the formulation, acceptance and

Child Welfare Field

123

execution o f those plans and policies that are essential to the attainment o f these ends. B e f o r e attempting to analyze briefly some o f the factors involved in the fulfillment o f each o f these tasks, I would like to suggest some o f the basic considerations that govern our p e r f o r m a n c e o f them all.

BASIC

HUMAN

PROBLEMS—DEMOCRACY'S

CONCERN

In the first place, it is obvious t h a t this war is overwhelmingly significant in its effect upon human beings and all the social factors in their lives. I t is overpowering in the strength and scope o f the forces o f change it has unl e a s h e d — b o t h o f destruction and, potentially at least, o f progress and reconstruction. Especially profound perhaps are its external and psychological influences, both positive and negative, upon children. I t is painfully trite, and perhaps wholly superfluous, to observe that it demands o f us all, and particularly o f those who accept professional responsibility f o r helping people to find their way through this labyrinthine m a z e o f conflict and confusion, an alertness to change, a flexibility and resilience o f spirit, a capacity for growth and movement in ourselves, a willingness to enter upon new paths and to see the world in new terms, which the piping times o f peace never demanded o f us and may even have dulled and deadened in many o f us. B u t there is a danger, a threat to responsible performance, in this very compelling concentration upon the new and different and exciting circumstances that press in upon us in such a crisis. T h e r e is a temptation to allow ourselves to be swept along in the flash floods that rise around us, to feel only the vast t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s that are coming upon us and to respond only to the perils they disclose. I t is o f supreme importance that we shall realize, and shall act in disciplined fashion, upon the concept that this war, with all its explosive violence,

124

Public

Welfare

all its uncertainties a n d anxieties, all its pervasive a n d disr u p t i v e p o w e r , is n o t t h e be-all and end-all of h u m a n living even at this h o u r ; t h a t it has not o v e r t h r o w n and invalidated all p a s t experience, n o r t e r m i n a t e d all past p r o b l e m s ; t h a t it has n o t t r a n s f o r m e d basic human n a t u r e ; that, in fact, t h e specific p r o b l e m s it creates, f o r individuals and f o r the community, a r e not wholly new and u n h e a r d of problems. R a t h e r , they a r e intensifications, complications, new m a n i f e s t a t i o n s , of the common, continuous, universal problems t h a t h a v e plagued m e n ' s souls f r o m the beginning of time, a n d with which we h a v e been struggling, in helping people out of trouble, over generations. Few of us, in real t r u t h , are n o w encountering anything essentially new in the practical problems with which h u m a n beings are beset in this w a r - t o r n world, or in the way they are striving to cope with t h e m in their t a n g l e d feelings, minds and wills, nor yet in the w a y they can be helped and in the conditions t h a t make it possible f o r t h e m to use help. N o t only are the p r o b l e m s essentially the same. T h e same p r o f o u n d respect f o r t h e "uncommon fineness of the common m a n , " the same r e s t r a i n e d but dynamic use of one's own resources in helping o t h e r s find their own strength t o comm a n d their own l i v e s — t h a t is to say, the same pervasive philosophy and the same cooperative method and disciplined s k i l l — a r e still the essence of our responsibility, the foundation of our practice a n d the key to the ultimate answer t o our own, our clients', a n d our communities' problems. Continuity a n d stability of established services a r e just as imp o r t a n t elements in our response to present needs, as a r e imaginative, creative, f o r w a r d movement into new channels of service. T h e r e is a second basic consideration r e l a t e d to this first one. I t is perfectly clear t h a t there is an upsurge, a revival, a new f e r m e n t , of democracy in the midst of this w o r l d struggle f o r survival. T h e r e is a new sense of t h e w o r t h and

Child Welfare Field

125

dignity of individual personality, of the right to individuality and difference and s e l f h o o d . A t its core, and in its highest estate, social w o r k has embodied and lived democracy with peculiar strength and consistency in its own practical operations. But the problems of democracy are not solved, either in social w o r k or anywhere else along the whole social f r o n t . T h o s e problems are the same e v e r y w h e r e — h o w to preserve and use individual difference in relation to s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n ; how to reconcile f r e e d o m with a u t h o r i t y ; how to integrate specialism, expertness, leadership, with m a j o r i t y rule, involving ultimate control by the inexpert. In these b r o a d general statements of the problem are imbedded our own daily puzzles, our relations with obstreperous, ignorant, willful clients; the relations of professional staff to lay b o a r d s ; the problems of functional definition, limitation a n d cooperation of different agencies, and all the rest. F u r t h e r m o r e , the very h e a r t of our job, viewed in its l a r g e r context, is to individualize the impact of social institutions, rules and standards, upon the individual people to whose w e l f a r e they are addressed, to realize and enrich the democratic life, t h r o u g h replenishing its strength at its source, in the infinite reservoir of different capacities and experiences of all its individual members. W h e t h e r we know it or w a n t it or not, we a r e destined to play an enormously significant p a r t in making this new democratic impulse live and w o r k . If we are to play a valid and useful p a r t in this process, we must make this concept of democracy absolutely our own, in practice as well as in theory. A n d this involves a number of difficult, but indispensable, conditions. W e must accept and act in every relation upon the clear recognition that we are helpers, not m a s t e r s ; t h a t in a democracy the expert must always be on tap, never on top ; t h a t the right to reject advice and help is the converse of the right to accept. Above all, it is essential t h a t the process of help, w h e t h e r it be of in-

126

Public Welfare

dividual clients, or of colleagues, or of communities, must be one which makes it always possible for those who are needing and asking help to know what help is available, the terms upon which it is available, and the responsibilities and consequences which acceptance of help, under these terms, entails. On no other basis is anyone free to make his own choices, to command his own conduct, to select and fulfill his own part in the common life, in short, to be a self-sustaining and contributing factor in a democratic society. D E F I N I T I O N OF CHILD W E L F A R E

FIELD

Now we may turn more specifically to the question before us and to the four tasks we have defined. T h e definition of the sphere of the child welfare field in relation to the broader reaches of the problems of childhood, around which are focused many of the organized efforts of all social work and of the whole community, cannot be achieved in a short space. But certain aspects of it should be noted. W e have fortunately lived through and left behind the time when the child welfare field in social work could be described in terms of service to the so-called "dependent, defective and delinquent" children. Those categories, we now realize, raised barriers which we have long since tried to batter down. They described service in terms of kinds of people, labeled in a way that was neither suitable nor acceptable to them, to ourselves, or to those who shared with us some responsibility for serving them. But we have not entirely lived down or effectually removed the stigma which those classifications attached to our service and to our beneficiaries. CAN W E

ASSUME T O T A L

RESPONSIBILITY?

One of the most disturbing aspects of those old labels, which lingers on to cloud a clear concept of what we really

Child Welfare

Field

127

d o and want to d o today, is the sense they conveyed that if a child fell into one of these categories, actually or technically, he fell into our hands wholly and irrevocably, f o r the time being at least. If it w a s our job to deal with the dependent child, it w a s the w h o l e child, because he was "dependent," f o r w h o m we accepted accountability. T h a t had t w o implications which w e r e bad. In the first place, it implied an omniscience and omnipotence on our part which w a s never true to the fact, and which violated the personalities of all w h o were involved in the process, w h e t h e r child or adult. In the second place, it identified the service of child w e l f a r e agencies with a particular part of the community, confined those agencies to a service relationship only with a group that w a s assumed to be inherently different f r o m the rest, and shut agencies and workers off f r o m the opportunity to deal with the w e l f a r e of children as a part o f the normal social process in the w h o l e normal community. T h e antidote to that slow and lingering poison, it seems to me, is to describe the child w e l f a r e field in terms of problems, services, and processes. T h e problems of behavior, of social dislocation, of economic inadequacy, of health, can be m a t c h e d by the services of child guidance, placement, adoption, counsel, relief, and medical care, either singly or in combination. So defined, the child w e l f a r e field makes itself available, not to take over responsibility f o r all of living f r o m those with w h o m it normally, rightfully, and inevitably rests, but only to help them face and m e e t a problem. It is equally accessible, without cloud or stigma, to any member o f the community. It becomes equally acceptable also because it leaves each free to accept or to reject w h a t is o f fered, without entrusting one's w h o l e l i f e to the control of another. Furthermore, it limits the agency's claims of capacity and responsibility to that which it can p e r f o r m . It encourages alert awareness o f new problems and the d e v e l o p m e n t o f new services, b o t h within and w i t h o u t the

128

Public

Welfare

social work field. I t facilitates cooperation within the child welfare field and outside, by defining the specific nature, the differences, and the boundaries of its parts, in terms of concrete problems, specific processes, and tested methods. A significant illustration both of the difficulty and the value of this kind of clarification and definition of problem and service has been afforded recently in the day nursery. T h e day nursery was long regarded in a half-hearted sort o f way as a social agency. But for most of its long career it was largely untouched by modern currents of development in technical methods of social work. This was because we had never really identified in it the problems and processes to which social work, as such, was applicable, as differentiated from those that demanded another kind of knowledge and skill. Hence we could not mark off an area where our special skill and understanding, in helping children and parents to deal with the social problems in their lives together and during separation, were actually required and could be acquired and used. Slowly, under the pressure of this emergency, we have found a new relation to these problems and these services. W e have found our own specific part in the process, and so we have discovered a new basis of sound and fruitful collaboration, as a part of a larger whole, in which medicine, nursing, education, group work, and casework, by uniting their differences, have created a new and exceedingly valuable entity in the total community program for children. T h e institution is another illustration of the same original confusion, only now beginning to yield to dawning discrimination of the different technical elements involved in it. T h i s , too, was assumed to be a social agency, in a vague sort of way. I t was at first embraced by us, then spurned, as a potential instrument of real social service, always in a wholesale, haphazard, impulsive fashion. I t was only when we began to break it down into its parts, to relate those parts to specific problems of children, and so to discover the specific

Child

Welfare

Field

129

skills which those p a r t s required, that we began to make discriminating professional use of this ancient agency. W e began to see here, too, a combination of services related to specific problems—health, education, group activity, individual adjustment—as we began to admit, to exclude, to discharge, and to readmit children to institutions on a flexible, considerate basis, according to the problems they presented and the needs they felt. And so we began to discover and to augment the specific contribution we could make to many a complicated situation in which children were involved. COOPERATION

IN

DEFINING

AREAS

OF

RESPONSIBILITY

It is evident that the same situations and experiences also point up the importance of the second task of the child welfare field—the task of cooperation. I have been immensely interested in hearing of the efforts the Child W e l f a r e League of America has been making to perfect its understanding with the family field, f o r instance, as to the areas of differentiation and likeness, of separateness and overlapping, and as to the means of staking out and exploring those areas of practice where confusion in definition of individual or joint responsibility still remains. T h e r e must be more of this kind of inquiry and experimentation, on the local as well as the national levels. But it must be pointed out, too, that in the final analysis, the value of this kind of joint exploration and cooperation is going to depend upon the degree to which each cooperator becomes increasingly clear as to his own special fitness and as to his own focal area of service. Each must bring his own defined difference to the council table. Only then can the gaps, as well as the conflicts, come to view, and only then will a basis of collaboration be disclosed which adequately brings to the service of the community the insight and skill which is derived f r o m intensive, specialized experience. T h e r e are vast opportunities awaiting such cooperation all down the line, between

130

Public

Welfare

casework and g r o u p w o r k ; between medical care and social care, between education and social w o r k ; between social service agencies and agencies of social planning and social action on a wider scale. W e have a right to expect of the child w e l f a r e field light and leading in this direction, f o r of all t h e field of social w o r k with which I am acquainted, it starts t o d a y with the soundest, clearest concept of its problem, the most clear-cut definition of its function, the most far-reaching need f o r unified collaboration with o t h e r types of social help.

THE

COMMUNITY

MUST

KNOW

CHILDREN AND T H E I R

ABOUT

NEEDS

T h e two additional tasks f o r which we must hold the child w e l f a r e field in social w o r k especially responsible are probably equally pressing. T h e first is the g r a v e obligation to tell w h a t it has learned about children and their needs. I t is time t h a t someone with the authority of genuine experience and achievement in this field should speak up steadily, firmly, insistently, t o the community, in behalf of considerate r e g a r d f o r the individual child's place in t h e community's problems. I need n o t expatiate upon the a m o u n t of loose, impulsive talk t h a t is being b r o a d c a s t about juvenile deliquency and its t r e a t ment. A n d we can r e f e r t o it without the slightest disrespect f o r the genuine concern felt by representatives of public opinion and public a u t h o r i t y about the changes which have come over youth's w o r l d in this emergency, and about the reactions of youth to the new elements of f r e e d o m , of tension, of anxiety, and of conflict in his life. But I long to h e a r the calm, steadfast, i n f o r m e d voice of the child w e l f a r e field in social w o r k amid this u p r o a r , bringing the individual child to view as he is, at the center of the whole exciting picture. I crave a sound, discriminating exposition of t h e p a r t t h a t increased en-

Child

Welfare

Field

131

vironmental outlets of constructive energy at work and at play can and cannot play in meeting these issues; the gaps which these still leave, which can only be filled by wise, skillful, individual help of youth in making his own use of these opportunities. F o r it is not merely more boys' clubs, more teen-age canteens, more supervised street dances, t h a t are going to meet this problem. I t is r a t h e r the kind of leadership and help which goes into these and all other aspects of his life, that will count the most. It is the flexible, individualized adaptation of mass measures and external opportunities to the internal individual interests and needs of each one, which is the real basis of hope f o r helping youth to find its way through its present difficulties. Somehow, each must be helped to accept his own responsibility for making something of his own life. T h e r e speaks out of the best practice in the child welfare field this sensitive appreciation of individual difference, this sincere respect for the individual's own concept and use of his own life. I t is just t h a t which must find its way into the channels of community thinking and planning. W i t h it, f o r instance, a day care p r o g r a m becomes something more than safe custody, service fees and statistics; adoption is something more than a convenience, a legal proceeding f o r the satisfaction of an adult's need; foster home care is something more than food and shelter—all because, at the center of the program, is a convincing and compelling sense of an indivdual child, in an individual family, with his own life to lead, his own emotional ties, his own innate capacities, his own will and purpose. THERE

MUST BE

ACTION

But talk, of course, is cheap. Action is difficult and risky. T h e final task of the child welfare field is vigorous, steady

132

Public

Welfare

participation, in collaboration with all other forces of the community—social, civic, economic, political—to bring to realization those plans and policies which embody the truly vital needs of children, f o r opportunity, f o r protection and for constructive help. I have been impressed with the recent report of a meeting of the Board of the Child W e l f a r e League of America, which was devoted to assessing this organization's responsibility f o r dynamic participation in public action affecting children. T h e r e are fabulous projects in the offing. W h a t they become, whether they are to be only superficial, temporary responses to obvious external needs, or whether they are to carry in themselves the essential inner quality of insight, understanding, and democratic feeling which will translate them into really dynamic factors in the lives of America's children—all this depends, upon how the child welfare field of social work finds the power and the zeal to put into their making. T h i s means risking oneself, at times, in the heat of controversy, and this takes rare clarity of conviction and steadfast courage. It requires, above all, the application of a deep professional integrity and skill in the handling of oneself in conflict to these wider relations of the child welfare field. I t is difficult and perilous, but it is a p a r t of the price we pay f o r our right to accept a degree of responsibility f o r ourselves as social workers and f o r those whose interests are entrusted in p a r t to our care. If here, as in every other professional relationship, we can be firm but not stubborn, self-confident but not bigoted, helpful but not intrusive ; if we act as consistently as we talk with appreciation of another's right to be different and to maintain his difference ; if we recognize the community's right to govern and determine its own life; if we can be a p a r t and not need to be the whole—then the risks of commitment to action will dwindle and the satisfactions of community collaboration will mount. In the end, we shall discharge to the full the obli-

Child Welfare Field

133

gation we owe to the children whom we serve, to the community in which they and we both live, and to those universal and permanent human values to which the child w e l f a r e field, and the whole of social work, has long dedicated its sturdy faith and its growing strength.

Part III Penology

The Woman Offender And Sterilization Address delivered before the Philadelphia County League of IVomen Voters, February 1938 (Not Previously Published)

T H E R E is probably no better single criterion of the general level and quality of our whole social thinking and action than our treatment of the so-called delinquent. T h i s is true f o r t w o reasons. In the first place, the v e r y definition of delinquency—the conduct which we see fit to prohibit and p u n i s h — changes f r o m time to time and f r o m place to place, and reflects f a i t h f u l l y the valuation we place upon certain personal and social rights and duties. In the second place, the w a y we treat the delinquent tests to the uttermost t w o qualities which may s a f e l y be r e g a r d e d as basic criteria of social p r o g r e s s , namely, our humanitarian feeling, our respect f o r human personality, on the one hand, and our dependence upon the tools of understanding, r a t h e r than upon untutored instinct and uncontrolled emotion, on the other.

Two

CONCEPTS

OF

DELINQUENCY

It is w o r t h while, I think, to emphasize these two points at the outset. Delinquency is a purely social concept. I t is a violation of social rules; it cannot be defined in terms of individual behavior. T h e r e is not a single type of b e h a v i o r — not even the taking of l i f e — w h i c h can, a l w a y s and everywhere, be designated with certainty as " d e l i n q u e n t . " One m a y be honest, one m a y be chaste, one may be industrious, one may 137

138

Penology

be kind, and still be "delinquent." T h e only thing one must not fail to do, in order to avoid being called delinquent, is to obey the particular rules of conduct which society may impose at a given time and place. In Germany, at this moment, the Reverend Martin Niemoeller faces a criminal court for doing that which, in some other parts of the world and at some other time in Germany, would not only not be "delinquent," but might even be required by law, namely, the assertion of religious liberty against political invasion. In America during the prohibition regime, our jails and prisons were filled with persons who today go scot-free under the law although they conduct themselves in precisely the same way now as formerly. T h e automobile has made delinquents by the tens of thousands—caught and uncaught—simply by creating new hazards against which the community seeks to protect itself by making new rules accompanied by the threat of punishment for their violation. Full enforcement o f the blue laws today in Pennsylvania would make hundreds of thousands o f respectable and honorable citizens "delinquent." These obvious, simple facts, not to mention such general social factors as the inequalities and inequities of the economic system, bring us the realization that society as a whole shares with the individual some direct responsibility for specific acts o f delinquency. A growing sense o f the inherent value of the individual life is reflected in increasing revulsion against barbarous, cruel, unusual, and humiliating punishments. W e are told that a century and a half ago in England, more than a hundred crimes were punishable by death, reflecting in part the fact that security of possession of property was valued more highly than human life at a time and place where an industrial civilization was rising in a period of political disorder. And despite the occasional exhibitions of morbid and vindictive public feeling at a murder trial or a lynching, and despite the waves of fear and reprisal that follow a peculiarly repulsive sex crime, the fact is that the process of understanding, the

The Woman Offender

139

tools of science, have today a vastly greater scope of action in the treatment of delinquency than ever b e f o r e in history. It is relatively easy to be tolerant and intellectually detached when our vital interests and our deep emotions are not at stake. T h e real test of the reality and depth of our human feeling and our genuine trust in intelligence comes in times of crisis. A l t h o u g h we still f a l t e r occasionally, we do return with increasing confidence to reliance upon rational and humane action in the treatment of delinquency. T h e growth and acceptance of these two concepts have broken down somewhat the ancient notion that the delinquent was somehow an entirely different animal f r o m the rest of humankind. A f t e r searching, as did Lombroso, f o r physical stigmata that would identify the typical criminal, and a f t e r endeavoring to associate delinquency with mental deficiency as its dominating cause, we have discovered through later studies and broader experience, and by more refined methods of investigation and appraisal, that the delinquent is not a member of a separate class of human beings, but is an individual w h o is socially maladjusted, f o r any one of a thousand reasons, or f o r many reasons together, and that treatment, to be effective, must be related to that individual in the light of his whole personal and social situation. M r . J . E d g a r H o o v e r speaks about a criminal class, a criminal type. A n d there is one, doubtless, in the sense that certain individuals make a profession of crime, and come to have a typical, professional, antisocial attitude t o w a r d authority and the processes and instruments of the law, and lose respect f o r life and property. But to characterize "delinquents" in terms of this small group of professional gangsters and lawbreakers, and to set out to deal with all delinquents as if they were of this class, is to fly in the face of all experience and of every scrap of scientific evidence that is available. It is interesting to note that these conclusions were first reached and acted upon in our treatment of the juvenile de-

140

Penology

linquent, and then in our treatment of a woman delinquent, with w h o m w e are primarily concerned today. J u s t w h y this should be, it is not entirely easy to say, but it is significantly true. I suppose the f e a r of physical violence, which probably accounted f o r some of the feeling t o w a r d the male criminal, is less potent in such cases. T h e r e are probably deeper reasons, both historical and psychological. A t any rate, the w o r l d has m o v e d f a s t e r and f a r t h e r in registering changing social attitudes t o w a r d child and woman offenders than in any other a r e a of action in the field of delinquency. Special institutions, with less regimentation and ironclad dictation of behavior, with wider f r e e d o m of individual responsibility and opportunity, with m o r e normal social relationships and with more opportunities f o r constructive personal change and development, w e r e set aside f o r their treatment. Special courts and court procedures, m o r e f u l l y protecting the personal rights and sensibilities of the offender, were created. M o r e satisf a c t o r y clinical facilities f o r the objective study and constructive planning of treatment of the individual, both in the courts and in the institutions, w e r e developed. Probation and p a r o l e first w e r e applied to the treatment of women and children on a wide and substantial basis. W h i l e all these modern methods are slowly finding their w a y into our whole judicial and penal system, f o r application to men as well as to women delinquents, their strongest support, the best chance f o r testing their soundness and f o r establishing the conditions under which they can operate with the highest effectiveness, still rests in the provisions w e have made f o r the treatment of women and children w h o offend against the law. I cannot resist u r g i n g you to seize any opportunity to visit t w o institutions in our own state that exemplify in unusual degree the p r o g r e s s that has been made in this direction, namely, Sleighton F a r m s , the juvenile r e f o r m a t o r y f o r girls, a f e w miles f r o m Philadelphia, and the State Industrial H o m e f o r W o m e n at M u n c y . I well recall an incident that

The Woman Offender

141

t o o k place, a dozen years ago, while I served on the B o a r d of T r u s t e e s of the M u n c y institution. M y y o u n g d a u g h t e r , w h o m I h a d taken along to spend a day o r t w o there, and I w e r e sitting with a g r o u p on the lawn, looking out o v e r the b e a u t i f u l hills t h a t s u r r o u n d the H o m e . Across t h e lawn, coming t o w a r d us, we saw a young girl c a r r y i n g a b r a n c h of a cherry tree, which was laden with f r u i t . She passed the branch a m o n g us so t h a t we could sample the cherries, and talked with all of us f o r a few moments in t h e most f r i e n d l y and interesting fashion, and then t u r n e d away and went back to h e r cottage to share her f r u i t with h e r h o u s e m o t h e r and housemates. M y young d a u g h t e r asked w h o the girl was, and learned t h a t she was a murderess, w h o m i g h t be confined f o r life in the institution f o r killing her illegitimate baby. Y o u can imagine the shocked surprise with which t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n w a s received. T h a t night my d a u g h t e r m e t the girl w h o was caring f o r the guest rooms in the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n building. U p o n inquiry she learned t h a t she was the bobbed-haired bandit f r o m Pittsburgh, about w h o m she h a d r e a d in the daily papers. Certainly her neatness, courtesy, g o o d n a t u r e , and obvious capability did not fit in at all w i t h t h e picture which h a d been drawn in the headline stories of her escapades. W e were served our meals by an exceedingly capable young woman who, we learned, h a d helped her s w e e t h e a r t to embezzle f u n d s f r o m a country bank. M y d a u g h t e r ' s conception of the w o m a n delinquent changed a f t e r t h a t visit. I commend a c o m p a r a b l e experience to anyone who wants to grasp the ideas t h a t underlie the m o d e r n t r e a t m e n t of the delinquent w o m a n as an individual person. T h e m u r d e r e s s — w h o was in reality the victim of a sordid home and irresponsible p a r e n t s — t h e last I h e a r d was the trusted housemaid of a minister. T h e e m b e z z l e r is happily m a r r i e d , and continues to correspond w i t h h e r g o o d f r i e n d , the superintendent of the institution, in w h o m she confides as to a beloved foster p a r e n t , her joys and troubles, her sacrifices

142

Penology

and successes. I am sorry I do not know what happened to the little bobbed-haired bandit. I t is enough here to note that it is obvious that no classification on the basis of specific past behavior or of criminal type would have sufficed to describe those young women, and no treatment based on such a classification would meet their needs or protect society against their f u r t h e r depredations. I t is clearly true that in the present order of society, as it affects the place and the opportunity of women, the problems of sex relationships and sex conduct constitute a paramount issue in their delinquency. T h e r e are f e w women delinquents with whose delinquency, whatever special f o r m it may take, sex irregularities outlawed by our social codes are not also involved. I t is primarily on that account that the movement f o r sterilization, as a method of treatment, both curative and preventive, has developed. T h e use of sterilization or asexualization solely or dominantly as a punitive measure can be excluded at once f r o m consideration in any scientific approach to the treatment of delinquency. W e should agree, I believe, with the Committee of the American Neurological Association, under the chairmanship of D r . A b r a h a m M y e r s o n , who reported to the society at its annual meeting in 1 9 3 5 that "until and unless heredity can be shown to h a v e an overwhelming importance in the causation of dangerous antisocial behavior, sterilization merely on the basis of conduct must continue to be r e g a r d e d as a 'cruel and unusual punishment.' " * A s a curative and preventive measure, in those numerous individual instances in which criminality is associated with sexual disturbance or imbalance, or with mental disease or deficiency, there is vastly more room f o r difference of opinion and there is now much controversy among conscientious, scientific-minded authorities. I t is significant, of course, that the movement f o r sterilization has steadily grown since it first * Eugettical Sterilization, The Macmillan Co., 1936, p. 178.

The Woman Offender

143

seriously claimed attention a little more than thirty years ago. Y o u may be interested to know that the first sterilization law enacted in this country was passed in Pennsylvania in 1 9 0 5 . However, it was vetoed by the Governor and has never been reenacted. T h e first sterilization law w a s actually put on the statute books in Indiana, in 1 9 0 7 , but was declared unconstitutional in 1 9 2 0 . T h e r e are now laws on the books of twentyeight or twenty-nine states. In sixteen of these states, the law applies only to the mentally diseased, the mentally deficient, or the epileptic who are in public institutions; in one other, the law applies to insane and feeble-minded either in or out of public institutions. In eight states, the law may be applied to habitual criminals in institutions, if the conditions attending their criminality are such as to indicate that they would probably transmit hereditary taints to their offspring. In three states, the law may be applied to moral degenerates or sexual perverts, either inside or outside of institutions, upon suitable authoritative evidence that their taint is hereditary or transmissible. In other words, in f a r less than half of the states which have passed sterilization laws, do they apply in any way to delinquency, as such, and then only upon strong scientific evidence of the existence of hereditary and transmissible physical or mental taints. T h e total number of sterilization operations in all the states up to about two years ago—later figures are not available—were slightly more than 25,000, and of these nearly 10,000 were in the state of California, where the movement is most ardently promoted by both private organizations and public authorities. Either as a factor in the control or prevention of crime, or as a eugenic measure, whatever its ultimate potentialities may be, sterilization is not now operating with substantial results anywhere in this country. I t is practically a dead letter in a half-dozen states where it is permitted by law, and is sparingly used in many others.

144

Penology RECOMMENDATIONS

OF M Y E R S O N

COMMITTEE

T h e M y e r s o n C o m m i t t e e , t o which reference h a s b e e n m a d e , concludes its report w i t h certain general r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s which indicate, I believe, the present status o f g e n e r a l scientific opinion u p o n this subject : First. O u r knowledge of human genetics has not the precision nor amplitude which would warrant the sterilization of people who themselves are normal in order to prevent the appearance, in their descendants, of manic-depressive psychosis, dementia praecox, feeble-mindedness, epilepsy, criminal conduct or any of the conditions which we have had under consideration. An exception may exist in the case of normal parents of one or more children suffering from certain familial diseases, such as Tay-Sachs' amaurotic idiocy. Second. Particularly do we wish to emphasize that there is at present no sound scientific basis for sterilization on account of immorality or character defect. Human conduct and character are matters of too complex a nature, too interwoven with social conditions, such as traditions, economics, education, training, opportunity and even prejudice, especially when these factors operate in the earlier years of life, to permit any definite conclusions to be drawn concerning the part which heredity plays in their genesis. . . . Third. Nothing in the acceptance of heredity as a factor in the genesis of any condition considered in this report excludes the environmental agencies of life as equally potent and, in many instances, as even more effective. . . . Furthermore, it is to be emphasized that no great or radical change in the complexion of society can be expected from any such sterilization program as we recommend, nor from any justifiable legislation. W e do not believe that society needs to hurry into a program based on fear and propaganda. Although the problem of mental disease and defectiveness is enormous, there exists no social or biological emergency.* T h e C o m m i t t e e r e c o m m e n d s only voluntary and regulatory, not compulsory, sterilization laws. It urges that t h e s e l a w s be applicable t o p e r s o n s in private institutions and at 'Committee of the American Neurological Association, op. cit., pp. 177, 178, 183.

The Woman Offender

145

home, as well as in public institutions, to avoid discrimination on account of economic or o t h e r g r o u p status. A n d it recommends urgently t h a t only qualified b o a r d s of scientists, with p r o p e r legal protection, be e m p o w e r e d to recommend sterilization in selected cases individually studied.

SUMMARY

In the light of this disinterested testimony as to the present knowledge and best scientific j u d g m e n t of the usefulness and efficacy of sterilization as a m o d e of t r e a t m e n t of the woman delinquent, or of any o t h e r delinquent f o r t h a t m a t t e r , I may justifiably summarize, in concluding, the basic needs of a p r o g r a m to meet the problem of the w o m a n delinquent in these general t e r m s : C r e a t e an environment in which the opportunity f o r h e a l t h f u l living, adequate economic status, wholesome social outlets, and constructive education, are most fully protected and p r o m o t e d . A f f o r d to every individual within t h a t environment the largest possible measure of individual stimulation and guidance through n o r m a l educational and cultural institutions to m a k e the most of those opportunities. A t the earliest sign of social b r e a k d o w n or deterioration, or of personal m a l a d j u s t m e n t to the n o r m a l social demands of the environment, bring to bear the maximum of individual understanding and t r e a t m e n t . U s e p r o b a t i o n freely, under conditions t h a t assure adequate p r o f e s s i o n a l quality in the conduct of the whole process. Exclude politics, like the pestilence, f r o m courts and administrative machinery alike. W h e n all else fails, and f o r the protection of the community and of the individual, punitive o r corrective t r e a t m e n t becomes necessary, provide t h a t t r e a t m e n t in an institution in which the processes of u n d e r s t a n d i n g and of constructive use of a u t h o r i t y in every individual instance exclude hap-

146

Penology

hazard, perfunctory, unenlightened, or oppressive mass management. Apply a genuinely indeterminate sentence, so far as possible, so that institutional treatment, coupled with alert and constructive parole supervision afterward, may continue as long as necessary to give every delinquent the opportunity to gain the largest possible equipment and incentive for genuine social adjustment in the community. Last of all, and only in those specific instances in which competent and disinterested scientific authority recommend it for the good of the patient and of society, prevent the transmission of those hereditary taints that predispose to delinquency and to social failure, by the cautious and selective use of sterilization.

Function and Structure of Social Casework in an Institution for Delinquent Women A paper prepared for the use of a reformatory for women and published in the Prison Journal, October IÇ4J

THERE is growing evidence that correctional institutions of all kinds—especially those f o r the care and treatment of juvenile and of women delinquents—are beginning to consider social casework service as a useful, if not absolutely essential, factor in sound administration. F o r the most p a r t this service is regarded primarily as an aid in the classification process, or as an important factor in parole selection and administration. But increasing attention is being given also in some institutions to the role t h a t social casework can play in the regular, day-by-day administration of the institution, in helping all its rehabilitative forces to find their m a r k in the lives of individual inmates. One institution f o r delinquent women in an eastern state recently took up this problem in earnest and made provision f o r the employment of a trained social caseworker on its regular staff, with the hope of developing this service gradually and experimentally over the next few years. T h e institutional Board and Administration sought counsel as to the formulation of the p r o g r a m , so that f r o m the beginning the service might find its place in the total institutional program, with clear definitions of general purpose and specific function, and of lines of authority and responsibility, in relation to o t h e r aspects of administration, and of principles of operation in relation to those of the institution as a whole. 147

148

Penology

T h e following statement was formulated, in response to this inquiry, a f t e r several conferences with the institutional authorities. Since it seems to be one of the first efforts to f o r m u l a t e a systematic, comprehensive interpretation of the specific objectives, functions, and organizational relationships of social casework in the setting of a correctional institution, it is presented here in the hope that it may stimulate f u r t h e r interest and discussion, not only among institutional authorities, but among social caseworkers as well.

SOCIAL

CASEWORK I N A W O M E N ' S

REFORMATORY

I n t r o d u c t o r y Interpretive N o t e W h e n social casework is introduced into an institution, it should be set up as one of those specialized services—such as medicine, psychiatry, psychology, education, vocational supervision—which have the specific purpose of individualizing the service of the institution to meet the individual needs of inmates. W h i l e this general purpose and principle of individualization permeates every phase of the institution's job and must t h e r e f o r e animate the effort of every member of the personn e l — f r o m housemother or ward attendant to superintendent —efficiency and economy are promoted when certain specialized services are administered by persons who are especially trained and experienced in the study and treatment of particular types of problems and who are allowed, by assignment, adequate time f o r these particular tasks. Social casework is one of these specialized services. T h e special training and experience of the social caseworker is in dealing with social problems, that is, problems arising f r o m , or appearing in, an individual's relationship with other people. T h e social caseworker's skill is in her dis-

149

Social IVort in an Institution

ciplined ability to establish and m a i n t a i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h another person which enables and helps t h a t individual to discover and face these p r o b l e m s , to d i s c o v e r and accept responsibility f o r her o w n p a r t in them, to a c k n o w l e d g e and accept those f a c t o r s in the situation which the i n d i v i d u a l cannot c h a n g e — s u c h as l a w and custom in the c o m m u n i t y , and the administrative authority and rules in the i n s t i t u t i o n — a n d to e n g a g e her interest and purpose in d o i n g s o m e t h i n g sound and constructive about those f a c t o r s w h i c h a r e w i t h i n her control, namely, her o w n attitudes and b e h a v i o r .

SPECIFIC SOCIAL

PROBLEMS

WITH

CASEWORKER

WHICH

CAN

THE

DEAL

T h e social p r o b l e m s which m a y a p p e a r in the lives of individual inmates m a y concern either ( ι ) r e l a t i o n s h i p s the institution,

within

such as w i t h o t h e r i n m a t e s — a t w o r k , a t play,

or in daily l i v i n g — o r w i t h instructors, s u p e r v i s o r s , o r the general administration, in r e g a r d to rules o r p r i v i l e g e s or any other aspect o f institutional l i f e and m a n a g e m e n t ; o r ( 2 ) relationships

outside

the

institution,

such

as w i t h

family,

friends, employers, or the public a u t h o r i t i e s responsible f o r her incarceration. A s a representative of the institution in such situations, the social c a s e w o r k e r holds firm its a u t h o r i t y , but she helps the inmate to c l a r i f y and express her own f e e l i n g and t o f a c e the alternatives t h a t are open to her, and their consequences. B y steadily l e a v i n g responsibility f o r choice w i t h the g i r l herself, and, at the same time, r e c o g n i z i n g and a c c e p t i n g the g i r l ' s feeling about it, she helps her d o s o m e t h i n g

about

c h a n g i n g the situation. T h i s is the first essential step in making the institution's p r o g r a m reach and affect the individual girl. Similarly, w i t h r e f e r e n c e to e x t r a m u r a l relationships, the c a s e w o r k e r can help the individual g i r l f a c e the f a c t s — h e r

ISO

Penology

family's feeling about her, f o r instance; her boy friend's feeling f o r her and her feeling f o r him, what it means f o r the future, and the kind of life it leads to ; the attitude of the public authorities, the reason f o r it, and what she can do to live with it or change it by her own attitude and action. T h e social caseworker can also p e r f o r m practical service for the inmate by ascertaining important facts outside the institution, or at times by getting into contact wih family or friends, or with outside agencies that can help to prepare the way f o r more satisfactory relations when the girl returns to the community. In all these matters, as in problems of internal relationship, the focus of effort is with the girl herself, in dealing with her feeling about the situation and her own action in relation to it, so that the responsibility rests as largely as possible upon her. It is this capacity f o r self-management, f o r carrying responsibility f o r her own affairs and behavior, which is always the goal of effort—in this f o r m of service as in every other aspect of institutional treatment.

SPECIFIC

INSTITUTIONAL SOCIAL

ACTIVITIES

OF

THE

CASEWORKER

/. Initial Interview at Admission. T h e r e is no m o r e important moment in the inmate's adjustment to institutional life than the moment of her admission. All her feelings about her offense, her trial, conviction and sentence, her family and friends and their feelings about her, incarceration and the deprivations or possibilities of institutional life, are most keen and acute at that moment. She is troubled, fearful, resentful, remorseful, all at the same time. T h e way she is received and treated—whether her feelings are understood and considered or are apparently somewhat disregarded, in the interest of getting all the formalities attended t o ; whether she is helped or not to understand why things happen, as well as w h a t she must do as each step is taken ; whether she is given a chance

Social

JVork

in an

151

Institution

t o express h e r s e l f or m e r e l y t o a n s w e r specific q u e s t i o n s ; w h e t h e r t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f institutional l i f e a r e o p e n e d to h e r , as w e l l as the restrictions and r u l e s — a l l this m a y h a v e a direct a n d i m p o r t a n t effect upon the w a y she r e a c t s to this n e w experience and to the institution and its a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . A t r a i n e d social c a s e w o r k e r , in the initial i n t e r v i e w , can d o m u c h t o help her g e t a s t a r t t o w a r d institutional a d j u s t m e n t . She can at least a v o i d some o f the perils t h a t stand o u t in a r o u g h and r e a d y beginning, w h i c h does not t a k e a d e q u a t e account o f w h a t is g o i n g on in the g i r l ' s mind at the t i m e . In this i n t e r v i e w also the specific, essential f o r m a l i t i e s — the g e t t i n g o f essential f a c t s f o r the initial r e c o r d — c a n be att e n d e d to. A s k i l l f u l social c a s e w o r k e r can use these f o r m a l r e q u i r e m e n t s , as a w a y of i n t r o d u c i n g the n e w inmate to s o m e o f the basic p r o b l e m s o f institutional l i f e , a n d o f h e l p i n g her t o c o m e to t e r m s w i t h t h e m . 2.

Classification.

A s a m e m b e r o f the C l a s s i f i c a t i o n C o m -

m i t t e e , the social c a s e w o r k e r can accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r ass e m b l i n g and i n t e r p r e t i n g the social f a c t s — t h e social h i s t o r y , so f a r as it is significant, as w e l l as p r e s e n t social r e l a t i o n s h i p s a n d a t t i t u d e s — t h a t will affect t h e g i r l ' s institutional experience and h e r use o f it. T h e c a s e w o r k e r can also be especially u s e f u l in h e l p i n g the i n d i v i d u a l inmate to p a r t i c i p a t e , and t h e r e f o r e t o accept and put her o w n will into the f o r m u l a t i o n and c a r r y i n g o u t o f the p r o g r a m finally a g r e e d u p o n . Such a w o r k e r can h e l p the classification p r o c e s s be s o m e t h i n g m o r e t h a n a p u r e l y ext e r n a l o p e r a t i o n — i m p o s e d by o t h e r s , a n d f o r t h a t r e a s o n r e s e n t e d in a m e a s u r e b y the i n m a t e . A s p a r t o f h e r f u n c t i o n she can help the assigned p r o g r a m , w h a t e v e r it m a y be, t o find its m a r k in the interest and p u r p o s e o f t h e inmate h e r s e l f . J.

Individual

Problems

as

They

Arise.

The

social

c a s e w o r k e r s h o u l d be a v a i l a b l e on request o f any i n m a t e t o assist h e r w i t h w h a t e v e r p r o b l e m o f social r e l a t i o n s h i p s she m a y w a n t h e l p . Since the w h o l e p u r p o s e o f such assistance is

152

Penology

to enable the inmate to take responsibility f o r herself, within the fixed limits of institutional policy and authority, the more this help can be based upon the inmate's own sense of need and her own specific request for it, the better the results will be. Inmates should be clearly informed of their right to ask the caseworker's help, and should be encouraged to use it, but so f a r as possible they should be responsible for taking those first steps toward it, which represent a real desire on their p a r t to do something about their problem. W h e r e , however, other members of the staff become aware of an inmate's need for the social worker's help, or believe a particular inmate could use it in clarifying or straightening out a problem, the caseworker can appropriately take the first steps toward making her service available. Hopefully, the other staff member would first suggest to the inmate the desirability of asking the caseworker's help, and allow opportunity f o r the inmate to avail herself of it. If the situation is urgent, however, the initiative in arranging a first interview could be taken by the caseworker. All this emphasis upon the importance of the inmate's initiative is predicated upon the conviction t h a t the ultimate value of the service itself—indeed, whether the service can be used effectively by the inmate—depends upon enlisting the real purpose and will of the inmate in taking and using help. T h e earlier this will can be enlisted, even to a small degree, the better. I t is necessary also to remark that not all inmates— even those who apparently need it most—can or will use this service. If they do not, they accept the consequences, namely, probably continuing troubles, less interesting and satisfying life in the institution, less f r e e d o m and responsibility, perhaps more punitive discipline, and certainly less chance of keeping out of trouble outside the institution when they leave. Punitive discipline in the institution is in the hands of the administration itself, which, of course, may call upon the

Social

Wort

in an

Institution

153

Classification Committee f o r information and counsel. T h e r e is a p a r t which the social caseworker can play, however. As a representative of the administration she accepts the necessity f o r such discipline and never aligns herself with the inmate against the administration with respect to it. But she can be helpful to both the administration and the inmate, in affording an opportunity and incentive f o r the inmate to get the real benefit of the punishment by considering her own responsibility f o r it, her own p a r t in it, and her own feelings about it. Automatic punishment, or punishment f o r its own sake, without regard f o r what it is actually doing to the individual delinquent, or how she feels about it, is never constructive. If punishment is followed or accompanied by a definite effort to help an inmate to see her own p a r t in it and to make some use of it in changing her attitudes or behavior, it can be truly positive and constructive. Provision, therefore, of an opportunity for the delinquent to interview the social caseworker in order to consider the meaning of the offense, the meaning of the punishment, and what the individual can do to avoid a repetition of it, would be a valuable addition to the disciplinary process. 4. Discharge and. Preparation for Parole. N e x t to the admission process, the discharge process is perhaps the most significant single episode in the inmate's institutional career, in its effect upon her future adjustment to community living. T h e whole institutional career of the individual is, in a sense, a preparation for discharge. T h a t preparation, however, is usually best achieved not by looking continually f o r w a r d to some new and different s i t u a t i o n — a f t e r she leaves the institution— but by helping her to put herself into the institution, so to speak, that is, by helping her to make a satisfactory and progressive adjustment to the circumstances and responsibilities she is actually facing, day by day, where she is. Nevertheless there comes a time when it is natural and inevitable t h a t specific steps must be taken by the institution and by the in-

154

Penology

mate to prepare f o r leaving the institution and taking up responsibilities outside. T h e ending of this penal experience is extremely important. Effort must be made to help the inmate to feel that this episode is over and that a new start is in the offing. At the same time the positive values of her institutional life should become a p a r t of her new self and not be set aside, to be forgotten or denied, when she goes out of the gate. She must be helped to live with this p a r t of her life a f t e r w a r d , without clothing it with such a sense of guilt and shame that it is always in her way. Well in advance of the time when parole is likely to take place, the social caseworker can take up with the inmate the future she faces, her feelings about it, the facts she must consider in planning f o r it—job, home, the conditions of parole, and what she may be expected to do about t h e m — a n d can work with her on any problem that is particularly difficult or urgent. T h e girl must be encouraged and helped to take just as much responsibility f o r decision and action on all these matters as she can carry. Only as she herself faces and deals with them, will she really be preparing herself f o r free, selfreliant, responsible living in the community. Only then will she really commit herself, in her own mind and will, to making a sound adjustment outside the institution. T h e parole officer, who will supervise the girl a f t e r w a r d , whenever possible should get into personal contact with the prospective parolee well in advance of discharge, and help the social caseworker to pave the way f o r a satisfactory relationship with the parolee a f t e r she leaves the institution and for a satisfactory handling of the problem which the inmate takes f r o m the institution into the community. T h e final discharge should be accompanied by sufficient formality to make this ending meaningful in sustaining whatever strength of character and of will the parolee possesses f o r the task of social readjustment outside.

Social

Work

in an

Institution

155

5 . Participation in In-Service Training and Staff Education. A n y new staff member, h o w e v e r skilled in a service specialty, requires a period of orientation to the specific conditions, facilities, policies, and objectives of a particular agency. I t is to be expected, therefore, that a social caseworker would participate f r o m the beginning as a student, so to speak, in w h a t e v e r in-service training p r o g r a m the institution provides. In any event when she first comes, she should be directly related to the superintendent in such a w a y as to acquire a t h o r o u g h understanding and appreciation of the philosophy and practice and policy of the administration, and of her relation to the total organization and p r o g r a m . Because of her special training, experience, knowledge, and skill, in relation to individual attitudes and behavior, and to the basis of helping and taking help, the social caseworker should have a useful contribution to make in any systematic in-service training undertaken by the administration f o r the staff. T h e social caseworker's most important contribution to staff education and development, h o w e v e r , will emerge f r o m her daily contact with individual staff members, in the performance of her own primary function o f helping inmates with particular problems of relationship. In the course of these duties she will need to consult teachers, w o r k supervisors, housemothers, as well as other specialists on the staff, f o r interpretation of the actual realities that loom large in the thinking and feeling of the inmate. In those contacts her own understanding, judgments, feelings, and o b j e c t i v e s — a n d the basis on which they r e s t — w i l l be bound to appear, as they affect specific, concrete problems. T h e w a y she deals with difficulties, with differences of opinion and feeling, and with disagreeable and destructive attitudes and behavior, w i l l — s o f a r as it is successful, as we believe it will be most of the t i m e — h a v e its effect upon others w h o h a v e responsibility f o r direct service and treatment of the girl inmates. T h i s will be

156

Penology

the best kind of staff education, f o r it will be self-education, on the basis of actual experience. SUMMARY

In concluding this paper three generalizations may be helpful: First, it is obvious that, to be effective, the service of a social caseworker in an institution must rest upon, and be supported by, an administrative organization and policy which genuinely accepts individualization of treatment as the basis of the institutional p r o g r a m ; which therefore respects the individuality of each inmate, recognizes her feelings about various aspects of institutional life—and her right to have such feelings, even though they be at times negative— and supports the caseworker in her effort to bring these real feelings to expression and to deal with them as they are, within the limits of general institutional policy. T h e administration as a whole must believe in this service, must risk w h a t it involves, and must consistently sustain it as a p a r t of the p r o g r a m . Second, it is to be noted that the service of the social caseworker is centered in specific, concrete problems as they arise, not in a directly therapeutic effort to get at hidden, deepseated conflicts in the personality of these girls. In helping them to face and deal with concrete problems in their practical living, the caseworker may help to release and strengthen personal forces which modify some of these kinks and wrinkles that have stood in the way of adequate adjustment. But the caseworker's service is differentiated, f o r instance, f r o m that of the psychiatrist or psychological therapist, in the very fact that the caseworker's primary responsibility—her reason f o r entering the situation—is related to a specific problem which represents probably only a p a r t of the total problem of the inmate. By dealing with these parts, as

Social

Work

in an

Institution

157

they come to the surface, a little at a time, the worker makes it easier f o r the inmate to come to terms with her whole self, and to make a better adjustment to the situation. W h e n deeper therapy is required to reach directly a deep-seated personality disorganization, the service of a psychiatrist is called f o r . T h i r d , it is important to emphasize t h a t the social caseworker always works within and not against the authority of the institution. T h e inherent, reasonable limits of institutional life—against which the inmate o f t e n rebels—are deemed by the caseworker not only as acceptable, but as essential, factors in helping girls to reach an adequate social adjustment. These limits are of a piece with those which exist everywhere in life. M o s t of the girls are in the institution because they have not come to terms with such limits outside. T h e y must be helped to do so here, in p r e p a r a t i o n f o r better community living. W h a t the social caseworker introduces that is different, is a chance f o r the girl to struggle with her feelings about these limitations, in the open and not merely inside herself, and in a relationship where a friendly helper does not condemn her feeling, but holds her to account f o r acting within these limits or taking the full consequences.

T h e Place of Social Casework In the T r e a t m e n t of Delinquency A paper presented at a meeting held in Chicago under the auspices of the Central Howard Association * published in full in the Social Service R e v i e w , June 1945, and in part, simultaneously, in F e d e r a l Probation

IT is necessary, I think, to face candidly at the outset of this discussion the fact that the assumption underlying this topic —namely, that social casework has a place in the treatment of delinquency—is itself still debatable. N o t only is it obviously true, as we all know, that many of those primarily responsible f o r determining and administering treatment of delinquents are not committed to the use of social casework— to put it mildly—it is also true that social caseworkers themselves are by no means of one mind as to the possibility of applying the principles and methods of social casework to the treatment of these particular problems. W e face, as a matter of fact, the very interesting paradox that social workers, a f t e r struggling f o r a generation to establish and f o r t i f y the validity of the assumption that social casework is an essential instrument in the adequate handling of this problem, sometimes appear to be retreating from that position, just at a time when some public authorities, originally very skeptical of social casework, are beginning to see and use some of the values in it. T h i s paradox arises, of course, out of the development that has taken place both in social work and in the penal system. T h i r t y years ago, when modern social casework and * Name changed in 1947 to John Howard Association. 158

Treatment of Delinquency

159

m o d e r n penal t r e a t m e n t w e r e b o t h in their infancy, social w o r k e r s could confidently assure themselves and the rest o f the w o r l d that their service w a s n o t only applicable but indispensable to the adequate scientific t r e a t m e n t of delinquents. F o r social c a s e w o r k in those days w a s still definable only in most general terms, as i n d i v i d u a l i z e d social t r e a t m e n t , and the concept o f i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n o f t r e a t m e n t w a s then coming to represent also the v e r y core o f m o d e r n penal r e f o r m . Judges and p e n a l administrators,

however, were

then

equipped, on the w h o l e , only w i t h the tools of mass t r e a t m e n t — f o r instance, r e l a t i v e l y fixed s t a t u t o r y sentences, based on the nature of the offense r a t h e r than on the offender, and c o n g r e g a t e institutions, g e a r e d principally to the maintenance of secure custody. It w a s not surprising, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t in those early times j u d g e s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s did n o t quickly recognize the possibility of introducing into this structure so new and so radical a concept as individualized social service. A s time passed, h o w e v e r , the established p r o g r a m o f treatment of delinquents came to minimize m o r e and m o r e completely its ancient strictly punitive purpose and to substitute m o r e and m o r e t h o r o u g h l y the o b j e c t i v e of r e f o r m and rehabilitation, w i t h the individual delinquent r a t h e r than the specific delinquency as the f o c u s o f effective t r e a t m e n t . T h i s w o r k i n g p h i l o s o p h y and m e t h o d c o n f o r m e d p e r f e c t l y with that which d o m i n a t e d social c a s e w o r k . F o r in social casew o r k , as in o t h e r aspects of the penal p r o g r a m , individual treatment w a s d i r e c t e d l a r g e l y to the manipulation of environmental f a c t o r s , on the one hand, and to m o r a l and intellectual instruction and suasion, on the o t h e r . I t w a s the w o r k e r ' s chief concern to find out w h a t w a s w r o n g w i t h the individual, to devise a r e m e d y , and then to apply his superior understanding and his p o w e r f u l influence to the fulfillment of this chosen plan of rehabilitation. Consciously o r unconsciously, subtly o r f r a n k l y , the w o r k e r assumed a l a r g e measure o f responsibilty f o r r e m o l d i n g the l i f e o f the individual

160

Penology

c l i e n t — w h e t h e r delinquent or o t h e r — i n t o c o n f o r m i t y with community s t a n d a r d s or, even m o r e o f t e n , with the personal s t a n d a r d s of t h e w o r k e r himself, w h o was r e g a r d e d almost as a f r e e agent, c h a r g e d with personal accountability f o r the success of the chosen plan. J u d g e s and penal a d m i n i s t r a t o r s could come quite readily to an understanding and acceptance of this additional means of direct corrective influence upon individual delinquents. A n d they have done so.

SOCIAL CASEWORK'S N E W CONCERNING

ITS

POSITION

TASK

But our p r e s e n t dilemma a p p e a r s in the fact t h a t social casework has largely a b a n d o n e d this original concept of its own task and of the n a t u r e of the individual w o r k e r ' s responsibility. D r a w i n g upon the advancing sciences of h u m a n beh a v i o r , as well as upon the critically analyzed outcomes of its own accumulating experience, social casework has undergone a f u n d a m e n t a l change of philosophy and practice. I t s new position rests upon the conviction—indeed, upon the absolute k n o w l e d g e — t h a t change enforced upon an individual f r o m outside is, in all t r u t h , no change at all. H e will change himself a n d his social attitudes and behavior only t o satisfy himself. H e will, in the end, do only w h a t he himself genuinely w a n t s to do, f r o m his own motivations, to achieve his own satisfactions. Social caseworkers, t h e r e f o r e , no longer believe t h a t they can successfully take upon themselves the role of compelling, p e r s u a d i n g , or cajoling individuals to m a k e a different a n d b e t t e r social adjustment, to satisfy s t a n d a r d s outside themselves. T h e y can only help individuals to discover and face the alternatives open to them, to m a k e responsible v o l u n t a r y choices of their own f r o m a m o n g those alternatives, a n d then t o accept responsibly the consequences of their own j u d g m e n t s and decisions. T h e helping or treatm e n t process, f r o m this viewpoint, loses all semblance of

Treatment of Delinquency

161

control or manipulation of one person by a n o t h e r . I t depends r a t h e r upon a relationship between w o r k e r and client within which the client may, if he is able and willing, ask, receive, and use help in clarifying his own wants and purposes, in relation t o the resources available to him, and in m u s t e r i n g his own powers to achieve his chosen ends. W h e n one tries to relate this type of service to the situation in which the delinquent finds himself a n d to t h e g e n e r a l purpose expressed in the community's t o t a l plan f o r the treatment of delinquency, the potential conflict is obvious a n d the assumption t h a t the two belong t o g e t h e r is f a r f r o m axiomatic. T h e judge and the penal a d m i n i s t r a t o r are now, as they were in the beginning, representatives of the community, which, t h r o u g h law, in specific terms, h a s established certain s t a n d a r d s of behavior, to which it requires all its citizens to c o n f o r m if they are to participate as f r e e individuals in the community. T h e y are charged with the specific responsibility of upholding those s t a n d a r d s in the lives of p a r t i c u l a r individuals who have been held to account by the community f o r violation of those s t a n d a r d s . Individual delinquents come u n d e r this influence not because they have expressed or consciously felt a voluntary desire f o r help in c o n f o r m i n g to community s t a n d a r d s or in changing their own but because the community has compelled t h e m to subject themselves to this new relationship. I t is the communty's will, n o t the individual delinquent's, t h a t initiates and sanctions w h a t e v e r service or t r e a t m e n t is rendered. I t is the community's g e n e r a l purpose, in reality, to change the individual. T o deny or to belittle the deep significance of the a p p a r e n t difference between these two concepts is to be blind to reality. T h e reality of this difference is being expressed r i g h t now both by social workers and by judicial a n d penal administrators. T h e r e is, f o r instance, an influential m o v e m e n t a m o n g professional social workers, including some of those w h o are in positions of leadership and a u t h o r i t y in t h e field of delin-

162

Penology

quency control, to bring about the ultimate separation of the so-called "casework functions" from the authoritative operations of agencies like the courts or correctional institutions, because the two functions are deemed inherently incompatible. While this movement is now directed chiefly to the limitation of the juvenile court to its strictly judicial role, through the transfer of its so-called casework tasks to other administrative child welfare agencies, the basic hypothesis underneath the movement certainly denies, by implication, the validity of a casework approach to the handling of adult delinquents as well. The similar viewpoint of some judges and administrators, approaching the problem from a different angle, is expressed in the recent articles in the Atlantic Monthly by Judge Perkins of Boston, who presides over one of the oldest and best juvenile courts in the country and who now contends that the preoccupation of the social caseworker with the interests of the individual—the caseworker's apparent willingness to risk the community's safety, at times, in order to permit the individual delinquent to develop and use his own powers and to realize his own purposes—runs contrary to sound social principles and stands in the way of effective administration of the law. It seems to me that the time has come to face this issue squarely. Until we do, we cannot claim for social casework, nor will it possibly achieve, a real place in the treatment of delinquency, M y profound conviction is that this alleged conflict between social casework and other essential authoritative processes in the treatment of delinquency is only apparent, not real; that the true principles of social casework are not only applicable—they are indispensable—to the administration of any effective program of treatment of the delinquent; that the alleged conflict is based on a misconception or misinterpretation of both social casework and these other aspects of treatment. The dominating misconception of social casework is two-

Treatment

of Delinquency

163

f o l d , and it has been unfortunately f o s t e r e d by certain social caseworkers themselves. First, is the tendency in s o m e quarters to limit the meaning of the term "social casework" to a presumably intensive therapeutic process, set up within the relationship between worker and client, which is addressed directly to effecting deep personality change in the client. F r o m this point of view the simple, practical, day-to-day services that usually initiate, always accompany, and o f t e n wholly sustain the helping relationship m a y be useful and necessary in opening avenues of access to the inner personality of the client, but these services in themselves do not involve social casework. T h e y are believed to be beneath the level of truly p r o f e s s i o n a l skill and dignity, because they d o not necessarily enlist the whole self of the client in changing himself. T h e y are external trappings, so to speak, behind which we should conduct our real professional operations. T h e second misconception of social casework, necessarily i n v o l v e d in this first one, is the tendency to abstract the client f r o m his social setting as the object o f effort. T h e social worker's alleged preoccupation with the inner life and being o f the individual, with the personality problem, if you please — t h e effort to respond to the client's own personal need, without limit or definition—seems to l e a v e out of account, as J u d g e Perkins asserts, the community's stake in its o w n protection against individual violation of its o w n proper and necessary rules. T h e misconception of the true nature of m o d e r n individualization of treatment in other aspects o f the delinquency problem is also t w o f o l d . First, is the assumption that flexible individual programs of t r e a t m e n t — t h e separation of the individual out f r o m the mass, f o r any purpose w h a t e v e r — i s s o m e h o w a means of relaxing or easing the authority exerted by the community, a f o r m of leniency. Second, necessarily inv o l v e d in this same concept, is the tendency to regard any exercise of firm authority, therefore, as an evidence of failure in

164

Penology

t h e use of a m o r e subtle professional skill. Since t h e exercise of a u t h o r i t y is inherent in the operation of court, of institution, of p r o b a t i o n and parole, the relationship between w o r k e r and client comes to be r e g a r d e d as inherently unp r o f e s s i o n a l — n o t a helping, but an exclusively controlling, relationship. I t is necessary, I believe, to reject, explicitly and finally, all these misconceptions. W e must s t a r t f r o m the one common premise t h a t the basic p u r p o s e of delinquency t r e a t m e n t is the protection of the community. T h a t is the only reason we enter the lives of these people at all. Its concern f o r the individual, w h e r e v e r and however expressed, is as a member of the community. Individualized t r e a t m e n t — w h e t h e r by social casework or otherwise—is justified, if at all, only because the protection of the community against crime is best achieved in t h a t f a s h i o n ; t h a t is, by affording the offender opportunity, incentive, and help to live within community s t a n d a r d s r a t h e r t h a n outside or in opposition to them. T h o s e s t a n d a r d s and limitations remain in full f o r c e and effect under a p r o g r a m of individualized t r e a t m e n t as under any other p r o g r a m ; they a r e n o t a b r o g a t e d or denied; they are not relaxed in the slightest degree ; they are accepted and used. I t is within this f r a m e w o r k t h a t social casework, like every o t h e r p a r t of the t r e a t m e n t process in relation to delinquency, must o p e r a t e , if it is to find its place in t h a t process. T h e vital question must then be answered, " C a n social casework operate within this f r a m e w o r k ?" Can it accept this kind of limitation upon the f r e e d o m of the individual to be fully responsible f o r himself, to choose his own ends, and to find his own way to the a t t a i n m e n t of those e n d s ? Is this acknowledgment of the r i g h t f u l a u t h o r i t y of the community to establish and maintain its own s t a n d a r d s incompatible with the concept, underlying social casework, of the way in which human beings change their p a t t e r n s of behavior and their social relationships?

Treatment

of Delinquency

165

N o t only is there room, in the practice of social casework, f o r such limitations upon individual f r e e d o m ; there is positive, unavoidable need f o r just such limits. T h e y constitute the f r a m e w o r k within which, alone, real freedom, real movement, and change, are possible to anybody. T h e r e is no absolute freedom f o r any of us in this life. L i f e itself is a constant process of adjustment to the limitations that surround humankind. T h e r e are limitations of physical strength and capacity in ourselves, with which each of us must come to terms. T h e r e are limitations of mental ability. T h e r e are also social limitations—not only those of law and custom, but of ordinary human intercourse. In some measure each of us pays f o r the recognition, respect, and comradeship we seek f r o m others by accepting and respecting the conditions imposed by others with whom we want to associate. SOCIAL A D J U S T M E N T A N D

READJUSTMENT

T h e s e limitations are not only ineradicable facts of life to which, willy-nilly, we are bound to adjust. T h e y are, in fact, the very basis upon which we discover our own capacities, f o r we must have something to struggle and measure ourselves against, in order to find ourselves, to achieve selfhood with all its satisfactions. W i t h o u t those limits we are lost in a tidal wave of surging impulses, none of which is better, more satisfying, than any other. It is profoundly true, as the psychologists tell us, that it is conflict between our impulses, some barrier to realization of some of them, t h a t makes us think at all. Social adjustment and readjustment consist in the acceptance and use of real limitations upon our absolute freedom. T h e y consist in making one's own, taking into oneself, a share of the social authority t h a t sanctions these inherent limitations upon individual life, so t h a t we can use them constructively and stop fighting them vainly. T h e function of social casework in facilitating social ad-

166

Penology

justment is not, therefore, to free the individual f r o m all limitations ; it is not to assist him to achieve, without hindrance, any or all of the ends to which he might aspire, but rather it is to help him to face, to understand, to accept, and to deal constructively and responsibly with certain realities of his own situation—his own capacities and also the facts of his social setting. The individual social worker is, furthermore, not a free agent, responding freely to every need of the client. H e works within an agency setting, which not only accepts community standards as the basis of its own service—whether it be a public or a private agency—but which sets up conditions of its own, to which the client must conform if the service is to be available to him. Agency function, structure, and policy, represented by the worker, become a part of the limits within which the client must learn to operate if he is to attain the personal satisfaction he seeks. Now it is peculiarly true of the delinquent that social readjustment must be founded upon the recognition and acceptance of the inherent, rightful, essential social authority that underlies social living. H e has rejected or violated that authority in the past. H e has to learn anew, through painful experience, that those social limits, like those of his own personal capacities, are inviolable and that his real satisfactions are to be found only within them. It is obvious that he cannot learn the values of those standards to him if he does not find them upheld in practice as he struggles to come to new terms with the community. They must be an integral part of the framework within which and against which he tests himself but with which in the end he must come to terms by his own will, if he is to resume free, independent life in the world outside. T o assume or to contend, therefore, that social casework with delinquents, if it is to have any place at all in the process of their treatment, must be separated from authority, must be divorced from all enforced limitations, is to rob the service of its most important dynamic—a vital, candid facing

Treatment

of Delinquency

167

of r e a l i t y — a n d it is to f r u s t r a t e , in advance, its p r i m a r y objective—namely, to help the individual delinquent to accept and t o deal responsibly with the whole of t h a t reality, including its inviolable limitations. T h e r e are only two essential conditions f o r the practice of social casework within this a u t h o r i t a t i v e setting. T h e first is t h a t the authority involved shall be not a r b i t a r y and personal, n o t an expression of the individual w o r k e r ' s particular will but a t r u e expression of the social will, controlling b o t h w o r k e r and client. T h i s requires t h a t the agency, w h e t h e r public or private, which the w o r k e r serves and represents shall, in its own definition of purpose and of policy, define, express, and sustain the conditions which the w o r k e r applies, the limits within which both w o r k e r and client o p e r a t e . T h e second condition is t h a t within the limits thus prescribed there shall still be r o o m , there shall still be obligation and opportunity, f o r the individual delinquent to exercise f r e e d o m , to m a k e really vital choices of his own, to face his own problem, and to accept responsibility f o r dealing with it. T h i s combination of f r e e d o m and authority is the very essence of democratic life f o r all of us, at every level, and in every circumstance. W h e r e ever this combination really exists, social c a s e w o r k — t h a t is, the a r t of helping individuals t h r o u g h the offer of specific services to find the strength to face reality, to muster the p o w e r to make responsible choices, and to accept f o r themselves the consequences of those choices—can find a congenial and a f r u i t f u l sphere of service. B e f o r e following t h r o u g h the implications of this conception into a few of the practical places at which it can be applied, I must revert f o r a moment to a consideration of t h a t n a r r o w e r definition of social casework to which I r e f e r r e d in p a s s i n g — t h a t is, the concept of its task which set it somew h a t a p a r t f r o m the meeting of the simple, practical, immediate needs of the client and which focused it in a so-called therapeutic relationship, directed to the discovery, the inter-

168

Penology

pretation, and the redirection of the deep personal forces that presumably underlie the overt immediate problems. There is something extremely plausible and alluring about that concept. It has in it an apparent effort to get at and remove underlying causes rather than to deal with superficial symptoms in behavior. But it has serious defects. In the first place, of course, if social caseworkers follow this definition of professional function, they are likely to find themselves perilously entangled with the functions and prerogatives of another profession—psychiatry, for instance— which is devoted to precisely this purpose and which is far more qualified, on the whole, to pursue it effectively. But there are other more compelling considerations, already presented, which invalidate this concept of social casework. It tends to sacrifice, both theoretically and practically, the reality limits which are so essential an element in the effort of the client, with the help of the worker, to come to terms with his problem. It is precisely in the concrete needs which he feels now, in relation to concrete services available, under specific conditions, that the delinquent faces the necessity of meeting, in its full force, and finding a way to master, the present problem of finding a new way of adjusting to life. If he can escape facing these practical immediate issues, even by collaborating in an exploration of his past, or by disregarding, for a time, his immediate problems because they are presumably less important than hidden causes, he can easily continue to evade immediate responsibility for dealing with present reality. By the same token, the worker, faced with the endless catacombs of mixed feeling and purpose, imbedded in the shadowy depths of the individual's personality, may easily find himself lured into an illimitable labyrinth of problems, without chart or compass or destination. Without some firm basis, in the need of the moment for present commitment in decision and action and for responsible, considerate, effectual choices and judgments, the controls and the goals that are essential f o r both

Treatment

of Delinquency

169

taking and giving help, in a social casework relationship, a r e lacking. F u r t h e r m o r e , every expression of real need, every offer of real service, within the relationship between these two, client and social worker, affords an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r pin-point focus upon the attitudes and feelings, the will and the purpose, which are decisive at this m o m e n t . I n the smallest detail of daily living—a change of address, a change of job, a desire f o r a new suit of clothes, a f e a r of writing home, a reluctance to r e p o r t to the authorities, or to meet regular appointments — i s imbedded the whole p r o b l e m which the individual finds in relating f r e e d o m to authority, dependence to independence, and in taking responsibility or evading it. T o overlook or to minimize the significance of these opportunities f o r service, to deny their validity and their supreme importance as f a c t o r s in the social casework process, is to be blind to the very essence of professional responsibility and opportunity. A n d so, to answer, at last, the question implied in our t o p i c — " W h a t Is the Place of Social C a s e w o r k in the T r e a t ment of D e l i n q u e n c y ? " — I a f f i r m : T h e place of social casework is at every point in the whole system of t r e a t m e n t at which the individual finds difficulty in relating and reconciling his personal feelings and wants with the demands of his social situation, including the a u t h o r i t y inherent in it. I t is a means of individualizing the impact of the social forces t h a t b e a r down upon him, of helping him to discover their meaning to him, their effect upon him, and of helping him to choose a course of action t h a t sustains his own individuality and integrity, while yielding enough of his old self to accept the limits these social forces represent. W h a t are some of the points at which these problems appear with the most vital f o r c e ? I shall leave out of account, f o r this occasion, those m o m e n t s during the individual's life — i n the family, at school, at work, at p l a y — w h e n , as the forces of confusion and g r o w t h , of change and disintegration,

170

Penology

beset him, the clear, objective help of a social caseworker might mean the actual prevention of the first overt steps to ultimate delinquency. I cannot elaborate, or even enumerate, more than a f e w of those particular occasions upon which, as delinquency does develop, social casework may be a peculiarly appropriate and helpful tool. I can only mention, in passing, f o r instance, the possibilities of its f r u i t f u l application in relation to the function of the police, b i z a r r e as that association may at first glance appear. Y e t in the activities of so-called policewomen and some crime-prevention units, at least a primitive kind of social casework has gained a tiny toehold, even there. But this f a i r l y novel idea does illustrate, with special vividness perhaps, the basic problems to which social casework can address itself with considerable confidence and clarity. Consider, f o r instance, the disillusionment, the shock of f e a r and shame, that may c o m e — d o e s certainly c o m e — t o many a person who, f o r the first time, or without warning, faces arrest f o r crime. Guilty or innocent, hard-boiled or unsophisticated, novice or expert, the individual at that moment turns frantically in one direction or another f o r help in facing the t e r r i f y i n g unknown that lies just ahead. I s it too much to expect that a skillful professional practitioner of social casework, alertly sensitive to what this occasion means to the individual and his f a m i l y , identified in feeling and understanding both with the community that has suddenly imposed its naked force upon him and with the individual who has suddenly lost direction of his own life, could help to a v e r t either heedless and futile rebellion, on the one hand, o r complete abdication of self-respect and personal responsibility, on the other ?

P R E S E N T E N C E INVESTIGATION IN T H E COURT

T h e r e are other spots, long a f t e r this moment, in which social casework has a l r e a d y found f a r more common accept-

Treatment of Delinquency

171

ance. T h e presentence investigation in t h e court is one. Indeed, this, I think, o f t e n seems t o the court and to the public to be the typical, if not the only specific, purpose to which social casework can profitably be applied. Social casework has been generally identified with this investigative process since the days of M a r y Richmond's Social Diagnosis a generation ago, and this process is still the h a l l m a r k of social casework in many minds. A n d even this aspect of it is not to be minimized in importance. A s an aid to the truly scientific and socially sound t r e a t m e n t of the delinquent, within the function of the court, it has an enormous value, f o r t h e technical skill of the social worker in discriminating, economical, sure-footed discovery and weighing of hidden, as well as surface, facts can have a respectable and decisive p a r t in achieving real justice. But it should be added, I believe, t h a t in this investigative process it is not always the external, mechanical technique which is of first importance and value. I t is r a t h e r the disciplined capacity of the w o r k e r to begin and to carry on, t h r o u g h o u t this investigative process, the building-up of a relationship with the individual delinquent and with those with whom he is involved, t h r o u g h which they can, f r o m the first, face their problems and responsibilities with somewhat g r e a t e r f r e e d o m and clarity and can find in the whole experience something m o r e than the destruction of all their n o r m a l strengths and hopes. T h e investigation can be, in a measure, a cooperative process, which enlists the responsible participation of those to whose ultimate t r e a t m e n t it is addressed. I t is this kind of investigation t h a t really counts in the long run, and I know of no specialist m o r e a d e p t in this skill t h a n the social caseworker.

SOCIAL

CASEWORK

DURING

P E R I O D OF

PROBATION

I shall pass hurriedly over the next step at which social casework is most commonly and confidently i n v o k e d — t h e

172

Penology

period of probation. It is obvious that in this relationship of mutual responsibility between worker and delinquent, over a considerable period of time, all we have said of the scope and nature of the art of social casework is applicable down to the last letter and comma. It need only be supplemented by this repetitive note of warning. If social casework is to be effective here—as it can and should be—two conditions must be regarded. T o the court, release upon probation cannot be viewed as a form of leniency, in which the authority of the court is relaxed or abdicated. It must be understood by court, delinquent, and probation officer alike, that this is an experimental period of social adjustment, during which the individual is expected and helped to learn to live with authority. It is a testing time to discover and develop his capacity to take responsibility for himself, as a member of the community, within its framework of rules and with all its deficiencies and limitations. Unless the social worker accepts his own responsibility in the same terms; unless he himself can accept and use the authority inherent in his own functions; unless, at the same time, he has the insight, the patience, the faith, to give help when it is needed but never to relieve the client of his own full responsibility—this process can be an empty series of motions, valuable neither to the court, to the community, nor to the delinquent himself. SOCIAL CASEWORK I N CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTIONS

There is one additional service to which, I believe, social casework may be far more widely and confidently dedicated in the future than in the past. This is in the administration of a correctional institution. T h e enormous strides that have been taken in recent years to convert these dark and dismal structures from places of exile and punishment into scenes of constructive labor and community life, centers of a deliberately planned rehabilitative program, are admirable in pur-

Treatment

of Delinquency

173

pose and o f t e n in effect. But it seems t o me that it is necessary to remind ourselves and the community that just to the degree t h a t the normal conditions, opportunities, and incentives of social living are introduced into the institution, just to the degree that the normal, universal social institutions devoted to work, play, education, health, comradeship, and intercourse become p a r t and parcel of institutional life—just to that same degree do the customary problems of social conflict and social adjustment, which characterize social living on any level and at any place, appear upon the scene. T h e y are, indeed, intensified by the perpetual, uninterrupted contact with comparative strangers and by the unnatural isolation f r o m the stabilizing forces of family, neighborhood, and other normal group associations. It seems to me axiomatic that if, in the f r e e community which we all know, there is need f o r the service of competent professional social workers to help individuals and families to relate themselves comfortably and constructively to the frictions and frustrations that beset human beings in their living together, there is vastly more need and more certain usefulness in making t h a t kind of individualized helping available to those who are torn f r o m their familiar settings and set down by no will of their own in an artificial, rigid, inherently disagreeable social setting. In relating to institutional rules and authorities, in relating to fellow-inmates, in relating to the families and friends they have left behind, in looking f o r w a r d to the problem of resuming responsible living a f t e r a period of complete dependency, in learning to use positively and purposefully the time they are to spend in this particular way and place—some of these human beings, indeed many, perhaps most of them, will find a way to use, f o r their own good and f o r the good of the community to which they return, the understanding help of a skillful social caseworker if it is available to them. I can assert out of specific personal observation, and f r o m the demonstrable results of such service where it has been tried, that they can and will do

174

Penology

so. A n d I venture t o predict t h a t one of t h e o u t s t a n d i n g developments of the next ten years in our penal system will be the steady expansion of social casework services in correctional institutions all over the country. I need not m o r e t h a n mention the obvious value—indeed, the imperative necessity—of following t h r o u g h with this same kind of help and guidance when the prison d o o r finally opens and the f o r m e r convict walks out into the f r e e w o r l d to begin life anew. T h e official parole service and the v o l u n t a r y prisoners' aid society, with this essential ingredient of professional social casework service at its command, has t h e overwhelming responsibility, the almost illimitable o p p o r t u nity, and along with these, the indescribable satisfaction, of putting into this crucial experience a m e a n i n g and a quality t h a t can have inestimable value f o r the individual and f o r t h e community. I must close w i t h the very emphatic assurance—which I hope has been implicit in all I have s a i d — t h a t social casework is no panacea f o r crime, n o r is it a magic and mysterious key to all the intricate problems of crime prevention or t r e a t ment, nor can it always succeed. I contend only t h a t it must be a p a r t — n o t by any means the whole, but a significant p a r t — o f any p r o g r a m in this field. F o r it has in it—in its philosophy, in its m e t h o d , in its objective, in its o u t c o m e — t h a t p r o f o u n d f a i t h in men, t h a t respect f o r the inherent dignity and w o r t h of every h u m a n personality, t h a t repudiation of crude p o w e r as a f a c t o r in human life, coupled with a real appreciation of the necessity and the value of social structure and limitation, which is the essence of the democratic spirit, the true f o u n d a tion of just and effective law, and the basis of orderly, stable, progressive social life. DISCUSSION

BY CHARLOTTE

TOWLE

M r . P r a y has presented the problem which c o n f r o n t s the caseworker w h o m u s t w o r k with the individual in a situation

Treatment

of Delinquency

175

in which his services are imposed r a t h e r than sought. H e has emphasized the fact that we cannot fulfill our dual function — t h a t of safeguarding the community and of helping the individual—by identifying with him against the authoritative system responsible f o r his supervision. Instead we must help the individual in such a way t h a t the demands of society, as conveyed through a correctional agency, may become sufficiently desirable that he himself regulates his behavior. W e have learned that, just as this end is not attained by identifying with the offender versus the law, it likewise is not attained by such a complete identification with the authoritative system that we are not able to see its defects and limitations and to understand what the individual is feeling, as he must submit to the drastic restrictions involved in imprisonment and to society's mistrust as expressed in supervised parole. I t is probably true that much of our ineffectual work in authoritative systems has been due to an extreme alignment on the side either of the individual or of the correctional agency. It is clear that we must accept and maintain our identity as representatives of the law and at the same time extend to the individual help which may become desirable to him because he feels our kindly purpose, our understanding, and our respect f o r him as a person who has an identity other than that of the offender. T h i s seems so obvious that we might well wonder why caseworkers in general have not functioned this way to a greater extent than they have. T i m e does not permit discussion of the many factors which may have operated against our relating ourselves both to the correctional system and to the individual. I shall mention only those t h a t seem to me to be particularly significant. W o r k e r s as human beings have had strong feelings which have led to marked alignments and which have determined their thinking and their action. M a n y of us have come to adulthood with intense feelings about offenders. T h e s e feelings have ranged, varying with the offense, f r o m mild distaste

176

Penology

t o extreme repugnance and f r o m mild anxiety to extreme f e a r . T h e very feelings which in p a r t enabled us to inhibit our own unsocial impulses o p e r a t e , warningly, to m a k e us condemn their enactment by o t h e r s . Any acceptance or understanding of antisocial behavior may be reacted to with the f e a r t h a t we are condoning a n d thereby p e r h a p s lowering our own s t a n d a r d s . T h e s e feelings gradually give way in many w o r k e r s as they experience professional education. In some instances, however, vestiges may remain. Feelings of condemnation may give way to sympathy and understanding, as w o r k e r s study human behavior. T h i s m a y occur as they come to know the effects of f r u s t r a t i n g and h u r t f u l relationships, as they become acquainted with the effects of adverse social and economic conditions on family life and of the effects of disturbed family life on the individual. T h e y see the individual not as having sinned so much as h a v i n g been sinned against. A t this point there m a y come a m a r k e d swing away f r o m their f o r m e r attitudes. T h e r e may emerge as s t r o n g an identification with the individual against the law as f o r m e r l y there was with the law against the individual. A t this point there m a y come also t h r o u g h study of human behavior and t h r o u g h knowledge of the mechanisms o p e r a t ing in some instances of antisocial behavior an appreciation of the need of these individuals f o r supportive m o r a l judgments and f o r help given by consistent discipline and understanding authority. W h e n w o r k e r s see this, they are less fearful of identifying with the correctional agency. T h e y may then come to use the a u t h o r i t y of the agency and the supportive j u d g m e n t s of society objectively and effectively because they use them now in response to the individual's need r a t h e r t h a n f r o m their own need to punish and condemn. But right here, at a time of psychological readiness to represent the lawenforcing agency and to help the individual incorporate its dictates, they a r e driven back by the very n a t u r e of some institutional p r o g r a m s either into alignment with the individual

Treatment

of Delinquency

177

or into a defensive alliance with the the agency. So f a r as caseworkers care mightily w h a t happens to people and so f a r as they truly understand the factors and forces which shape men to unsocial ends and which undermine possibilities for their rehabilitation, they find it difficult indeed to accept the programs and the administrative procedure of some correctional agencies. W h e n these regimes are destructively restrictive, caseworkers are driven either to reject or to defend blindly the agencies which theoretically they should be able to use in the confident, resourceful, and creative way described by M r . P r a y . T h i s occurs, almost inevitably, in systems which are administered by people who are harshly punitive and who lack respect f o r the individuals they serve, that is, when everything is done to d e f e a t rather than to attain the aims of a rehabilitation p r o g r a m . Until many correctional institutions are corrected, it is probable that caseworkers will find it difficult if not impossible to work constructively within their authoritative f r a m e w o r k . T h e creative use of this f r a m e w o r k which M r . P r a y ' s stimulating discussion envisages presupposes an acceptable regime, administered by reasonably well-qualified personnel, oriented to human needs and to the import of their work. W h e n these conditions are not present, it is important that we not become blindly worshipful of restrictive and depriving systems on the assumption t h a t in and of themselves and even by reason of these qualities the caseworker can help the individual make constructive use of them. It is important to remember that in some instances institutional r e f o r m is prerequisite to effective casework service. If social workers put first things first, they will make known the need f o r p r o g r a m change r a t h e r than assume t h a t in their skilled hands a poor instrument may be wielded effectively. Within a well-planned and constructively administered correctional system we would do well to note the therapeutic possibilities inherent in helping the individual learn to live within

178

Penology

social limits. In some instances this may come about if the individual finds in the caseworker a person who understands his anger and his frustration, who at the same time helps him to understand the purpose of the social demands, who values his efforts at fitting in, and who through trusting him shows confidence in his ability to modify his behavior. As he is thus understood and encouraged, he may come to feel different about authority and he may move into identification with the worker's attitudes toward social restrictions, gradually making them his own a p a r t f r o m the worker. T h i s will occur when the individual has considerable capacity f o r relationship, considerable capacity to endure denial, and a relatively active conscience—in short, a character structure which enables him to come to grips with reality. Little other than sometimes a temporary "institution cure" may take place in such instances as the adult offender with a markedly infantile character. T h i s is particularly true when his inability to inhibit his unsocial impulses stems f r o m life-long deprivation and f r o m the lack of sufficiently meaningful relationships to have developed a normal conscience. T h e juvenile offender when behavior is on this same basis may experience through imposed authority more lasting ability to inhibit his unsocial impulses, provided conformity and consideration f o r others give him new patterns f o r relating to others which are more gratifying than the old ones. Socially acceptable behavior will be more firmly intrenched, however, if within the institution the young person is afforded meaningful relationships through which he develops genuine feelings of love and hence of obligation to others. Benefits to the individual through the use of imposed authority may not occur in those instances of adult or juvenile offenders where the delinquency is a solution f o r some deep neurotic conflict, as, f o r example, when it serves the purpose of obtaining punishment, or of punishing others. M a n y adult offenders and some juvenile delinquents are persons who may not be able to make use of imposed limits with-

Treatment of Delinquency

179

out help o t h e r t h a n h a s been d e s c r i b e d . T h e i r

irrational

s t r i v i n g s , that is, their inability to think, h a v e d e r i v e d f r o m an excess o f d e p r i v a t i o n , o f f r u s t r a t i o n , a n d o f m e a s u r i n g and bruising t h e m s e l v e s a g a i n s t limiting circumstances. F o r s o m e o f these individuals d i r e c t p s y c h o t h e r a p e u t i c help will be indicated. Institutional r e g i m e s which a r e p e r m i s s i v e r a t h e r than r e s t r i c t i v e in c h a r a c t e r also will be n e e d e d in some instances.* I t is true that c a s e w o r k e r s s o m e t i m e s h a v e u n d e r t a k e n direct p s y c h o t h e r a p e u t i c w o r k i n a d v i s e d l y . I n m y opinion m o r e o f t e n than not these a b o r t i v e a t t e m p t s h a v e n o t d e r i v e d f r o m a lack of respect f o r usual c a s e w o r k m e a s u r e s . I n s t e a d these a t t e m p t s h a v e been m o t i v a t e d by the c a s e w o r k e r ' s comp r e h e n s i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s need and his lack o f r e a l i z a t i o n of the f u l l extent of k n o w l e d g e and skill d e m a n d e d f o r competent service of this n a t u r e . W e w o u l d all a g r e e w i t h M r . P r a y that the sick delinquent is a l a r g e o r d e r f o r the a v e r a g e c a s e w o r k e r , and w e w o u l d not r e c o m m e n d ambitious e f f o r t s at direct t r e a t m e n t f o r which he l a c k s a d e q u a t e p r e p a r a t i o n . I t is i m p o r t a n t , h o w e v e r , that c a s e w o r k e r s f o c u s on unders t a n d i n g w h a t p u r p o s e delinquent b e h a v i o r s e r v e s the individual in a g i v e n instance; also on w h a t the c o r r e c t i o n a l experience is m e a n i n g to the p e r s o n in r e l a t i o n to the needs e x p r e s s e d in his delinquency. F i n d i n g the a n s w e r s to these questions will imply h i s t o r y - t a k i n g , that is, e x p l o r a t i o n of the past f o r light on the p r e s e n t p r o b l e m a n d the present experience which w e a r e t r y i n g to help him use constructively. A s the t r a i n e d w o r k e r a t t a i n s skill t h r o u g h experience, his inquiries will become d i f f e r e n t i a l . T h e y w i l l not be a r a n d o m collection o f f a c t s useless in the p r e s e n t p r o b l e m of determining w h a t help the i n d i v i d u a l needs a n d can use. N o r w i l l these inquiries be used b l i n d l y as an escape t o the p a s t o r unjustifiably

as an excuse f o r n o t coming to t e r m s w i t h the present

r e a l i t y , if

there is evidence of

capacity

for

facing

that

r e a l i t y . T h e y m a y be used, h o w e v e r , as a s a f e g u a r d a g a i n s t • See August Aichhorn, Wayward

Youth, Viking Press, 1935.

180

Penology

misguided hopes and mistaken assumption as to the benefits of imposed limitations. T h e y may serve also as a basis f o r r e f e r r i n g individuals to available psychiatrists and as a safeguard against overambitious attempts at direct treatment. Finally, it is as we understand the purpose served by the delinquent behavior as well as the meaning of the correctional experience in relation to that behavior, that we may see possibilities f o r that more effective use of the authority, the discipline, the limiting realities—in short, the use of the "social will" expressed in the institutional regime and parole procedure. W e are indebted to M r . P r a y for a thought-provoking discussion, one which should stimulate us to careful evaluation of our casework efforts and of our correctional programs. H e has reinforced our long-standing conviction as to the importance of good institutions and of adequate parole supervision as a f r a m e w o r k for effective social casework in the t r e a t m e n t of delinquency. SUPPLEMENTARY

COMMENT

BY MR. PRAY

Miss T o w l e ' s discriminating and penetrating discussion has raised extremely significant questions that go to the very heart of social casework philosophy and practice. I am happy to have this opportunity to clarify my own point of view upon some of these basic issues. M i s s T o w l e points out three dangers : First, t h a t the social caseworker's identification with, and use of, agency function and policy—which, especially in the field of delinquency, often represent very imperfect and even potentially destructive standards and practices—may threaten the integrity of both worker and client by condoning and perpetuating indefensible limitations that prevent, rather than promote, the client's sound social adjustment; Second, t h a t the emphasis placed upon the maintenance

Treatment of Delinquency

181

and use of such specific limits, as decisive f a c t o r s in t h e helping process, tends to place upon m a n y clients m o r e responsibility f o r facing and dealing with the realities of their situations t h a n they can be expected to carry and t e n d s to underestimate the responsibility which the worker must carry f o r protective help in some cases and f o r direct psychotherapeutic help in others ; T h i r d , t h a t this extensive responsibility of the social caseworker necessitates g r e a t e r reliance upon history-taking a n d "diagnosis" in the usual sense, than a p p e a r s in the social casework function and practice which I have described. I t is undeniably true, as M i s s T o w l e asserts, t h a t " i n some instances institutional r e f o r m is prerequisite t o effective casew o r k service." Unless a given p r o g r a m has constructive values f o r the individual and unless within the p r o g r a m the individual has sufficient f r e e d o m , opportunity, and incentive to discover and realize those values f o r h i m s e l f — a n d unless the social caseworker has conviction on t h a t point and has sufficient f r e e d o m to help the individual use the p r o g r a m f o r his own benefit—there is no place f o r social c a s e w o r k in such a p r o g r a m . F u r t h e r m o r e , one must agree wholeh e a r t e d l y with the concept t h a t social workers, " w h o d o care mightily w h a t happens to people," should accept a full s h a r e of responsibility f o r helping to substitute constructive f o r destructive conditions, policies, and methods, w h e t h e r they are w o r k i n g inside or outside the institutional system. T h e crux of the question, however, is this : Given a p r o g r a m which has a sound purpose, with which the social w o r k e r can be identified, because it has constructive elements in i t — though it is not perfect by any s t a n d a r d — c a n the social worker's responsibility be best discharged by helping the individual to come to terms with the actual limitations in his social situation, t h r o u g h the offer of specific service, available within these fixed limits, or is it necessary f o r the w o r k e r to offer

182

Penology

help on the basis of her own individual j u d g m e n t of t h e individual's need and capacity and her own appraisal of the validity of community d e m a n d s or of agency policy? I t is my contention merely t h a t since social life is social a n d is never subject to individual control alone, real social a d j u s t m e n t is facilitated by a helping process t h a t rests on t h e acknowledgment and use, r a t h e r t h a n the denial or evasion, of the limitations inherent in social living. T h i s does n o t mean t h a t the social w o r k e r must defend, either to himself or to the client, all the limitations within which he a n d the client o p e r a t e . T h e s e are facts, which bind b o t h w o r k e r a n d client while they exist. T h e w o r k e r can accept the client's feeling about t h e m — m a y , indeed, share i t — b u t it is t h e w o r k e r ' s business t o see to it, so f a r as possible, t h a t this feeling, however rational and justifiable in itself, does n o t p r e v e n t either of t h e m f r o m facing the realities a n d f r o m examining the alternatives t h a t are actually available in the premises. I assert t h a t this solid f r a m e w o r k of functional limitations and conditions of service protects b o t h client a n d w o r k e r against a r b i t r a r y and capricious j u d g m e n t s a n d decisions and holds t h e m b o t h to t h e task of reconciling, practically and effectually, the individual and the social interests at stake. I t is true, as M i s s T o w l e implies, t h a t this way of helping places heavy responsibilities upon t h e client. T h a t is its keystone. I t approaches the client as a person w h o is expected to m a n a g e his own life, w h o presumably h a s the s t r e n g t h to do so, and whose present need is f o r help in clarifying his own problem, in facing courageously the alternatives open to him, a n d in mustering his own powers to choose a course of action and to accept the consequences of t h a t decision responsibly. I t rejects the concept t h a t social casework is primarily f o r the dependent person w h o has to be p r o t e c t e d against his own weakness; who, t h e r e f o r e , must be t r e a t e d as a patient, so to speak, and w h o must be p e r m i t t e d to ac-

Treatment

of Delinquency

183

cept only so much responsibility as the worker thinks he can carry at a given time. It is obviously true t h a t not everyone to whom a social caseworker offers service has equal capacity f o r accepting responsibility in these terms. Everyone is entitled, however, to face his own responsibilities and to do what he can with them, and there is overwhelming evidence of the amazing capacity of human beings, however battered and bruised by circumstances, to find their own way to reasonably adequate self-organization and reorganization, in a relationship with a professional person who respects their strength, who leaves them free to feel and express all the conflicting elements in their struggle toward a new self, and who yet steadily and firmly offers service on terms which are acceptable to the community and which the client must by his own will accept or reject. I t is also true, of course, as Miss T o w l e says, t h a t there are clients whose disorganization is so deep-seated as to involve far-reaching disturbance of the total personality structure. Psychotherapy in some f o r m is certainly called f o r in such cases if the delinquent can accept and use it. Social caseworkers must, by all means, have the basic training which enables them to recognize these needs and to help the individual to take advantage, where possible, of psychotherapeutic services. Some caseworkers will be associated with agencies whose functions are addressed to these special needs and will be able to participate in this process. But this does not impose upon social caseworkers, in general, a function and a practice based upon these exceptional and specialized problems. T h e social caseworker's primary task is to help individuals who do have the strength to use specific social services to meet specific problems and, in t h a t process, to move toward such reorganization of their own lives as to find a constructive relation to the realities of their social setting. A n d this brings us to the third point—history-taking and

184

Penology

diagnosis. A g a i n it is undeniably true t h a t the individual's p r e s e n t capacity to deal with reality is the expression and culmination of his whole experience, a n d t h a t insight into the n a t u r e a n d meaning of t h a t experience may h a v e g r e a t value in helping the client to u n d e r s t a n d and deal w i t h certain aspects of his present problem. I t is in the concept of the relative value and the practical use of such history t h a t difference of viewpoint appears. Is the history to be g a t h e r e d as t h e basis of an advance "diagnosis," like t h a t to which the medical practitioner first devotes himself, and upon which the social caseworker is to build a " p l a n of t r e a t m e n t " t h r o u g h the development of a w o r k i n g relationship? I t is clear t h a t this viewpoint tends to maximize the responsibility of t h e w o r k e r f o r a r r i v i n g at a solution t h a t c o n f o r m s , presumably, t o the w o r k e r ' s j u d g m e n t of the client's capacity t o accept responsibility, and so to minimize the responsibility of the client f o r dealing with his own problem. A c o n t r a r y view, which I hold, values history p r i m a r i l y f o r the p r e s e n t meaning it has f o r the client in dealing with his own p r e s e n t problem. A sensitive alertness to this m e a n ing as expressed here and now, in dealing with present reality, does n o t require in t h e w o r k e r or the client a complete g r a s p of all t h a t has h a p p e n e d in the past. I t requires, only, t h a t as t h e relationship u n f o l d s , and as the client, with the w o r k e r ' s help, explores t h e present, the w o r k e r shall n o t f a i l to encourage a n d help the client to face and examine, f o r himself, w h a t e v e r meaning any elements of the p a s t may have as f a c t o r s in his present practical predicament, or as guides t o a l t e r n a t i v e actions. T h i s makes of history not a first step, n o t a static, absolute thing, not a specific tool in itself, but a relative, developing f a c t o r , to be used, like all else in the relationship, by the client himself, according to his own need a n d capacity f o r using it. A n d by the same token, " d i a g n o s i s " is n o t a specific prerequisite step t o w a r d a specific p l a n of " t r e a t m e n t " ; it is n o t a specific "picture of a p e r s o n a l i t y , "

Treatment

of Delinquency

Í8S

defined f o r the guidance of the w o r k e r in d e t e r m i n i n g w h a t services she shall m a k e available to the client. I t is a developing process, w o r k e d o u t by the client himself, as he uses the agency service m a d e available by the w o r k e r and as he tests his own capacities and needs in accepting or contesting the conditions and responsibilities he faces in using t h a t service and so in dealing with his own problem. E v e r y social caseworker w o r t h y of the n a m e must, of course, be sensitive to all the f a c t o r s Miss T o w l e m e n t i o n s ; must be keenly aware, as a result of t h o r o u g h study and training, of the personality f a c t o r s t h a t inevitably o p e r a t e in individualized f o r m s in every client's handling of his p r o b l e m and in every client-worker relationship. T o be sensitive to all these elements and still to leave the client f r e e to face t h e m and deal with them himself, within the limits of a defined service relationship, is the essence of the c a s e w o r k e r ' s professional discipline.

Social Work In the Prison Program Modified from an address delivered at the American Prison Congress, on October 1942, for publication in Federal Probation, October—December 1943; printed in full

in the Prison Journal, July 1943

UNFORTUNATELY it is necessary at the outset of this discussion to acknowledge that too f e w social w o r k e r s ever look at the prison's case w o r k p r o g r a m ; indeed, too many still are inclined to turn their eyes deliberately f r o m the prison. T o them, as to most other citizens, the prison not only is unknown territory, it possesses unknown terrors. I t is a place of exile f o r human beings whose problems in the community are apparently insoluble, highly disagreeable and, t h e r e f o r e , better put out of sight and forgotten. T h e A m e r i c a n prison is almost as separate and remote f r o m the rest of the community as is D e v i l ' s Island f r o m the French coast. T h i s situation, of course, is changing. T h e almost impassable barriers between the prison and the community are being broken through at many points. T h i s ancient and important community institution is being recognized as an integral p a r t o f , rather than something utterly apart f r o m , the social responsibility of social-minded citizens. I t is especially true that the lines of communication and cooperation between prison administrator and social w o r k e r gradually are being f r e e d of obstacles and misunderstandings. T h e introduction of casework into the prison is one evidence of this progress, f o r , along with other values, this casework p r o g r a m represents the prison's effort to appropriate some 186

The Prison Program

187

of the knowledge and skill that social work has developed out of long experience. CHANGE

I N PRISON PROGRAM SOCIAL

AND

CASEWORK

Before this could happen something new had to happen both to the prison p r o g r a m and to social casework. I t is highly creditable to prison leadership, that the necessary change in the objective, outlook, and content of the prison p r o g r a m came first. It was diverted f r o m the simple purpose of pure punishment, custody, and restraint to the more positive and difficult task of reeducation and rehabilitation. A system of almost unmitigated and undifferentiated mass treatment was converted to a regime of constantly increasing individualization. F r o m a place of isolation, idleness, and silence, where inmates were expected to abandon all their accustomed social obligations except obedience, the prison became, increasingly, a busy, productive, responsible, and real — t h o u g h narrowly enclosed—community. Prison schools, shops, chapels, medical services, recreational activities, facilities for psychiatric and psychological appraisal and guidance of individual needs and capacities, came to reproduce, often in elaborated and perfected forms, similar social services outside. In the otherwise unfamiliar environment of the prison, they provided a setting in which social workers could feel quite at home. THE

MEANING

THE CHANGE

A N D SIGNIFICANCE OF IN SOCIAL

WORK

But social work itself had to change b e f o r e it could play a helpful p a r t in prison. A t first it was perhaps justifiably suspected by the prison administrator as an alien and even antagonistic element; but a change has occurred and, because

188

Penology

of it, social casework is now able to contribute properly to the administrative services of the prison. T h e social worker's traditional aloof disregard of the prison program, and his apparent disqualifications f o r effective service in the prison, were due chiefly to his f e a r of all compulsive authority as a factor in the social adjustment of individuals. In helping people he had schooled himself to the use of a perfectly voluntary relationship, believing that real change in a person, by his own free choice and will, was the only sound and permanent basis of social readjustment and rehabilitation. In the prison the social worker saw compulsion operating at its peak, which seemed the very antithesis of the condition prerequisite to real help or real change of men. In standing on the basic premise that the exercise of free choice is essential f o r personal change, the social worker was eternally right, but he often overlooked another equally basic consideration, namely, that no one is ever wholly f r e e —his choices are always made within certain immovable limitations of his own physical and intellectual capacity, and of the social, economic, and political institutional patterns in which he is involved. T h e effect of these limitations is compulsory; real social adjustment comes f r o m the way he recognizes, understands, and deals with these realities of life. One of the basic realities of all civilized social life is the right, the duty—indeed, the inherent necessity—of the organized community to establish and maintain, by force if need be, those minimum standards of behavior that insure an orderly, stable community life. T h a t is one of the limitations that governs the voluntary choices of all, and the prisoner is no exception. On the contrary, he usually is a prisoner because he has been unable or unwilling to accept those limits. H i s prime need is to learn to do so; the prison's prime duty is to help him learn that basic lesson. T h i s cannot be done by denying or abandoning the real and necessary authority

The

Prison

Program

189

of the prison, but only by using that authority to help the individual prisoner find some satisfaction in accepting these inevitable limitations and living within them, rather than in rejecting and fighting them. With acceptance of this concept, social workers have come to view the prison not as something necessarily and essentially evil and destructive but, potentially at least, as an agency of genuinely constructive social usefulness. Social workers have learned that it is possible to cooperate with prison authority, indeed to represent it, without sacrificing any basic principle of social work. Two conditions are essential for this constructive cooperation : First, the authority of the prison shall not be arbitrary, capricious, or irrational, but rather shall be used only to maintain the reasonable prerequisite conditions of decent, self-respecting social cooperation in the prison community ; and, second, within the limits of these basic, stable, inviolable rules, the individual inmate shall be allowed some opportunity, some freedom, and some incentive to make his own responsible choices and decisions. N o t all social workers accept nor act upon such a concept of their job; to many this will sound like rank heresy, and they will never be able to come to terms with the prison and with prison authority on any such basis. But unless and until social workers can accept the validity of the prison for what it is—a place of compulsory confinement—and believe in the value to the individual prisoner of these limitations upon his freedom, they cannot effectively cooperate with the prison authorities, either inside or outside its walls. A C C E P T I N G T H E REALITY OF T H E

PRISON

I suspect that both inside and outside the prison it is generally assumed that the interest and the purpose of the social worker, in dealing with delinquents, is to keep them out of jail, or to get them out in the shortest time possible. T h a t

Penology

190

w o u l d necessarily be true if the prison did, b y its exercise o f restrictive and compulsive a u t h o r i t y , inevitably deny o r d e s t r o y the individual's personality, sense of responsibility, and capacity f o r s e l f - m o t i v a t e d social a d j u s t m e n t ; and if the social w o r k e r , by reason of his basic philosophy, w e r e compelled to act upon t h a t v i e w o f the prison, the prison administ r a t o r w o u l d be entirely justified in suspecting the v a l i d i t y o f the social w o r k e r ' s participation in the prison p r o g r a m , f o r the social w o r k e r w o u l d be identified w i t h the prisoner against prison a u t h o r i t y , r a t h e r than with it o r within

it. I t

is only w h e n the social w o r k e r sincerely shares and truly represents the basic conviction and purpose on w h i c h the prison r e s t s — t h e maintenance o f effectual limitations upon absolute f r e e d o m , in the interest o f the community and o f the i n d i v i d u a l — t h a t he can discharge with i n t e g r i t y

and

effectiveness his o w n responsibility to the prison, the prisoner, and the community. R i c h a r d F a r r o w h a s recently expressed a r a t i o n a l

and

f r u i t f u l view of the social w o r k e r ' s function : * T h e most important discovery I have made about my job as a social w o r k e r operating in prison is that if I am to be of help to prisoners, the main focus of my job w i l l be not in getting them out, but rather in helping them to get into prison !

H e finds the v a l i d basis o f his o w n help lies in the distinction b e t w e e n a m a n " b e i n g in prison physically only, and in b e i n g t h e r e t o t a l l y , that is, accepting his o w n responsibility f o r b e i n g there and f o r m a k i n g his o w n use o f the time he spends there and of the o p p o r t u n i t y it o f f e r s . " In helping the prisoner to r e c o g n i z e and accept the reality he faces, including the community's v a l i d authority o v e r him, and to use this p e r i o d o f compulsive control voluntarily f o r his o w n g o o d , the social w o r k e r can o p e r a t e w i t h integrity and success. " T h i s implies," he continues, " t h a t prisons h a v e s o m e t h i n g g o o d to offer their inmates, and t h a t men can profit f r o m a • "The Basic Problem of Penal Administration," Prison Journal, April 1942.

The Prison Program

191

period of incarceration. I t is my firm belief t h a t prisons do h a v e positive values f o r the individual and, t h e r e f o r e , f o r society. T h e problem of penal administration lies in recognizing these values and in helping men t o use t h e m . " Obviously here is no hint of separation f r o m t h e administration, no denial of its r i g h t f u l function and a u t h o r i t y — o n l y genuine, sincere, and helpful cooperation in t h e exercise of t h a t a u t h o r i t y . U n d e r such a concept the prisoner is l e f t no possibility of evading responsibility f o r his own conduct, no chance to unload his problem upon anybody else, under the guise of yielding to external control. H e is l e f t with the obligation, and is helped freely to face his own problems, avoid m e r e time-serving, p u t his own will to work, and m a k e real use of his opportunities, within the inevitable limitations t h a t surr o u n d him. F o r the w o r k e r , t h e r e is no pretension of Godlike omniscience or omnipotence in creating a new personality or a p e r f e c t environment. T h e r e is only the application of keen understanding, sensitivity, and disciplined skill, in helping the individual, on his own level, to use his own capacities and exercise his own will in facing and dealing with t h e real problem he carries.

INDIVIDUALIZING T H E IMPACT OF T H E

PRISON

On the basis of mutual acceptance, by prison a d m i n i s t r a t o r and social worker, of these f u n d a m e n t a l concepts, social w o r k can play a unique and distinguished p a r t in the prison casework p r o g r a m . I t s function, then, is to individualize the impact of the prison regime upon the inmate, by helping him t o find a satisfying social adjustment within the prison and t o discover in himself, t h r o u g h this experience, the will a n d t h e p o w e r to m a k e a satisfying social a d j u s t m e n t outside when his opportunity comes. T h i s process of helping embraces something m o r e t h a n social history-taking—requires m o r e t h a n participation in

192

Penology

a process of so-called classification, assignment, and appraisal to fit the individual conveniently into a set of f o r m a l alternatives as to sleeping quarters, work, education, play, and discipline. I t means giving the inmate a real opportunity to explore and examine the possibilities of prison life in relation to his own purpose, use, and feeling about them and his future, to exercise choice and exert effort on his own behalf within the real limits he faces, including prison rules, and above all, to accept and face the consequences of alternative decisions. I t involves the disciplined use of an individual professional relationship with the p r i s o n e r — n o t to help him escape the facts of prison life, but r a t h e r to help him face them responsibly and deal with them constructively. T h i s disciplined skill in helping individuals m a k e an adequate and satisfying social adjustment within relatively narrow limits is the distinctive potential contribution of professional social work to prison administration. I t is precisely the same problem with which social caseworkers are engaged outside and to which their whole professional training and experience is geared. In a well-ordered institution every officer, f r o m the warden to the custodial guard, should be expected to develop and apply, as f a r as he can, in every relationship with every inmate, the kind of respect f o r the individual, the kind of effort to understand him as a person, and the kind of mutual confidence, which will help the inmate face and deal with his own problems with as little fear and as much satisfaction as is possible. But there is a wide range of social problems f o r which the special knowledge and skill of trained and experienced social workers can be not only more surely effective, but more economical of time and energy. Such a worker can bring to the helping of the individual prisoner something which goes beyond the incidental, intuitive service of untrained officers. I t includes on an objective level, a thorough familiarity with the social resources of the prison and the

The Prison Program

193

outside community, their relations to each other and to the individual's wants and need, and the methods and procedures by which they can be effectively used. Above all, it includes the deeper values inherent in the worker's conscious awareness and disciplined control of the effects of his own conduct in an individual relationship ; a conscious and discriminating use of time and method in helping, based upon specialized training and experience in appraising and dealing with subtle differences in attitude and behavior. N o t the least of the values of this specialized professional equipment is the direct stimulation, help, and guidance it can afford f o r the development of steadily increasing sensitivity to individual needs and understanding of individual problems throughout the whole administrative organization. By the very process of inquiry and conference, in the discharge of its own specific function with respect to individual inmates, it can help awaken and develop the more general capacity f o r individualized understanding and helping which should permeate the whole institution.

SOCIAL W O R K ' S AND

PART IN

ORIENTATION

CLASSIFICATION

N o moment is of more p r o f o u n d significance to the prisoner than t h a t moment when the gates clang shut behind him. H e has brought with him, in most instances, not only the community's predominant concept of the prison as a place of shameful punishment, but also his own personal load of guilt and fear, mixed, in varying proportions, with resentment, self-pity, relief, remorse, and helplessness. Few bring any real hope of deriving constructive advantage f r o m this experience. T h e inner turmoil o f t e n is hidden by an unnatural protective mask of outward calm and sullen submission. But the emotions are there, never deeper, yet never closer to the surface than at t h a t moment, never more sensi-

194

Penology

tive t o the feeling a n d purpose, the attitude a n d b e h a v i o r of those w h o begin t o exercise authority over him. Obviously the indispensable routines of admission must be carried t h r o u g h quickly. T h e r e is no time f o r long orientation interviews or social inquiries, but I have a steadily increasing conviction, t h a t at t h a t crucial spot of beginning, the u n d e r s t a n d i n g and skill of a trained social w o r k e r , with his disciplined reliance upon understanding and acceptance of feeling, r a t h e r t h a n j u d g m e n t a l rejection of it, can be of inestimable a d v a n t a g e to the prison administration a n d t o the prisoner. If at t h a t critical moment, when the prisoner f o r the first time feels the authority of the prison in actual operation, he can find some recognition and respect f o r himself as a person, some appreciation of w h a t this experience really means to him, some use of authority which is not purely a r b i t r a r y and external, at least no new b a r r i e r s to self-respecting cooperation are created. T h e casework prog r a m can be s t a r t e d then and there, not by any complicated or intensive specialized t r e a t m e n t , but by the use of a m e t h o d of handling administrative routines which, without sacrificing firmness and expedition, puts into necessary administrative rules something m o r e t h a n naked force. T h e classification and study procedure which follows invokes a f u r t h e r specific task f o r the social w o r k e r . T h i s consists in relating the prisoner's social experiences, problems, attitudes, and capacities, and his feelings about family and f r i e n d s to the situation in which he finds himself a n d the p a r t he will t a k e in this new community. T h i s cannot be a m e r e f o r m a l a n d external investigation of so-called social facts, f o r it is n o t the simple objective facts of experience t h a t determine p u r p o s e and conduct; it is the way t h e individual thinks a n d feels about t h e m . T h e degree t o which the prisoner can be helped to f r e e himself f r o m t h e f e a r s and the illusions t h a t p r e v e n t him f r o m facing the realities of his own s i t u a t i o n — t h e degree to which he can be helped

The Prison

Program

195

to take upon himself some responsibility f o r dealing with those realities r a t h e r than with some wishful or self-deluding distortion o f them—will measure the value to the administration, as well as to the man, o f knowing and recording these so-called facts at all. As bare facts alone, they are lifeless, sterile things. It is only as they are clothed with meaning, through dynamic expression within a meaningful relationship, that they attain life and value. H e r e the trained social worker acts as the helpful agent o f the administration, not by identifying with the prisoner in his impulsive projection o f his problem against the administration, the community, family or friends or instructors or guards or associates, but by sustaining and clarifying the prisoner's own responsibility, opportunity, and ultimate necessity, to face himself in this situation and to make use o f this experience, which, however painful, he must go through. CONTRIBUTIONS

TO

DISCIPLINING

T h e n there are the unhappy episodes that inevitably follow this introduction to a new life, with the boredom, irritations, loneliness, frustrations, and discouragements that beset the inmate as months pass within the relatively monotonous and barren existence o f the prison community. Friction and often rebellion against fate, usually taken out on those who, a t the moment, seem to represent and personify that fate, cause infractions o f rules for which the individual must be held to account. T h e basic authority o f the prison, representing the basic authority o f the community, must be invoked and force applied, if need be, but it need not be the arbitrary authority o f naked force. Punishment, as a purely external act against the individual offender, is a crude and futile instrument, if what the prison wants is change in the man. Punishm e n t — l o g i c a l , firm, c e r t a i n — c a n be a real force f o r change only if it takes into account its effect upon the individual. I t

196

Penology

can really reach its m a r k and accomplish its p u r p o s e only if t h e offender himself is helped to face it as the inevitable consequences of his own behavior, only if he is helped t o use it t o change himself. I have no illusions about the possibility of r e m o v i n g f r o m the essential discipline of the prison, its disagreeable a n d p a i n f u l aspects f r o m the standpoint of the prisoner. M u c h less have I the slightest h o p e of eliminating firm discipline, including punishment and the use of stern f o r c e ; but I do declare that, as an inseparable f a c t o r in the exercise of discipline and punishment, the casework process must find its p r o p e r place, first in influencing the j u d g m e n t of the administ r a t o r in determining the t r e a t m e n t to be accorded to the individual, in the light of his own capacities and reactions, and, second, in helping this t r e a t m e n t to find its m a r k , by giving the individual offender the opportunity to see and use it in relation to his own p a r t in and responsibility f o r it. T h e m e r e recognition of his feeling about it, the understanding of its meaning to him, the opportunity afforded him to face the alternative ways of responding to it and t h e potential consequences of t h a t choice, give him a real p a r t in it and place the responsibility upon him f o r doing something about it. A trained social w o r k e r ' s interview at this point can sometimes convert the act of punishment in the prisoner's mind, f r o m a purely external act of vengeance into something akin to justice, f o r which he bears a share of responsibility, and which he can use as a new s t a r t i n g point in his own a d j u s t m e n t .

PREPARATION

FOR

RELEASE

T h e n comes t h a t long period of p r e p a r a t i o n f o r release f r o m prison and return t o the community. T h e whole process of determining when a man shall be paroled, and the difficult task of parole planning, with all it involves of reestablishing

The Prison Program

197

and rebuilding that f r a m e w o r k of social relationships which sustain productive and satisfying membership in the community, is in a true sense the central core of the whole prison p r o g r a m , its basic objective, and its final test. N o w h e r e does the process of individualization of need and individualized helping have a wider scope or deeper challenge f o r accomplishment on behalf of both the community and the prisoner. T h i s process can be either a formal, external application of administrative intent and authority, or one in which the individual prisoner accepts a kind of responsibility which is essential for self-respect, self-dependence, and self-motivated cooperation with the community. If parole is granted only when the individual has proved his capacity and his willingness to take that kind of responsibility f o r his own plans, it can be justified, not otherwise. Only by the development of a casework program, whose objective and method are geared to this problem of helping the individual muster his resources f o r successful living outside the prison, can the prison's responsibility for parole be properly discharged. T h i s demands of the prisoner something more than barren conformity to prison rules. I t demands of the administration something more than acquiescence in a sponsorship, or approval of a job, that meets the bare minimum requirements of the law. Only a genuine understanding which reaches f a r under these surface aspects of behavior, to the seat of real feeling and purpose, is adequate basis f o r action. T h i s can only come f r o m a casework p r o g r a m that rests on a professional relationship with the individual inmate, which steadily and firmly holds him to the obligation of putting purpose and will into the process of preparing f o r citizenship outside, which helps him muster his own powers and resources to that end, and which faces him steadily with this as a test of his readiness for parole. T h i s aspect of prison administration becomes, under the influence and by the use of casework service, not something which happens to a man

198

Penology

f r o m the outside, but something in which he participates as a responsible person, within the enforced limitations of established community law and policy. CONCLUSION

T h e s e are but a few of the moments—at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of the individual's life in prison — w h e r e casework on a sound professional basis finds its own unique place in the prison setting. Each offers another experience, individualized and personalized, through which the prisoner learns the basic lesson of responsible choice and conduct within, and not against, the firm limits of law and of real community life. In providing that experience, the social worker can make his own contribution to the achievement of the prison's purpose, which is dedicated alike to the welfare of the prisoner and the protection of the community.

Parole In Relation to Classification And Casework in Prison An article written for Cooperation in Crime Control, 1944 Yearbook of the National Probation Association

IT is significant of the emerging modern concept of parole that we are asked to view its operations not as a separate highly specialized device of penal administration, set apart f r o m the operations of the prison by its striking contrasts in problem, method, and objective, but rather as a part of one integral structure and continuous process of correctional treatment, directed throughout to the same ends and concerned at every point with the same basic materials and tools. T h i s is significant and g r a t i f y i n g not only because it helps to c l a r i f y our own feeling, as well as public thinking about p a r o l e — l i f t i n g f r o m the shoulders o f the parole service a burden of responsibility f o r prevention and correction o f criminality which it w a s never designed or fitted to assume a l o n e — b u t also because it opens the w a y to development and use of technical methods and skills in the operation of p a r o l e itself, which promise more effective realization of the aims of its own specific tasks. V i e w e d f r o m this angle parole is only the last link in a l o n g chain of circumstances and experiences to which the individual offender has been subjected, the last stage in a p r o g r a m designed to facilitate the social rehabilitation o f members of the community w h o have failed to accept and discharge their responsibilities as citizens and w h o m the 199

200

Penology

community h a s t h e r e f o r e u n d e r t a k e n t o place u n d e r certain special disciplines and controls. I t is obvious t h a t this link cannot be s e p a r a t e d f r o m the rest of the chain even if we t r y . T h e parolee's whole experience—especially his relations a n d reactions to all the f o r m s of authority to which he has been subjected in the n a m e of the community b e f o r e he comes to p a r o l e — a r e a p a r t of him now. H o w e v e r new and different the problems he faces in this final stage of r e a d j u s t m e n t to community living m a y be or may seem to him to be, his initial attitudes and capacities, at least as he enters upon this new phase of controlled experience, a r e the net result of all he has been t h r o u g h , and to him as to us p a r o l e is only one f u r t h e r , presumably final step on the long r o a d he has been traveling as a convicted offender f r o m his original f r e e d o m , t h r o u g h restraint a n d confinement, back to f r e e d o m — b u t conditional f r e e d o m — a g a i n . F u r t h e r m o r e , in its philosophical bases p a r o l e is n o t essentially different f r o m prison. I t shares r a t h e r the distinctive concept t h a t dominates the whole m o d e r n system of penology f r o m end to end, namely, the principle of individualization of t r e a t m e n t of offenders as the surest basis of protecting the peace and o r d e r of the community against violators. I t is in some respects, it is true, the most t h o r o u g h going expression of t h a t principle in action, but its reliance upon t h a t principle does n o t differentiate it f r o m , but r a t h e r unites it with, the whole m o d e r n penal p r o g r a m . I t is only necessary to mention the steady extension in t h e criminal law of the principle of the indeterminate and the indefinite sentence; the w i d e s p r e a d acceptance of diagnostic clinics and presentence investigations in the courts; the development of crime prevention units in police d e p a r t m e n t s ; t h e g r o w t h of classification units and individual guidance services in correctional institutions, and, of course, the whole probation system. All these testify to t h e vitality and validity of the principle of individualization a t every point in penal

Parole

201

treatment, not merely in parole. T h o s e who condemn or question parole because it substitutes treatment f o r punishment, and discriminatory individual consideration f o r uniform mass measures, cannot hold parole responsible f o r this change; it is the outcome, not the cause of this movement. But the parole service is responsible f o r itself, f o r its own conduct, f o r the meaning it ascribes and the f o r m it gives to the principle of individualization, f o r the way it uses and applies that principle. F o r that reason, it seems to me, it is a peculiarly favorable omen that the parole service generally is coming to identify itself more and more closely with the developing practice of social casework, through which, it is surely fair to say, the process of real and effective individualization of treatment has been more fully comprehended in theory and more fully demonstrated in practice than in any other area of human service. Indeed, I venture to declare that only when the parole service—and f o r that matter every other part of the community's p r o g r a m for the treatment of individual delinquent—embodies fully and consistently the basic philosophy and method of social casework, will parole or any other p a r t of the penal system successfully meet the challenge of the skeptic, based upon the community's deep-rooted fears and prejudices toward the delinquent and upon its traditional faith in punishment and mass segregation of delinquents as the basis of its own security against their depredations. A

BASIC

PREMISE

It is true, of course, t h a t social casework itself is not a consistent whole. T h e r e are still deep-felt differences in the ranks of its practitioners as to method and process and even some aspects of its basic philosophy. But upon one fundamental premise there is, I am sure, practically complete unanimity in that professional field, and this premise is peculiarly de-

202

Penology

cisive in relation to p a r o l e and all o t h e r penal practice, f o r it is the one consideration t h a t is most o f t e n overlooked o r denied at every step in penal t r e a t m e n t . T h a t basic premise can be stated in these simple t e r m s : the individual personality and behavior p a t t e r n invariably and inevitably changes, if it changes at all, f r o m the individual's own motivations, f r o m his own choices, f r o m his own efforts t o attain his own satisfactions. N o decisions m a d e under duress o r by somebody else a r e binding upon the individual when he is f r e e . N o behavior based upon f e a r is maintained when d a n g e r is past. T h e one absolutely indispensable f o u n d a t i o n of any effort to correct unacceptable p a t t e r n s of behavior, or to sustain new, acceptable p a t t e r n s — w h i c h is the basic aim of p a r o l e — i s t h a t the responsibility f o r t h a t behavior shall remain, always and t h r o u g h o u t , with the individual. A n d the one essential skill required in the administration of a helping service directed to this end is the disciplined ability to develop and maintain a helping relationship in which the individual remains always free, and always obliged to accept and d i s c h a r g e — n e v e r to e v a d e — h i s own responsibility f o r his own choices and judgments and their consequences. T h e only help which anyone can give to another person t o w a r d accepting new p a t t e r n s of behavior is to afford the opportunity f o r clearly facing and steadily clarfying the available alternatives of action and their potential consequences, and to sustain the individual's s t r e n g t h to face the realities and to accept responsibility f o r the choices he does and must make. T h e difficult of fulfilling this concept of the helping task is obviously extreme within a prison situation in which every detail of living is of necessity m o l d e d by the abnormally n a r r o w limits of an institutional regime, within which individual choices a r e inevitably restricted in number and scope. By the very n a t u r e of the situation, most of the n o r m a l responsibilities of each h u m a n being as a member of an intimate

Parole

203

family unit, as a worker, as a citizen, as a group member, are largely eliminated or minimized. It is thus possible, and it is not uncommon, for the individual prisoner to evade all responsibility for his own life. H e merely needs to become a "good prisoner"—to abide by all the rules made by others, to do what is asked by every officer, to become an automaton in the hands of the authorities. W h i l e only the most naive administrator will fail to realize the difference between this kind of conformity—which may be the very annihilation of the self—and a real change of heart or will to be different, it is also the rare administrator who has the time and the equipment, the imagination and the strength of conviction to introduce deliberately and systematically into the prisoner's life the kind of understanding, stimulation, and guidance which can shake the prisoner loose from this easy, inert dependence upon merely obedient and, therefore, utterly irresponsible behavior. A

LIVING,

DYNAMIC

RELATIONSHIP

It is evident that the task of the parole officer who may conceive of his function in these terms is made infinitely more difficult by this continuous experience of successful irresponsibility on the part of the prisoner. And the parolee's own problem in the free community is also enormously intensified by this same type of preparatory experience. For there, in a new and often strange setting, he is not only free to take the consequences of his own decisions ; he must do so. T h e obvious temptation, the inevitable tendency, is to revert either to the undisciplined and impulsive freedom that he knew in the community before he went to prison and that probably brought him into conflict with the law in the first place, or to settle back into the rather comfortable dependence he m a r have known while in the institution, expecting only that the parole officer rather than the prison guard will give the

204

Penology

orders he can obey. From the standpoint of the community, as well as of the parolee himself, neither of these adjustments is acceptable. Readjustment and change, to meet the demands of social life outside, are going to depend upon the extent to which some new motive, some new source of inner strength, can be discovered in himself, which will demand for the true satisfaction of his own needs and wants a more considerate and responsible use of himself. The problem of the parole officer is to find the insight and skill with which to recognize, to utilize, and consistently to cultivate this dawning sense of a new and more responsible self. It is clear that this concept of the task of individualized service to the delinquent has nothing perfunctory or mechanical about it; it can have nothing of these qualities in it. In involves a living, dynamic relationship in which the delinquent is not the passive recipient of service or of influence either, but rather an active participant at every step in his own readjustment and rehabilitation. CLASSIFICATION

Visualizing as we did at the beginning the prison and parole experience as a unity—the one a preparation in a sense for the other—it may be worth while to examine some of the spots at which this concept in practice may involve the introduction of something substantially new and different into present programs. W e can appropriately begin, for instance, near the very beginning of the prison experience, in the classification process. I have no inclination to deny or to belittle the enormous contribution of this relatively recent innovation to the individualization process upon which today we put such great store. It has often undoubtedly evoked and cultivated an utterly new and vastly more constructive spirit in the whole administration of the prison; it has lifted the individual prisoner for a time at least out of the mass ; and it has brought

Parole

205

to b e a r upon him and his need, as a differentiated p e r s o n , t h e concerted resources of the social sciences and t h e service p r o fessions in all their variations. I t h a s been by n o m e a n s a negligible f a c t o r , t h e r e f o r e , in converting the p r i s o n in purpose and in some measure, in fact, f r o m a place of m a s s punishment into an agency of potential individual r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . But as I know it, the classification clinic is p r e d o m i n a n t l y an instrument of diagnosis in which the inmate plays principally two roles in succession : first, as the subject of study and investigation, and l a t e r as the object of a plan derived in the first instance f r o m the presumably superior knowledge a n d h i g h e r p u r p o s e of the clinic staff. I t is true, of course, t h a t in the better clinics, in the process of study and of planning, t h e p a r ticipation of the prisoner is invited a n d used to some e x t e n t — to a certain degree his cooperation is indispensable—but even this participation has primarily a diagnostic p u r p o s e and effect. T h e t r e a t m e n t f u n c t i o n — t h e process of eliciting and helping the individual's active use of himself in relation t o t h e problem of living among others, the conscious effort t o help him follow t h r o u g h a plan of living a n d to use it in a responsible fashion f o r his own developing p u r p o s e s — t h i s is largely l e f t t o chance, to the automatic outcomes of the plan itself. T h e r e is little energy directed to the development of a continuing dynamic relationship in which he can find the incentive and the strength to change himself or to control his own use of opportunity to constructive ends. I t needs h a r d l y to be mentioned t h a t diagnostic help alone can be just as crudely manipulative in its effect, can just as completely r o b the individual of responsibility f o r his own life, as the most naked use of force. F o r it can be a n d o f t e n is directed merely to the f o r m u l a t i o n of an external plan, imposed f r o m without, f o r m a l and compelling. U n l e s s in this process of study and planning, and the interaction it involves between individual and administration, and unless in the a f t e r m a t h of daily living under the plan, t h e individuality of the

206

Penology

prisoner is still respected and cultivated, and opportunities deliberately afforded for responsible choices and decisions, the process of classification may serve only to break down a vast whole into almost equally lifeless and unmanageable parts, in which the individual still never has occasion or incentive to find himself or to be really discovered by those around him. It seems clear that the classification clinic must become also a treatment center from which continually radiate a variety of professional services, available to each individual who wants them and can use them. Not the least of these services are those of the social caseworker through whom the individual prisoner can, if he will, experience inside the prison substantially the same kind of relationship which we have suggested should be available to him outside, and through whose skillful, disciplined, professional help he can learn what it means to be responsibly, not irresponsibly free, and to take help without sacrificing his own integrity. CRITERIA

FOR PAROLE

SELECTION

T h e whole process of parole selection, of parole timing and of parole planning affords another opportunity to invoke and apply the same basic concepts of treatment. W h a t shall be the criteria for determining in each instance when the prison experience should end and the parole experience begin? Again it is appropriate to acknowledge gratefully the contributions already made to the more constructive handling of this problem by classification clinics and professional services in penal institutions. The use made of diagnostic material, of thoughtful interpretations of prison experience and of situations and circumstances into which the individual candidate for parole will probably enter on release, has made enormous advances in recent years. But again in this process, what

Parole

207

is the individual prisoner expected to be induced to put in, apart from a burning desire to get out of prison and an ardent effort to meet all the formal and technical requirements? And how much does this process of parole selection and preparation do to help him to take over as his own obligation the use of parole as a real step toward responsible individual living? In the first place, with reference to these central questions, we must remind ourselves that unless within the prison structure itself there is the kind of individual understanding, faith, and opportunity for treatment relationships which we have described as essential, there is and can be no assurance at all, except by chance, that the real, personal purpose and the individual capacity of the prison inmate for readjustment outside prison walls can be truly gauged in advance. Unless there is some consistent and systematic effort really to know and to help the individual, to free him to be himself, to hold him to account for what he puts into the time he serves, there is no possible way to measure his readiness for parole. Furthermore, unless in the process of parole planning itself he is helped and required to put himself in, in this fashion to make real effort in his own behalf, to do something besides conform to rules, nothing has really happened to prepare him for responsible living outside. On the contrary, he may have experienced again success on a superficial or verbal level, he may have felt as if he had paid a longstanding debt to society only with his spare change, so to speak. H e may have "got by" once more in a state of lazy dependence upon others. There is, then, more than speculative, picayune theory in the concept that something is fatally wrong in the common and slovenly practice of finding a man a job or a sponsor, in order, forsooth, that he may make a "good start" on a parole. Somewhere in that process the man himself must find a motive and a way to exert his own strength in his own behalf. T h a t is the only kind of good start that means much. For it is the actual

208

Penology

beginning of responsible living, and f r o m t h a t g e r m of personal responsibility, if steadily and skillfully sustained in the p a r o l e relationship, can g r o w a real capacity f o r p u r p o s e f u l and responsible conduct. If this kind of p r o f e s s i o n a l insight and helping relationship is once experienced in the institution in the process of prep a r i n g f o r parole, its use can be t r a n s f e r r e d and a d a p t e d t o t h e new setting of conditional f r e e d o m outside, w h e r e it can be expressed and fulfilled in the same steady use of every opportunity f o r increasing acceptance of responsibility f o r individual decisions and judgments. But, again, this can h a p p e n only if the parolee is held t o something m o r e t h a n external f o r m a l i t i e s and is constantly placed under the obligation to m a k e his own use of the new opportunity. I am a w a r e of the t r e m e n d o u s handicap u n d e r which the p a r o l e service everywhere is compelled to o p e r a t e , with inadequate staffs, excessive case loads, lack of equipment, and all the rest. A n d I am sincerely appreciative of the astonishing achievements of m a n y officers in the service despite all these obstacles, just because of their determined devotion t o the highest s t a n d a r d s of personal p e r f o r m a n c e . But it is also t r u e t h a t when the concept of the basic purpose and essential m e t h o d of individualized helping as we have defined it is generally accepted a n d expressed in the parole service itself, w h e r e v e r it operates, m a n y of these same external obstacles will be erased. F o r p a r o l e will then be recognized f o r w h a t it is—not just an easy way out of prison f o r the m a n w h o temporarily c o n f o r m s to rules, but r a t h e r the continuance of a period of training and discipline, directed steadily and skillfully to the cultivation of a capacity and a will f o r responsible membership in the community. It will be seen as the means of helping men learn f o r their own and the common g o o d the uses of f r e e d o m with the values of stable social rules a n d disciplines. In t h a t lies the protection of the community's stake in its peace and o r d e r and security.

209

Parole FREEDOM A N D D I S C I P L I N E

NEEDED

A n d it c a n n o t be e m p h a s i z e d t o o o f t e n in o u r o w n m i n d s a n d in t h e public m i n d t h a t b o t h f r e e d o m a n d discipline a r e n e c e s s a r y in t h e cultivation of r e s p o n s i b l e b e h a v i o r . I n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n of service t h a t is so flabby as t o yield t o e v e r y m o o d a n d difference a n d n e e d p r e s e n t e d by t h e p a r o l e e , t h a t d o e s n o t h o l d t o a firm a n d stable s t r u c t u r e of policy a n d r u l e w i t h i n which and n o t b e y o n d which t h e p a r o l e e still finds f r e e d o m f o r his own decisions, is n o t a h e l p i n g service a t all. T h e a u t h o r i t y of the c o m m u n i t y is a r i g h t f u l a u t h o r i t y w i t h which e a c h of us m u s t come t o t e r m s , p e r h a p s m o s t of all t h e m a n w h o h a s f o u n d it difficult o r impossible in t h e p a s t t o d o so. P a r o l e is a r i g h t f u l a n d c o n s t r u c t i v e extension of t h a t a u t h o r ity. W h a t it offers t h a t is n e w a n d d i f f e r e n t a n d , t h e r e f o r e , p o s i t i v e l y c o n s t r u c t i v e is t h e exercise of t h a t a u t h o r i t y in a w a y w h i c h is n o t a r b i t r a r y , p e r s o n a l , o r capricious, b u t only r e a s o n a b l e , f a i r , a n d firm. T o find an exercise of a u t h o r i t y w h i c h d o e s n o t deny t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t t o be h i m s e l f , which e n c o u r a g e s a n d c u l t i v a t e s his o w n difference, w h i c h recogn i z e s even his r i g h t t o fight a g a i n s t a u t h o r i t y if h e m u s t , b u t w h i c h in t h e end h o l d s firm t o t h e f u n d a m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s u p o n w h i c h social c o o p e r a t i o n a n d i n t e g r a t i o n m u s t r e s t — this will in itself be a n e w experience f o r m a n y an o f f e n d e r . I n t h e r e g u l a r i t y of r e p o r t s a n d c o n f e r e n c e s , in t h e insistent ref u s a l t o allow responsibility t o be denied, e v a d e d , o r s h i f t e d , in t h e consistent use of e v e r y m o m e n t of c o n t a c t h o w e v e r fleeting a n d t r i v i a l t o e x a m i n e t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s t h a t a r e o p e n a n d t h e consequences t h e y e n t a i l — i n this firm s t r u c t u r e of p u r p o s e a n d policy a n d p r o c e d u r e , c o u p l e d w i t h t h e discip l i n e d use of d e e p h u m a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d g e n u i n e r e s p e c t for individual personality—is symbolized authority without b i g o t r y o r m e a n n e s s , u n d e r s t a n d i n g w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e , firmness w i t h o u t rigidity, w a r m t h w i t h o u t s e n t i m e n t a l i t y . W i t h i n such a s e t t i n g a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p t h e i n d i v i d u a l o f -

210

Penology

fender can struggle freely and sincerely against the limits that inevitably bound his freedom and with which he must ultimately come to terms. Finding in those limits not the sharp spear of attack against himself as a person, but only the impersonal, inexorable conditions that control both officer and parolee, both the organs of authority and their objects, the individual may find also at last a dawning conviction that social cooperation can bring satisfactions equal to those of futile social rebellion. It is not the removal of authority or its weakening that characterizes parole or that accomplishes its purpose. It is rather the continuance and firm fulfillment of rational authority in a new, more friendly, more meaningful guise and mode of operation. H e r e again in conclusion, I must revert to the deep significance and value of the concept of essential continuity and integrity in the whole penal program that links the prison experience with the parole experience as different but complementary aspects of one total process. Upon such a basis it is possible to envisage in the future a far more flexible and more constructive integration of the two kinds of services. I look forward to the day when the use of probation, of institutional treatment and of parole will no longer be regarded as alternatives or substitutes for one another, but rather as interchange. able and constantly interacting parts of one integral system in which each may be used experimentally, successively, and repeatedly with any offender according to his developing need and his individual use at different times of the different degrees of responsible freedom available to him within the functional limits of the several services. T h e correctional institution in such a program will not be exclusively or predominantly a symbol of personal failure in community living, but rather a center of group training and individual discipline, help and guidance, directed to awakening, cultivating, and strengthening a desire and capacity for self-responsible social cooperation. Parole becomes a further

Parole

211

testing g r o u n d and challenge f o r this developing a n d emerging responsible self. T o r e t u r n f r o m this l a r g e r f r e e d o m t o the m o r e protected and limited liberty of institutional living f r o m time to time need not represent failure or punishment, but merely consecutive steps in a continuous process of g r o w t h , trial, change, and movement t o w a r d fully responsible membership in a community. I t is clear f r o m any such viewpoint t h a t the use of authority and t h e helping process in prison and on p a r o l e must be governed by the same basic purpose and conviction. T h e individual must find at b o t h places and periods in his experience a kind of feeling, of u n d e r s t a n d ing, of insight and skill t h a t really enlists his confidence and his cooperation because it genuinely expresses sincere respect f o r him as a person and a real f a i t h in his capacity to find and m a n a g e himself. But with this prerequisite condition of f a i t h and feeling, and competent professional insight a n d service, t h e r e is no limit to the constructive possibilities open to us in p a r o l e as in institutional administration. T h e r e is g r o u n d f o r rational hope ndeed t h a t the age-old problem of social control and prevention of crime can yield in some m e a s u r e to human devices and skills. I t all takes faith, it takes courage, it takes disciplined skill. But its r e w a r d s are g r e a t and its satisfactions beyond measure.

Casework Paves the Way In Preparation for Freedom Address delivered in November 1945 at a joint meeting of the Wardens' Association and the Committee on Education, American Prison Congress, New York City, and published in the Prison J o u r n a l , April 1946

I hope it may not seem inappropriate or indelicate f o r me to observe at the outset of this discussion the deep and g r a t i f y ing significance of the fact that in framing the topic assigned to me today your committee has apparently assumed, without question or qualification, that social casework has a vital service to render in the internal administration of the prison. A v e r y few years ago such an assumption would have been reg a r d e d as utterly fantastic. It is true, of course, that the values of social casework with discharged c o n v i c t s — d u r i n g parole and a f t e r — h a d f o u n d general acceptance in theory among penal administrators, and some expression in practice. Some collaboration between the prison administration and certain social casework agencies in the community w a s not uncommon. But many events and ideas have conspired over a long past to keep social casework at arm's length f r o m the internal administration of the institution itself.

FREEDOM AS R E L A T E D TO AUTHORITY

Probably the most important basic obstacle to any closer cooperation w a s a certain persistent confusion and conflict over the concept of " f r e e d o m , " which is the central theme of today's p r o g r a m , especially as it related to another important 212

Preparation for Freedom

213

concept, "authority," in determining the processes and outcomes of penal treatment. T h i s confusion and conflict is by no means confined to the prison. It is shared by social workers and penal administrators, by judges, probation and parole authorities, and by the general public. But it has been peculiarly potent in its influence upon the relations of social caseworkers and prison officials. Predominantly, the prison has been regarded and has regarded itself as an authoritarian institution, while social casework, on the other hand, has emphasized more and more insistently the freedom of the individual to make his own choices. M o s t social workers, therefore, have feared the stultifying effect upon the individual of the total dependency and blind obedience which seemed to be cultivated within the prison regime. M o s t prison administrators, f o r their part, have feared the complete individuality and independence which were apparently the chief goals of social casework. T h e gist of thinking on both sides about these two concepts has appeared to be that "east is east, and west is west, and never the twain shall meet." Occasionally, of course, these points of view were almost reversed. Once in a while, f o r instance, a libertarian has gained a foothold in prison administration. Desiring to make a completely fresh start, f r e e f r o m all traditions of a presumably discredited past, such an administrator has been tempted to extol self-government to the point where administrative authority almost sank out of sight. On the other side of the picture, an authoritarian still more than occasionally speaks up f r o m the ranks of social work, in the person of the worker who, denying the capacity of many individuals to take responsibility f o r themselves, advocates a paternalistic treatment which is essentially authoritarian, since the worker is expected to exercise all his wiles in persuading the client to accept a particular behavior pattern of the worker's design. H o w e v e r these viewpoints may be shuffled about between

214

Penology

prison a d m i n i s t r a t o r a n d social w o r k e r , the essential confusion and conflict between the two obviously remains. U n t i l we find our way out of this m o r a s s of ideas, no real collaboration is possible. T h e n a t u r e of t o d a y ' s p r o g r a m gives h o p e t h a t we can find some common ground, f r o m which f u r t h e r p r o g r e s s can be m a d e . T h e key to the p r o b l e m is to be found, I believe, in t w o basic concepts, upon which it should be possible f o r all of us t o agree, at least in t h e o r y : First, f r e e d o m is a relative t e r m ; t h e r e is no absolute f r e e d o m anywhere in this w o r l d and there ought not to be. N o n e of us has absolute individual f r e e d o m ; none of us believes in it ; none of us would k n o w w h a t to do with it if we h a d it. Some structure of authority, defining and enforcing the necessary limits upon individual personal responsibility and conduct, as a condition of social cooperation, is an indispensible basis of any kind of life in any society. Such authority is essential in the p r i s o n ; it is essential in the outside community. M o r e important, f o r our present purpose, is the f a c t t h a t it is essential in social w o r k . F o r social casework is the a r t of helping individuals to find a n d use satisfying a n d constructive h u m a n relationships, and these relationships always involve a constant a d j u s t m e n t of personal needs and w a n t s to the limits imposed by o t h e r s and by the social whole. Social caseworkers have to w o r k within those limits, just as their clients must do. If social casework does not help its clients to face these limits, accept those t h a t cannot be changed, a n d deal with t h e m realistically, it is n o t aiding in social a d j u s t m e n t at all. I t may even be p o s t p o n i n g or preventing social a d j u s t m e n t . I t seems to follow logically t h a t social work, in principle, can recognize, use, and w o r k within essential, a u t h o r i t a t i v e limits of the prison administration just as it w o r k s d a y by day outside the prison within the a u t h o r i t a t i v e limits of community law and of agency function a n d policy.

Preparation

for Freedom

215

T h e second basic principle is this : W i t h i n these essential limits of social cooperation, freedom f o r every individual to make his own choices and judgments, to take responsibility f o r his own life, is not only an inviolable right of personality, it is an inevitable and immutable fact of life. Every individual will ultimately take and use that freedom, whether we like it or not. T h a t is to say, in the last analysis every individual will behave as he himself wants to behave, f o r his own reasons, to attain his own ends, and we cannot help it. W e may, of course, while he is within our immediate influence, get him to behave outwardly the way we want him to behave—sometimes under practically physical compulsion; for a somewhat longer time perhaps through fear of painful consequences of acting otherwise; f o r a still longer time probably t h r o u g h hope of ultimate reward, such as an earlier release f r o m confinement. But when he leaves our sphere of p o w e r — a n d all prisoners will ultimately do so—he will act as he himself, deep down inside, wants to act. T h i s second principle defines the limits of authority, as the first defines the limits of freedom. As an instrument of positive change in anybody, authority, in and of itself, is useless and fruitless. H o w e v e r , joined in spirit and purpose with the forces directed to the promotion of responsible freedom, it is an indispensable, inseparable part of any social institutional system. Authority must set and hold firm the limits that protect the basis of social cooperation; f r e e d o m creates and nurtures the positive values in that cooperation itself. T o be concerned, as the social worker is concerned, with the cultivation of responsible individual freedom, is not to deny or to minimize the necessity and the value of essential, rational authority. T o be concerned, as the prison administrator must be concerned, with sustaining the limits essential for social order, need not deny or belittle the creative values in each individual life nor the right of each to develop his own individuality. T h e problem of prison administration will not be solved,

216

Penology

therefore, by separating authority f r o m rehabilitative effort, but by learning to exercise authority in such a way as to make it in actuality the f r a m e w o r k and bulwark of essential freedom, the firm structure within which real freedom can be readily won and consistently used. I t is because prison administrators have come to recognize the values of creative f r e e d o m , within the firm authority of the prison as well as outside, t h a t vast development has taken place in the past twenty-five years toward providing stimulus and outlet f o r individual growth, through medical, psychological, educational, vocational, recreational, and religious programs, and services within prison walls. I t is on the same account, but with a somewhat different orientation, t h a t social casework has more recently entered the institution. I t began usually as an adjunct to classification or clinical study, in an effort to know the individual better f r o m the beginning, through a study and appraisal of his past experience, so that the constructive forces of institutional life could be more directly focused upon his personal needs and capacities. T h a t was truly and literally "paving the w a y " f o r preparation f o r freedom, but it was obviously only paving the way. I t involved little participation in the process of preparation itself. I would be the last to deny the real and important contribution social work was enabled and encouraged to make to prison administration in that limited capacity, but it is to another more positive and creative potential function of social casework in the prison that I want to ask your attention today, because it is in this larger capacity, I feel sure, t h a t it can and will contribute f a r deeper and more lasting values.

INTEGRATION OF R E H A B I L I T A T I V E PRISON

SERVICES

WITH

ADMINISTRATION

T h i s function of social casework grows, in a sense, out of the development of other rehabilitative services in the institu-

Preparation

for Freedom

217

tion, or, better, out of the ever closer integration of so-called rehabilitative services with the total prison administration, including its custodial aspects. So long as the prison remained a strictly custodial and punitive institution, and so long, therefore, as the so-called rehabilitative services were developed and regarded as something apart and different f r o m the prison's main function of punishment, there was little need and consequently little use of individualized treatment processes of any kind. If the inmate failed to make full use of rehabilitative services—like educational, vocational, recreational activities—it was just too bad f o r him. I t simply made the punishment he was enduring more vivid and complete ; it might even prolong it. But in that very fact, according to this old philosophy, the prison might be achieving its primary purpose of punishment even more effectively. Just so soon, however, as the emphasis in the prison's function becomes primarily rehabilitative—with its punitive asspects merely incidental to the inevitable fact of segregation and close custody, and not added to i t — j u s t so soon, t h a t is, as the prison p r o g r a m becomes one integral whole, dominated throughout by the same purpose, rehabilitation, then the prison has need to introduce into its administrative structure, a positive, individualized treatment process which can help the inmate to find, accept, and use the rehabilitative opportunities that are open to him. F o r it becomes clear that a mass p r o g r a m of rehabilitative opportunities—however elaborate and comprehensive they may be—will not automatically and certainly operate to stir every individual prisoner into the use of his own will to make something new and different out of his own life. Yet it is just this individual purpose and effort, on the p a r t of the prisoner himself, which is the indispensable condition of a constructive use of the f r e e d o m we are talking about, and of preparation f o r it. T h e r e is much truth in the old p r o v e r b — " Y o u may lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

218

Penology

T h e implication that the horse must feel his own thirst before he will seek to quench it, is directly applicable to the prison problem. T h e inmate must feel his own need and want for something new and different in himself, or he will not take hold of the opportunitites laid before him. H e may go through the motions ; he may spend the assigned time at the bench or desk; he may even meet the minimum requirements of technical progress and achievement for release. But he will not change his inner self—the attitudes and feelings and desires that determine his free behavior—unless he finds a reason in himself for doing so. N o w it is at that spot that social casework, as I see it, steps forward to find its place in the prison community. Its basic knowledge and skills are addressed to helping individuals to find their way through a tangle of conflicting facts and feelings, to the discovery and attainment of a free and satisfying use of their own powers and resources. Individual prisoners find it difficult for all sorts of powerful reasons to accept any kind of purposeful responsibility for themselves and to make any constructive use of their prison experience. There are, in the first place, the inevitable distortions of thought and feeling about themselves and about others which accompany the fear, the guilt, the resentment, perhaps the remorse, which the prisoner brings with him into the prison, because of his offense and its consequences to himself and others. These distortions are complicated and intensified by the treatment he has received in the long process of detection, arrest, detention, trial, conviction, sentence, and commitment. T h e r e is also the complete deprivation of all the normal stabilizing relationships of family and friends, of neighborhood and community influences. T h e r e is the sudden cessation of normal outlets and relationships of self-chosen work and play. T h e r e is his enforced introduction into a new, stern, inherently disagreeable setting among complete strangers with whom his only common bond at the beginning is fraught with a sense

Preparation

for Freedom

219

o f shame, failure, and d e f e a t . T h e r e are long hours o f lonely isolation interspersed with almost equally lonely regimented group activities. All these f a c t o r s add enormously to the prisoner's problem o f finding and using a place f o r h i m s e l f — a n y positive and stable incentive f o r self-development—within the prison. But this is not all. M o r e and more the prison has become a little community in itself—enclosed, limited, and artificial, it is true, but still having in it most o f the elements o f any community, that is, a complicated network o f relationships with others. And, as in every community, the world over, these relationships do not automatically build themselves up and do not operate always smoothly, comfortably, with satisfying processes and outcomes. T h e y involve all the irritations and frustrations and conflicts, all the unresolved f e a r s and unrealized hopes, all the intermittent successes and defeats, which any individual in any community encounters, but they are here multiplied and intensified. I t is true in the prison, as it is true outside its walls, t h a t many, perhaps most, individuals find the strength in themselves to come to terms with these personal and social problems in a degree that f o r the time and under the circumstances is satisfying to them and reasonably acceptable to the community o f which they are a part. But f o r some o f these, p a r t o f the time, and f o r many others much o f the time, no such simple and superficial acceptance o f life is possible or tolerable. Problems o f relationship, big and little, in a myriad o f individualized f o r m s and combinations, rankle in the hearts and minds o f prisoners, as o f disturbed and f r u s t r a t e d people everywhere. T h e y are bound to be unhappy, discontented, bewildered. In the world outside, social casework agencies are available to people in these moments o f trouble, where they can freely face and express their wants, their needs and their feelings, and can see them in a realistic relation to the possibilities open to them. I submit t h a t in the prison, t o o , if skilled

220

Penology

help of the same kind, on t h e same t e r m s , could be m a d e available to prisoners at such times of trouble and b e w i l d e r m e n t — w h e n they are searching f o r u n d e r s t a n d ing, f o r peace of mind, f o r m o r e satisfying opportunity, perhaps, even, f o r m o r e objective justice—many would use such help to begin to find a new orientation t o their surroundings, a new purpose of their own to get something f o r themselves o u t of this experience. A dispassionate examination of the alternatives open to them, in the light of the facts a n d of their feeling about the facts, could have a stabilizing and stimulating effect of very g r e a t value to them. Social casework service in the prison, as outside in t h e community, could help, t h r o u g h f r e e , personal contacts a n d consultation to individualize and m a k e real and vivid, the impact of social forces and of rehabilitative services upon t h e individual, could bring t h e m down out of a vague mass environment into the personal life. I t could help the individual t o understand and to come to m o r e constructive relation with the authority t h a t s u r r o u n d s him, the inviolable limits upon individual rights and personal independence with which, as a f r e e citizen, he must ultimately come to terms. F r o m the standpoint of the administration, the existence of such a service would enable the essential a u t h o r i t y of the institution to hold f a s t to its own true function, as we have defined it at the beginning. T h a t is, it could firmly uphold t h e stout f r a m e w o r k of necessary, reasonable rules and policies, without f o r a m o m e n t attacking or t h r e a t e n i n g the integrity of the individual or his r i g h t to f r e e d o m within the law. T h e specialized rehabilitative forces within the institution, directed to individual g r o w t h and the development of individual capacity f o r real creative f r e e d o m , would have their p o w e r multiplied, f o r they would become m o r e directly related to the real need of individuals and would have an infinitely better chance to find lodgment in the vital p u r p o s e a n d will of the individual.

Preparation

for Freedom

221

T h i s would be " p r e p a r a t i o n f o r f r e e d o m " in the truest o f all senses, f o r it would be p r e p a r a t i o n f o r responsible use o f the individual self within the indispensable limits o f social aut h o r i t y . T h i s is the essence o f the f r e e d o m f o r which the prison strives t o p r e p a r e its inmates, f o r it is the essence o f the f r e e d o m upon which all d e m o c r a t i c social l i f e is founded.

Part IV Final Statement Of the Philosophy Underlying Social Work Practice

Social W o r k In a Revolutionary A g e Presidential address delivered at the National Conference of Social Work, May 1946, and published in the Proceedings of that year

T H I S is one of those extraordinary moments, extremely rarè in history, when living men are privileged not only to witness, but by their own decisions to achieve, the ending of one g r e a t epoch in human affairs and the beginning of another. T h e twelve months just passed will be eternally memorable, not merely because of a succession of spectacular events, each in itself p r o f o u n d l y affecting the life and destiny of all humankind, but also, and chiefly, I believe, because of the singularly clear thread of spirit and motive that weaves all these g r e a t episodes together, like the u n f o l d i n g theme that unites the successive scenes of one g r e a t drama. O v e r w h e l m i n g victory at arms in E u r o p e and then in the Pacific, abruptly ending the greatest of all wars, was a stupendous historic event in itself, but the deepest significance of those solemn triumphal ceremonies amid the ruins of G e r m a n cities and in the harbor of T o k y o w a s in the f a c t that they m a r k e d the first realization on a global scale of the irresistible strength of the concerted wills of f r e e peoples, determined to defend and to advance the blessings o f f r e e d o m . In those same f a t e f u l moments t w o ancient empires went down in ruins, and t w o new w o r l d powers emerged, dwarfing in their potential might any nations that ever asserted leadership a m o n g men. T h a t sudden shifting of political and military primacy among nations w a s also almost unique in human an225

226

Final

Statement

nais. But its full meaning is to be found only in the fact t h a t while both of the vanquished systems of national power were reared on the frankly avowed principle of unlimited, irresponsible despotism, both the new world leaders have dedicated their enormous strength, by solemn pronouncements and engagements, to the liberation and enrichment of the life of the common man. In the same cataclysmic events, a dozen lesser states were rescued f r o m the grip of lawless aggressors and persecutors and restored to the dignity of national independence. Never before, within so short a span of time, had there been so complete a reversal and renewal of political forces over so vast a territory. M o r e significant by far, however, is the fact that all these peoples—even those who in the past had embraced the illusory peace and security of presumably benevolent dictatorships—have now entered upon the fundamental reconstruction of their institutions with f o r m a l and positive commitments to the principles of freedom and equality. While war still raged, fifty nations, representing more than three-quarters of all the world's people, took cautious but determined steps toward the creation of a new world society, knit together by mutual respect, governed by law, and sustained by cooperative force. Symbolizing and partially realizing this great purpose, even b e f o r e the outer structure of a world organization could be erected, an international tribunal of justice—this, too, unprecedented in f o r m and in spirit, and in its authoritative representation of an aroused world conscience—boldly swept aside the hoary traditions of a rampant nationalism and an irresponsible statehood and held to account the individual leaders responsible f o r deliberate attacks against freedom, justice, peace, and orderly social progress. T h e momentous events, which will be forever associated with particular dates and places, were paralleled by other developments, less clearly marked in time by specific episodes,

A Revolutionary

Age

227

but profoundly significant, nevertheless, in the historic movements of this great year. Submerged peoples in all the dark corners of the world, with revitalized hope and determination, brought steadily f o r w a r d to the critical point of decision their long struggles to realize in their own lives in peace the basic freedoms with which the victorious allies had nobly identified their cause in war. Then, as the war clouds lifted, one nation a f t e r another—victor, victim, and vanquished, alike—entered upon the reorganization of its basic economic and political structures with the avowed object of building national power upon the broad base of equal opportunity and unquestionable social security f o r all its citizens. Moving forw a r d on this same tide of broadened and deepened social purpose, despite almost insuperable obstacles and discouraging setbacks, the American people in this same great year strove steadily toward the first positive affirmation in national law and practice of the fundamental principle that the opportunities and responsibilities of men depend rightfully, not upon their color, their racial or national origins, their religious beliefs, but upon their own inherent individual rights and capacities as human beings. And then, in the midst of these vast movements, as if timed by a supernatural power to herald with dramatic force the dawn of a truly new age, came that breathtaking, awe-inspiring demonstration, in the New Mexico desert, of man's illimitable power to command all the resources of the physical universe in which he lives. But again, that overwhelming climax of this amazing year became even more profoundly impressive when it was followed by the spontaneous worldwide expression of a consecrated purpose to dedicate this vast new power, not to any divisive and destructive nationalistic interest, but solely and certainly to the advancement of human well-being.

228

Final

Statement

T H E BEGINNING OF COOPERATIVE AUTHORITY AND ACTION T o g e t h e r , these colossal events add up to nothing less than social revolution, in the b r o a d e s t and truest m e a n i n g o f t h a t term. N o t merely in the political sphere, w h e r e r e v o l u t i o n a r y change is likely to be first registered and r e c o g n i z e d , but in e v e r y aspect o f our culture, the same f u n d a m e n t a l m o v e m e n t is the o r d e r o f this day. T h e w o r l d is, in truth, r e p u d i a t i n g one venerable principle, force, as the dominating element in human relations; it is accepting and cultivating a new and different principle, free cooperation. T h e era of irresponsible p o w e r is ended. A n era o f responsible, representative, coo p e r a t i v e authority and action has begun. T h e era o f abstract institutionalism has passed. A n era has opened in which institutions are to be j u d g e d and justified by their capacity to enlist and to p r o m o t e the inherent dignity and creative p o w e r of the individual human personality. T h i s is, o f course, not a w h o l l y new concept, f o r there is a continuity in the historic process which b r o o k s no denial. T h i s revolution, like every other, is but the consummation o f agel o n g struggle. N o r is the r e v o l u t i o n a r y process ever complete. Indeed, in its present clarity and unity, in its g l o b a l , allembracing scope, this one has only begun. W e k n o w , t o o , that its f u r t h e r p r o g r e s s will certainly be uneven and spasmodic. H u m a n wills, n o w stirred by the thrilling events o f these times, will sometimes w e a k e n and f a l t e r . H u m a n intelligence, h o w e v e r sincerely consecrated to this inspiring task, will o f t e n p r o v e w o e f u l l y inadequate in the tests that will be met, d a y by day, on the l o n g r o a d ahead. Some o f the high h o p e s o f this g r e a t hour will be b l a s t e d ; others will come to fulfillment only slowly, haltingly, partially, if at all, in our generation o r the next. A n d so w e are p r e p a r e d to g r a n t in a d v a n c e t o the cynics and skeptics o f our time, their little precious moments of apparent vindication in the years to come. B u t w e

A Revolutionary Age

229

cannot honestly or safely deny the reality and the potentiality of the present hour. Tremendous forces of change are abroad in our world ; they are waxing, not waning, in scope and vigor ; they are not only threatening, they are conquering, seats of present power. It is literally true that no single decision on social policy or organization can now be made by any authority on this planet without a conscious, searching regard f o r this new dynamic in world life. This, then, is the world in which American social work, in this year 1946, is operating. This is the world which it aims to serve. W e must rally our forces and fit ourselves more fully f o r that service. A t such a time, in such a world, it is clear that we cannot be content to make just one more annual appraisal of long-recognized tasks or of customary accomplishments, however worthy and significant these may be. W e cannot be satisfied, even, with our honorable and traditional mood of eager comradeship and cooperation in pushing f o r w a r d further and faster toward long-sought, well-marked goals. Those are admirable purposes and feelings, which we shall continue to cherish and nourish. But in this decisive year they must be enlivened and enriched by a vivid awareness that we are living in a revolutionary age. W e must be stirred by a deep sense of urgent, inescapable need to find our rightful place in this new emerging world of today and tomorrow. It is fitting, therefore, that we should affirm not only our earnest purpose to discover and to discharge our full responsibility in this new world scene, but also our profound and unyielding faith in the new world order that is coming into being. T h e goals of this revolution are our goals. T h e kind of world it is creating is the kind of world—the only kind of world—in which modern social work can feel truly at home. F o r only in such a world can social work achieve its own ancient, simple, all-inclusive objective of helping human beings to find the opportunity and the incentive to make the most of themselves and so to make the largest possible contri-

230

Final

Statement

bution to the progress and well-being of the whole society. Only in such a world can our profound faith in the inviolable integrity and the inherent creative capacity of the free human personality be finally tested and validated. It is with joyous zest, that we offer ourselves to the service of such a world, and with proud confidence we claim a vital share in the gigantic common task of realizing its new-born and its reborn hopes and aims. W e come to this task not as disinterested, impartial observers only, nor as coolly detached, expert consultants and collaborators, but rather as active, earnest participants in the common struggle, determined to express in our own lives, in our own specific purpose, performance, and achievement, the deepest meanings and motives of this new age. This is the opportunity we have dreamed of and longed f o r ; it is also the crucial test of our vision, our courage and our competence. W e are challenged as never before to discover and articulate the real meanings and values of social work experience, to strengthen them where they fall short of their possibilities, and then to add them confidently and consistently to the world's available resources for meeting the stresses and strains of social revolution and reconstruction. The world will not wait upon us. It will boldly and steadily find its own way through to its own decisions and answers. It will welcome us to its service eagerly and gratefully if we bring genuine, demonstrable values to the common cause. As we prepare to accept this challenge we face the sobering truth that, whether we are ready or not to meet this test, we certainly ought to be. For social work has been grappling for generations with the precise problems that are paramount in the world's life at this moment. W e have faced them in all their vivid reality in the lives of particular individuals and groups and whole communities. For the central, continuing problem of social organization and adjustment remains always the same—to find a secure, stable basis for creative,

A Revolutionary Age

231

satisfying life in the midst of constant g r o w t h a n d change. T h e tempo of life is quicker in these new d a y s ; every p a r t of t h e vast social structure is involved constantly in change; everybody is deeply affected by it. T h e f a i t h , courage, and intelligence of all people everywhere are tried and tested m o r e p r o f o u n d l y every h o u r of every day. But even in these revolut i o n a r y times, t h e r e is n o t h i n g utterly new u n d e r the sun. I t is the same old h u m a n n a t u r e which creates and sustains our society and which is striving to find its own fulfillment t h r o u g h it. H u m a n beings face the same old obstacles in t h a t q u e s t — f e a r , uncertainty, conflict, and confusion, in themselves and in the w o r l d r o u n d a b o u t t h e m . If social w o r k has learned anything f r o m its experience in helping people to meet those problems, these times cry out m o r e insistently than ever f o r just those meanings and values. WORKMANSHIP

AND

STATESMANSHIP

A t this critical juncture, t h e r e f o r e , we face two clear and pressing obligations, which can be summed up in two simple concepts : workmanship and statesmanship. T h e r e is, perhaps, something deceptively calm and commonplace about those two familiar w a t c h w o r d s . T h e r e a r e no heroics about t h e m . In themselves, they convey little sense of the exhilarating f e r v o r t h a t is commonly associated with a revolutionary cause. Yet they do embrace the whole stirring challenge to American social w o r k in this historic h o u r . T h e new world does not need—indeed, it is too wise and t o o deeply in earnest to a c c e p t — f r o m us or f r o m any o t h e r source, some magic f o r m u l a , some prophetic revelation, some miracle of achievement, which can once and f o r all open a straight, smooth r o a d to a new U t o p i a . All t h a t it needs and asks f r o m any of us is our own solid, sincere contribution to the choice and the clarification of acceptable social goals, t o the strength and unity of the long, h a r d , cooperative effort required to attain

232

Final

Statement

those goals, and to the concert of technical processes and services that alone can bring those efforts to fruition. Dynamic, clear-sighted, responsible statesmanship is demanded of us, because if we are to have an effective part in this complicated enterprise, we must join our strength with all other progressive social forces in American life in applying sound social policy and process to the attainment of sound social ends. But our statesmanship can grow only out of our workmanship. W e must have a justifiable faith in ourselves, in the demonstrable validity of our own experience, in the quality of our own achievement, if we are to command the respect and the cooperation of others. T h a t faith we have to build and to test in our own day-to-day practice. W e must know and believe in the core and essence of social work as a specialized function of society, and we must also know and accept its boundaries and limitations. W e must seek and test its values, not only in relation to broad, general social objectives—for these we share with countless other elements in our society—nor in relation to the vast sum total of systematic effort to attain these objectives—for we represent only a part in that great project. The values we do undertake to add, in the name of social work, to the world's stock of social resources must be derived from our own special knowledge of certain definable aspects of social life, our specific experience in helping people deal with the problems these create, and our command of certain definable processes which have been validated in that experience. NEED

FOR CLARIFICATION A N D DEFINITION SOCIAL W O R K

OF

FUNCTION

There is special urgency in our need to define and clarify the scope and nature of our professional function. In the first place, we are struggling under the burden of an old stout tradition, to which we ourselves have in the past unfortu-

A Revolutionary Age

233

nately contributed, which identifies o u r service n o t with specific human problems, about which it is possible to develop technical understanding and competence, but r a t h e r with the vague totality of problems in the whole lives of certain kinds o r classes of p e o p l e — t h e " d e p e n d e n t , defective, delinquent," we used to call them, or in J a c o b Riis's somewhat m o r e respectful and m o r e sympathetic phrase, " t h e o t h e r h a l f . " T h e r e is something insidiously stultifying and sterilizing in t h a t conception of our task which inevitably affects both our w o r k m a n s h i p and our statesmanship. A n unavoidable stigma attaches to a service which by definition is addressed only t o those members of society who are, by implication, different f r o m the rest of us and presumably less able to m a n a g e their own lives. T h i s limits not only the scope of our service, but its quality as well, by interposing an impenetrable b a r r i e r between us and those we aim to help. T h e same concept discourages and r e t a r d s the development of our own technical competence by obscuring the reality and the individuality of social problems, as they appear in the lives of real individual human beings, behind a f o g of irrelevant classifications, generalities, and abstractions. P e r h a p s of even g r e a t e r importance, in a time when the w o r l d is struggling to remake its whole life upon a new p a t t e r n of real democracy and unity, is the fact that this concept t h r o w s a cloud of justifiable suspicion over our professed concern and profession capacity f o r effective participation in this g r e a t enterprise, by seeming to ascribe to social work, as a m a t t e r of its own self-preservation, if you please, a kind of vested interest in the continuance of social disorders, defects, and inequalities. W e shall be able to escape f r o m this crippling misconception only when we are able to identify our service, clearly and positively, in our own minds and in the conviction of our constituencies, with specific human problems, whose common existence unites, r a t h e r t h a n divides, the members of society, and about which it is possible to develop special knowledge and special professional skills.

234

Final

Statement

There is a second urgent reason for definition and clarification of social work function, namely, the enormous range of the human situations for which, taking social work as a composite whole, we are compelled to accept some measure of responsibility. It is literally true that there is hardly a single life problem which does not sometime, somewhere, somehow, come within the responsible concern of some social worker. Problems of health, education, recreation, of economics, politics, religion, and of every other conceivable aspect o f social living, singly and in combination, are all grist to our mill. W e feel competent and we feel obligated to have some part in dealing with all of them. Yet, with respect to each of them, as a specific total problem in itself, there are other sources of more comprehensive and more precise technical understanding and help than we can possibly develop out of our own limited experience. Until we can define for ourselves and others the area of our own responsible experience in relation to definable parts of these problems—the source and scope of our own partial authority in dealing with them—we shall find ourselves hampered, if not prevented, from having an effective part in dealing with any of them. W e have made gratifying progress in the last quartercentury in laying the foundation of functional clarity in social work, in terms of the specific problems with which it is responsibly concerned. It is a matter of demonstrable contemporary fact, certainly, that social work is not now primarily engaged in the narrow and negative task of helping any small segment of society, which is set apart from the rest by extreme social misfortune or inadequacy; that it is not the mere salvage and repair corps of a decadent, disordered society, nor is it the servant of the social status quo. For one thing, this cannot be true of a service which, like ours, is coming into ever-expanding integral association with every one of those normal, universal social institutions—the school, the church, the hospital and clinic, industry, the family, the neighborhood, gov-

A Revolutionary

Age

235

ernment—which are dedicated to the service of the total membership of the total community, and which are society's instruments f o r the progressive improvement of its own life. I t is significant, too, t h a t even the United States A r m y , recently confronted with the task of molding together f o r one common national purpose, 10,000,000 young men and women, representing a cross-section of the whole people, has testified in its deeds, as well as its words, t h a t social work as a specialized technical service was an essential f a c t o r in achieving that goal. I believe, however, it is significant of our present urgent need f o r f u r t h e r definition and clarification of social work's function, that in every one of these constructive associations we have had to grope our way, often slowly and painfully, to a clear appreciation of our own role and a truly effective working relation with other specialized services. W e began, too often, with a reluctant but none the less effectual consent to be nothing more than a feeble extension of the a r m of the physician in the hospital, or of the judge in the court, or of the teacher or principal in the school, or of the psychiatrist or psychologist in the mental clinic, and so on t h r o u g h the list. T h i s was true because social work, in its own independent operations, under its own special auspices, h a d not yet identified clearly the specific kinds of problems to which its specific services could be appropriately addressed. I t h a d not attained a m a t u r e understanding and self-confident use of its own characteristic principles and practices and disciplines in their relation to specific problems and processes. T h e r e are certain problems, about which a sound and serviceable definition of social work's function can be and must be formulated, if we are to meet the challenge now b e f o r e us. T h o s e problems are not the problems of only a separate few among us. T h e y are within the common experience of all, f o r they are the natural, inevitable, universal outcomes of social living ; they are inherent in society itself. T h e y are

236

Final

Statement

no respecters of persons, of social rank, of economic status, or even of any particular social order. In dealing with them, social work is p e r f o r m i n g a positive, creative, permanent, and essential function in modern society, it is becoming an integral whole in itself distinct f r o m every other f o r m of service available to people. T h i s is, f u r t h e r m o r e , a function and a service that has peculiar significance and value in this particular day and age; f o r it is especially related to the strains and tensions of inevitable growth and change—the uneven, unpredictable, contradictory change, which is constantly in progress within and between all the infinitely numerous and various segments of every social whole, f r o m the inmost circle of the family to the whole world society. T h i s change, in times like these, is vastly accelerated and complicated. T h e s e problems, I venture to declare, upon which social work's specific responsibility is invariably focused, are problems of social relationship, as such. Social work comes into play when familiar, satisfying social relationships are threatened, weakened, or broken, and when new ones fail to materialize or are shrouded in uncertainty or involved in conflict. I t develops when people, individually or collectively, seek help in clarifying their responsibilities and opportunities within their own circle of relationships, in finding new and more meaningful relations f o r the fulfillment of their own wants or needs, or in renewing and replenishing their strength f o r meeting the h a z a r d s and difficulties and realizing the potentialities of their social situations. Social work, like other professions, such as medicine, psychiatry, psychology, education, or the ministry, f o r example, is always concerned with individuals, at least in the sense t h a t individual lives are always at stake in its objectives and operations. But social work, unlike the others, is never primarily concerned with the separate, inner, personal life or development of the individual as such, but always with his relation

A Revolutionary

Age

237

to the outer social realities in which he is involved. Even in social casework—and still more obviously in social group work or community work—the criterion of the effectiveness of its service is not what kind of person this individual in himself has come to be, but how he is relating himself to the situation in which he finds himself, to the values and responsibilities these relationships hold for him. Social work is likewise always concerned with factors in the environment which create or constitute problems for human beings and which hinder or facilitate the fulfillment and enrichment of their lives. It is often concerned, for example, with broad institutional problems like health, education, religion, economics, politics, and the like. But I submit that social work service is never primarily directed to the solution or management of any one of these problems, in and of itself. T h e criterion of its service is not the quality of organization and operation of such force and agencies, but rather, always, the way these influences and services find their mark in people's lives, the impact and relation between them and the human beings involved in them. Social work is identified with the individual, but only in his effort to derive satisfaction and benefit from the social relationships which are or can be open to him. It is identified with the community, but only in its effort to create and sustain social arrangements and relationships that serve human needs and release human strengths. It is always engaged in a process of helping,— helping individuals, groups or communities to realize for themselves the potential values which are imbedded in their essential relationships.

IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL

PROCESS

This definition of the scope and nature of social work as a professional function has important implications for the development of both its technical day-to-day service and its

238

Final

Statement

participation in b r o a d e r social planning, and it has special significance in the present critical juncture or social life. M o s t significantly, it focuses emphasis and effort upon social process, as the p a r a m o u n t consideration in social progress and adjustment, r a t h e r than upon social forms and structures in their own right, or upon the attainment of specific preconceived ends or products. F o r relationship is itself always a process—a dynamic, fluid, developing process, never static, never finished, always chiefly significant f o r its inner quality and movement, f o r its meaning to those it engages, r a t h e r than f o r its f o r m or status or outcome at any instant of time. In the guidance of social work's technical operations this reality is decisive as to its nature, its content, and its method, and as to the kinds of knowledge and skill these require. F o r the heart of the social worker's service is in his own relationship with those whom he endeavors to serve. H e accepts disciplined responsibility, not f o r the outcome of the service relationship, but f o r the process that goes into it—the process by which the recipient of help is enabled to face freely and steadily the alternatives open to him, to discover and appraise f o r himself the potential consequences to himself and others of these alternatives, to struggle with his own conflicting interests and feelings in relation to the realities these alternatives involve, to choose for himself a course of action, and finally to mobilize his strength to accept and discharge all the responsibilities this decision entails. Responsibility f o r the outcome remains always with those who ask and receive service. By the same token, this concept of the task of social w o r k denies our responsibility, or our right, to attempt to make people over, to move them about, to mold their environment, in accordance with our kindly will, or our presumably superior knowledge, or our preconceived standards of social adjustment or progress. It protects us against seeking the insidious satisfactions or the superficial achievements t h a t may

A Revolutionary

Age

239

flow f r o m the possession of power over others—either the naked force inherent in the discretionary control of the necessities of life, or the more subtle but equally potent force of moral or intellectual authority. F o r relationship is subject to no external controls. It yields to no external force. E i t h e r it is the free, voluntary expression and creation of the hearts and minds of its participants, or it is nothing. In the tasks of statesmanship, this same concept is also decisive, in determining the scope and nature of our contribution. I t invites our active intervention in every decision affecting any vital social policy, f o r there is none of these which does not directly affect the social relations of human beings, the use people make of those relations, and the benefits they derive f r o m them. But, at the same time, by denying our competence, it also absolves us f r o m the obligation to produce a complete blueprint of organization and policy with respect to any one of the broad social problems that afflict society. I t focuses our responsible concern and our valid contribution, first of all, upon the cultivation and guidance of a sound process f o r making sound policy—a process through which all essential factors in the problem are brought to view, all alternatives are examined objectively as to their potential values and limitations, in relation to known needs and professed purposes, and all interests affected by policy may be afforded opportunity and incentive to make their own full contribution of knowledge and purpose to the ultimate result. It focuses our responsibility, in the second place, upon the discovery and promotion of processes, to be incorporated in policy, by which its purpose may certainly and fruitfully find its mark in the lives of those to whom it is addressed. T w o simple current illustrations of the meaning of this concept in action come to mind. As social workers we have a deep and responsible concern f o r certain problems of health and of health service, because health or the lack of it profoundly affects the social relations of people, their effective

240

Final

Statement

participation as members of society. But we do not know, we do not need to know, for the performance of our own function, and we cannot possibly know, all that has to go into an adequate, technically sound, and serviceable health program and policy. W e do know—and we are obligated, under this concept, to make persistent and effective use of what we know—about the actual impact and meaning of health or ill health in the lives of individuals. W e also know about the conditions—some of them deeply imbedded in every human personality, and some of them related to particular social circumstances—which facilitate or hinder the use of health resources. W e know the difference between partial and complete coverage, between prompt and belated diagnosis and treatment, between uncertainty and confident assurance, as to one's ability to meet the economic burdens of illness and of health service, and we know the effect of all of these upon the individual's capacity and willingness to meet the problems of illness itself, the problems of treatment, and the social consequences involved in both. Upon all these vital elements of policy, we have valid, uniquely valuable testimony to offer. And we have a corresponding obligation, not only to make these specific contributions from our experience, when occasion presents itself, but also to use our influence to its last limit, to see that the legislative and administrative processes involved in the formulation and execution of policy shall allow full consideration and use of these basic human interests and relationships, in addition to the technical standards and methods of the specialized preventive and curative services which are the central element in the health program itself. As social workers, we are deeply concerned also with economic problems, because they are fundamental factors in the social satisfaction and efficiency of human beings and vitally affect all their social relationships. In fact, the instability or breakdown of this particular element in the social

A Revolutionary Age

241

setting accounts, probably, f o r a larger part of the trouble, confusion, and conflict with which social workers deal than all other factors in life combined. W h a t , then, is our specific responsibility in this area of public policy? It is certainly something more than merely to repair the economic damages and deficiencies which our clients bring to us, one by one, group by group, or community by community. But it is certainly something less than to lay out or support a complete set of specifications of a complete and perfect economic system. W e know the impact and meaning of economic insecurity, of inadequate or intermittent income, of unemployment and underemployment, in the actual social life and relations of people; we know the vital meaning and value of creative, satisfying labor; we know, too, the transcendent significance of genuine, free, creative participation in the choice and control of their own work life. W e know some of the factors of structure and policy, in terms of relationships and process, that must characterize any economic program if it is to be a truly constructive social factor. W e are obligated, then, to tell what we know ; to measure proposals by these criteria ; to put the full weight of our knowledge and experience into the balance, in f a v o r of policies and projects that take full account of these fundamental considerations. A n d we are also obligated to put our concerted strength into support of a process, in the formulation and execution of economic policy, which makes full use of the contribution of every group which has a vital interest at stake—a process geared to the creative integration of interests and ideas, not to mere combat or conquest. I t is deeply significant, that the essence of this concept of social work's responsibility and its performance is its embodiment of the same profound democratic faith upon which the world is now rebuilding its whole life. T h a t world, moving with dogged determination to its own reconstruction, needs, above everything else, at this moment, to be reminded

242

Final

Statement

and to be truly convinced of the supreme importance of social process—democratic p r o c e s s — i n its life. It needs to find the persistent courage to accept the risks which faith in democratic process, as distinguished f r o m faith in a specific p r o g r a m or objective or structure, necessarily involves. It needs to realize that faith in the democratic social process is, in reality, the real test of faith in p e o p l e — a faith which frees people to use new -social f o r m s and p r o g r a m s in their own w a y and to their own ends; to find their own satisfying relation to them; to g r o w slowly and by their own painful struggles and mistakes, if need be, into a genuine, positive identification with, and constructive participation in, their o w n society. American social work, in the evolution o f its practice around this concept of relationship and process, as the focus of its own responsibility, has actually learned to live and p r o v e that faith. It has validated democracy, not on theoretical or humanitarian grounds alone, but in the demonstrable outcomes of its own responsible service of real people in real situations. Social workers know well the risks and the difficulties it involves, the problems it creates, f o r individuals and f o r the society of which they are a part. But social workers know, too, that the democratic principle w o r k s ; that it is, in all truth, the only dependable basis of stable, progressive, fruitful social organization and adjustment. T h e y know a l s o — b e c a u s e they have discovered and realized them in actual p r a c t i c e — t h e prerequisite conditions, in feeling, in understanding, in structure and process, that must animate and pervade democratic relationships if they are to be truly sound and serviceable. A b o v e all, they know that there can be no compromise in the application of this principle. E i t h e r we believe in people — a l l p e o p l e — o r we do not ; either we recognize and respect the inalienable right and responsibility of individual human beings to manage their own lives, or we do n o t ; either w e

A Revolutionary Age

243

sincerely appreciate t h e validity and t h e value of genuine difference, or we do not. E i t h e r we help the individual to find his own way t h r o u g h to his own ends, within the essential structure of a cooperative society, or we control him to our own ends. If American social w o r k can stand t r u e t o its own f a i t h , in its daily practice and in its b r o a d e r relations with the whole society; if it can p u r g e itself of the last lingering vestiges of benevolent p a t e r n a l i s m and pretentious omniscience, in its own o p e r a t i o n s and in the m a n a g e m e n t of its own organiz a t i o n ; if it can then find the courage and the wisdom to a d d its full strength to the concert of democratic forces now struggling valiantly t o w a r d a f r e e , united, cooperative w o r l d of peace and justice and p r o g r e s s — i t can reach in our time an achievement of incalculable value to mankind, by bravely, and competently helping at least some p a r t s of this sorely troubled world, caught in the turmoil of a social revolution, to discover and to fulfill their own p e r m a n e n t , positive values and their own truly creative purpose.

A Restatement Of the Generic Principles Of Social Casework. Practice Address delivered at the National Conference of Social Work, April 1947, and published in the Journal of Social Casework, October 1947

Y o u are entitled at the outset to a frank acknowledgment of the embarrassment I feel in undertaking to present this formidable subject to this audience. I am not a caseworker and never have been one. I have not even been responsible f o r implementing casework service through over-all administration of a casework agency. It must seem to you, as it seemed to me when the matter was first broached, m o r e than a little strange that this discussion should be entrusted to one so poorly equipped in practical experience to appreciate its intricacies and interpret their full implications. Y o u r chairman's invitation elicited an affimative response f o r just two reasons. In the first place, I have watched f r o m the sidelines, so to speak, with constantly increasing interest and respect, the recent development and contemporary practice of social casework. Since it w a s the first and, until recently, the only basic area of social w o r k practice to be subjected to anything like systematic analysis of its technical processes and principles, its concepts have had f o c a l significance in the development o f social w o r k as a whole, t o which my own professional interests and activities have been l a r g e l y addressed. In the second place, I h a v e been closely associated w i t h a 244

Generic Principles

245

group of casework practitioners and teachers who have generously nurtured my interest in its development and have permitted me to share in some of the experiences and discussions out of which their own insights and concepts have grown. I accepted today's assignment, therefore, with the explicit understanding that this group of colleagues should participate so far as possible in the organization of this statement, though I would accept responsibility for its final form. Circumstances have prevented their active participation in as large a measure as I had hoped, but I assure you in all candor that they are undoubtedly responsible—not so much in recent weeks as over many years—-for anything of authentic value that appears in this paper. In a perfectly literal sense, I alone am accountable for all its defects and inadequacies. As many speakers and writers on social casework have pointed out—often with a rather obvious touch of nostalgia —there was a time not long ago when it would have been fairly easy to enumerate a set of generic principles that practically all social caseworkers would have accepted as forming the foundations of their own practice. There would have been differences of opinion as to the applicability of all these principles under all sorts of circumstances, or as to their respective and relative value in meeting different types of need. But as a comprehensive framework for the collective tasks of social casework as a whole, they would have seemed adequate and serviceable. It is not so easy—indeed, it seems to me impossible—to make such a list today. Genuine and substantial differences of viewpoint have appeared, concerning not only what is truly basic and essential in social casework practice but even what actually constitutes social casework practice itself, what is its role in society, and how it is differentiated from other forms of service with which it comes into contact or with which it is continually associated. It is true, of course, that all these diversities have grown up within a persisting frame-

246

Final

Statement

work of broad underlying concepts upon which there is continuing agreement. T h e fact is, however, that with the development of increasing clarity and precision of technical insight and performance, the significance of certain technical specifics has vastly increased and the significance of broad fundamentals in guidance of daily practice has relatively diminished. T h i s necessitates a reformulation of generic principles to incorporate more definitely all that seems basic and generic in the newly recognized and developed details of method and process. T h e s e new generalizations, therefore, inevitably differ according to the emerging differences in the weight given to specific factors by different workers or groups of workers. AGREEMENT AND ARE

DIFFERENCE—BOTH USEFUL

I shall take responsibility f o r defining some of the generic principles that emerge f r o m one concept of social casework's role and of its basic process and method, known commonly as the "functional approach," differentiating these principles as clearly as I am able f r o m those that seem to characterize the practice of casework governed by other definitely distinguishable and widely accepted concepts. It seems to me important to affirm at the beginning that this emergence and definition of even basic differences, f a r f r o m representing a development to be feared or averted or reversed, gives welcome and promising evidence of real progress toward professional security and maturity, f o r it is the outgrowth of growing technical insight and proficiency, which is the solid basis of professional development and achievement. T h e test of that maturity will not be in the early or even the ultimate unanimous acceptance of any one of these viewpoints or concepts, but r a t h e r in the way we are able to deal with these differences, to acknowledge their existence, to examine

247

Generic Principles

t h e m w i t h open minds, t o m e a s u r e t h e m in practice, to accept their challenge f o r the continual r e e x a m i n a t i o n

and

r é é v a l u a t i o n o f even our m o s t c h e r i s h e d a s s u m p t i o n s , a n d then to i n t e g r a t e the r e a l v a l u e s o f t h e m all in a constantly a d v a n c i n g clarity and refinement o f p e r f o r m a n c e , n o t under g r o u p compulsion, but a c c o r d i n g to one's o w n responsible judgment. I h a v e s a i d that t h e r e is a b r o a d base o f a g r e e m e n t on which p r a c t i c a l l y all c a s e w o r k e r s h a v e built the superstructure o f their own practice a n d upon which all schools o f social w o r k n o w p r e s u m a b l y build their p r o g r a m s o f education in p r e p a r a t i o n f o r practice. F o r those w h o p r i z e p r o f e s s i o n a l unity a b o v e all else, t h e r e must be r e a l s a t i s f a c t i o n in the b r e a d t h o f that substantial f o u n d a t i o n . In t e r m s o f definition, f o r instance, w e could all p r o b a b l y a g r e e t h a t social casew o r k is a process of d e a l i n g " d i r e c t l y and d i f f e r e n t i a l l y w i t h p e r s o n s in need . . . individual by i n d i v i d u a l " ; a n d that social c a s e w o r k e r s a r e d e a l i n g " w i t h p e o p l e w h o a r e exp e r i e n c i n g some b r e a k d o w n in their capacity to cope u n a i d e d with their o w n a f f a i r s . " W e w o u l d a g r e e , f u r t h e r m o r e , that, w h e t h e r this b r e a k d o w n be due p r i m a r i l y to e x t e r n a l f o r c e s b e y o n d the control o f the individual, o r to f a c t o r s within the i n d i v i d u a l , " h i s [ c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ] w a y o f r e s p o n d i n g to his p r o b l e m and his f e e l i n g about it will be decisive f a c t o r s in his use o f h e l p , " * and that, t h e r e f o r e , social c a s e w o r k process, m e t h o d , and skill i n v o l v e , p r e e m i n e n t l y , a sensitive a w a r e n e s s of these f a c t o r s and d i s c r i m i n a t i n g reaction to them as they m a n i f e s t t h e m s e l v e s in the h e l p i n g situation. W e w o u l d a g r e e , too, that the d y n a m i c of this helping p r o c e s s depends v i t a l l y upon a r e l a t i o n s h i p between client and w o r k e r which h a s in it the qualities of mutual confidence, respect, and f r e e d o m . W e w o u l d all r e c o g n i z e , t o o , that the base on w h i c h this process, m e t h o d , and skill a r e d e v e l o p e d h a s , •Charlotte Towle, "Social Case Work," Social p. 478.

Work

Year

Book,

1947,

248

Final

Statement

or ought to have, dependable scientific underpinning. A n d we would all accept as basic to all professional relationships and professional practice a dynamic, democratic social philosophy that pays sincere respect to individual personality, values individual differences, and conceives of social unity and progress as the outcome of the progressive integration of these differences, in social relationships that release and enlist f o r the individual and f o r the common good their unique creative values. T h e s e generalities are significant and useful starting points f o r the definition and guidance of professional practice. But they acquire real meaning and validity only as they find expression in specific method and process in specific casework situations. " F U N C T I O N A L " AND "ORGANISMIC"

CASEWORK

T a k e , f o r instance, the very first definition to which we have referred, namely, that the clients of social caseworkers " a r e experiencing some breakdown in their capacity to cope unaided with their own a f f a i r s . " W h a t do we mean by "some b r e a k d o w n ? " T h e scope and nature of the responsibility assumed by the social caseworker, what he undertakes to do and the way in which he undertakes to do it, will depend fundamentally upon the significance the worker attaches, generally speaking, to that term. T h e " f u n c t i o n a l " caseworker will start with the assumption that the individual faces a social reality in some part of his life with which he cannot at the moment cope alone and with which, therefore, he asks help. T h e worker's first responsibility is to undertake to discover, f o r himself and with the client, whether the problem the applicant sees and faces at this moment, and the help the worker is able to give, fit together, or whether, perhaps, some other different kind of help is called f o r , or whether, indeed, the applicant has faced

Generic Principles

249

the whole problem with sufficient clarity to be sure that he actually needs help at all or can accept and use help on the terms on which it must be given and with all the consequences it entails for the individual. It may even be disclosed that the applicant can find greater satisfaction in continuing to live with the problem as it is than by sharing it and doing something about it with this worker or with anybody else. Such an approach, generically speaking, starts with the primary assumption that the applicant has personality and social strengths—perhaps latent or unorganized, perhaps blocked, confused, or distorted, but also perhaps directly available for use, if given outlet through clarification and appraisal of available alternatives. This approach clings steadily to the conception that this individual, whatever his strengths and weaknesses, carries responsibility for his own life as a whole and must continue to carry it. At least he has not asked us, and we cannot consent, to take that responsibility from him. H e has asked us, rather, to help him to carry that responsibility by helping him to overcome some obstacle he has faced in carrying it, and in the very act of seeking this help he has disclosed at least some elements of strength for dealing with this responsibility. The worker's task is to enable him to build on this latent strength, to face whatever realities are decisive in determining his own use of himself and of available resources in relation to the problem he faces and upon which he wants to work. The problem remains his own; the responsibility for dealing with it remains with him. Furthermore, this approach, generically speaking, also starts with the assumption—indeed, the profound conviction — t h a t the helping dynamic, the source of healing power, is also in the client himself as he reaches out for help. It is not primarily in the worker. If there is anything that can properly be called "treatment" in the helping situation, it is the client's treating himself. It is his own will, his own capacity for growth and change, his own selective use of his experience,

250

Final

Statement

in accord with his own nature and needs, that determine the outcome. T h e worker, with all his knowledge and skill, cannot determine—cannot even predict—that outcome. T h e worker can only accept responsibility f o r rendering a service which the applicant sees as appropriate to his need, and f o r initiating and sustaining a process, within the service relationship, which enables the client to exercise his will and use his powers with greater freedom, with less fear, with more insight and clarity, as to both the purpose and the consequence of action. Opposed to this conception of the social caseworker's role —which has sometimes been characterized as resting on a "partializing" of experience—is what has been called the "organismic" * concept of social casework. T h o s e who hold to this view stress the importance of the "total personality" as involved in the client's problem and, therefore, at the focus of the caseworker's responsibility. Emphasis is put upon the fact that although the individual may come f o r help with one aspect of his life or with one conception of his problem, his actual need often involves the basis, in himself, of his total adjustment to his total situation, of which he may not be consciously aware or which he may not be able to bring overtly to the view either of himself or of another. F r o m this point of view, society owes him, through the social worker, the help he truly needs, rather than merely the help he specifically asks. T h e social caseworker's responsibility, therefore, extends to the discovery and treatment of this real need, imbedded in the totality of his personality and situation, when such a need actually exists and can be brought to light. These social workers are inclined to brand as "superficial" the functional worker's concentration upon that part of the client's life or problem with which he asks help, because they assume that this so-called "partialization" somehow denies • Gordon Hamilton, " T h e Underlying Philosophy of Case Work," Proceedingι of the National Conference of Social Work, 1941, p. 239.

Generic Principles

251

or overlooks the unity and indivisibility of the total human organism. These workers, I think it is fair to say, are also likely to feel that the applicant for social casework help has, on the whole, less capacity to accept responsibility f o r himself, less available strength f o r identifying and dealing with the actual problem, than the "functional" worker assumes f r o m the beginning. I think it is also fair to say, however, t h a t the divergence on this point is becoming less pronounced in recent times; that there is ever-widening recognition of the importance of dealing primarily with the social reality problems the client brings to notice, and a greater appreciation of the significance of even the simplest movements and involvements of the client and services of the worker, in mobilizing the full strength of feeling and "willing" of the client in relation to his actual problem, whatever it may be. Parenthetically, one may add at this point that there has never been the slightest doubt in the mind of any "functional" worker that the individual who comes to a social agency f o r help with a particular problem, big or little—whether it seems primarily objective or deeply subjective in its character—ever brings only a p a r t of himself, leaving the rest of himself at home. H e brings his whole self and he uses that total self in dealing with this problem. In dealing with the client in this p a r t of his life problem, the worker is in contact with the whole person, and what happens here affects not only a p a r t but the whole. Furthermore, in helping to relieve pressure or conflict at this point, the worker may be releasing energies and opening insights t h a t reach f a r beyond this moment or this episode.

TREATMENT

VERSUS

SERVICE

It is, perhaps, in the dominant concept of social casework practice as " t r e a t m e n t , " rather than service, and in the differ-

252

Final

Statement

ent conception o f the source of healing p o w e r in the " t r e a t m e n t " relationship, that this emphasis upon the " t o t a l o r g a n i s m " as the object of effort comes most clearly to r e a l i z a t i o n . I t a p p e a r s in the emphasis upon diagnosis, and p e r h a p s even m o r e definitely in the importance assigned to a clear k n o w l edge and understanding of the w h o l e developmental history of the person and his p r o b l e m , as a guide to " t r e a t m e n t . " In a recent article on " M a r r i a g e Counseling in a F a m i l y A g e n c y , " a p p e a r s this clear f o r m u l a t i o n of this c o n c e p t : Experience has shown that successful treatment involves three distinct steps. T h e first step lies in defining the problem and accepting it with the client, whether it be in himself, his spouse, or in the situation around him. T h e second is the examination with the client of some of the conscious or near-conscious causes underneath the difficulty, thus creating awareness of the correction needed or the goal desired. T h e third is the actual re-education or re-training process with which the client needs the wise and patient help of the counselor.* A g a i n , in speaking o f the w o r k e r ' s responsibility in casew o r k treatment, a recent article declares : Once the beginning diagnostic thinking is confirmed, the type of treatment must be determined. W i l l the treatment be directed to the emotional problems of the woman ? W i l l it be indirect but focused on her and related to her emotional problems? O r will it be supportive help of an environmental nature? Here we must consider the capacities and needs of the individual client. H o w much insight does she show ? W h a t is the extent of her desire for help? W h a t part do her husband and her family play in the problem ? H o w w i l l the social situation aid or complicate treatment? W h a t strengths does she have? H o w firmly rooted are her defenses ? H o w easily does she relate to others ? t I t is clear that the w o r k e r , a r m e d w i t h this understanding, is r e g a r d e d as the vital source of help and of decision, r a t h e r than the client's own s e l f , in his o w n use of this relationship experience. T h i s tends to place responsibility upon the w o r k e r • Mabel Rasey, "Marriage Counseling in a Family Agency," The Family, April 1943, p. 71. t Elsie Martens, "Case Work Treatment of Emotional Maladjustment in Marriage," The Family, December 1944, p. 299.

Generic

Principles

253

not only f o r the relationship and helping process but f o r the specific outcome of that process. Clear-cut expression of this point o f view appears frequently in the literature. F o r instance, in a recent article discussing certain aspects of the problem of child placement appears this clear statement : . . . S o c i a l w o r k e r s , like physicians, m u s t be p r e p a r e d to reach a decision as to w h a t w i l l be best both f o r the b a b y a n d f o r t h e m o t h e r , a n d t h e n t o w o r k a c t i v e l y t o w a r d the c a r r y i n g o u t of t h a t p r o g r a m . . . . R e a c h i n g a decision as t o the f u t u r e of each i n d i v i d u a l case t h a t comes t o her a t t e n t i o n , and w o r k i n g t o w a r d t h e c a r r y i n g o u t of t h a t decision, implies g r e a t responsibility f o r the social w o r k e r . T r a i n i n g , e x p e r i e n c e a n d i n t u i t i o n m u s t c o m b i n e in h e l p i n g her t o decide f o r each p a r t i c u l a r client w h e t h e r separation f r o m t h e b a b y is a d v i s a b l e . *

T o a functional worker, this seems not only to be taking responsibility which belongs to another and which, in any event, that other person will certainly regain sooner or later f o r himself; it seems to imply, most o f all, lack o f trust in immediate experience as carrying and expressing the whole self, and a lack of conviction about the capacity of the disciplined worker to fulfill his primary professional obligation, namely, to relate the helping process to these manifestations of the individual self as they appear in the present helping relationship.

THE

SOCIAL

AGENCY

AND T H E

INDIVIDUAL

WORKER

T h e functional conception of the role and meaning of social casework as a serving and helping process, used by the client, rather than a treatment process, controlled by the worker, finds expression in another decisive and characteristic concept. T h e relationship within which this process results is not simply and strictly a person-to-person relationship, like that which the client has known in all his other experience. A • Dr. Florence Clothier, "Problems of Illegitimacy as T h e y Concern the Worker in the Field of Adoption," Mental Hygiene, October 1941, p. 583.

254

Final

Statement

difference has been introduced which carries with it a new dynamic—a difference with which the individual must come to terms, must accept and take into himself, if he is to find and use help. T h a t difference is the agency which the worker represents, a fixed and stable structure, governing both worker and client in this relationship, presenting limits within which the worker operates and with and against which the client can measure and define his own need, his own will, and his own powers. T h e worker is not just another person, ready and willing and able to yield himself to any need and purpose that may emerge f r o m the labyrinthine maze of confusing and conflicting interests and impulses of this other person, nor is he the arbitrary, though beneficent, arbiter among those impulses or censor of them, capable of imposing his own personal conditions upon the nature and extent of his service, in relation to the client's problem and need. H e is the representative of an agency, which itself is a p a r t of the fixed social reality within which the client must find his own satisfying solution and ultimate adjustment. T h e worker is limited in the nature and extent of his help by the choice the agency has m a d e among many possible services and methods of service and by the conditions it has attached to its service. T h e individual worker may go or stay; the agency continues, with the same basic function and policy. In facing this new experience—in taking in this difference — t h e client faces the necessity to find a new focus f o r dealing with his problem; it demands of him some change, at least enough yielding of his individuality to become a p a r t of a larger whole, while it still leaves his own integrity as a person intact. This is a new dynamic, which can reactivate and redirect the potential dynamic in the individual's self, for it introduces that firm barrier to the perfectly free and limitless play of all his conflicting wants and impulses which necessitates deliberation and responsible choice. T h i s is the beginning of his effective use of a helping process.

Generic Principles

255

It is clear that from this point of view, the decisive factor in the helping situation and in the helping process is the offering of a new experience for the client, in which and around which old patterns of thought and feeling and behavior— proved inadequate to the existing need—can be broken through sufficiently to afford a new start toward some personal and social reorganization. It is for this reason that the knowledge and skill of the worker are focused, not in the discovery or reliving of past experience as a guide to understanding of the present predicament or its solution, but are focused in the conduct of the helping process itself, in the creative use of agency function, through sensitive awareness and use of what the client reveals of himself and his need and his capacity to use agency help, here and now. This contrasts, notably, with the worker's role as conceived by those whose concept of social casework is differently oriented. Permeating their whole concept is the assignment of primary responsibility to the caseworker, individually, as the carrier of service and help. But there, too, the old divergence seems to be lessening, little by little. There is, I think, genuine appreciation among these social workers of the role of the agency, as the enabling mechanism by which the worker comes into contact with the client and by which the helping relationship may be sustained in time and place. There is perhaps also recognition of the agency as a stabilizing, stimulating force in the worker's own development and use of standards ; and, again, as the connecting link between worker and community, the symbol of the community's sanction of the worker's undertaking. There is, I believe, also a growing appreciation of the value to the worker— for the development of competence and grasp in the management of specific kinds of situations—to be found in a relatively clear, defined, and limited agency function and policy. But from the point of view of nonfunctional social casework, the specific dynamic represented by the agency—its psy-

256

Final

Statement

chological as well as its practical force in activating the client to enter into a new experience, to put himself into a new relationship, and to mobilize his will to new effort—is minimized or disregarded. Instead of relying upon the value of a new experience, and applying disciplined skill to the creation and fruitful use of this immediate present, there is a tendency, from this point of view—reinforced by a deep-rooted faith in psychoanalytic practice and doctrine—to trust to the healing power of the reliving and revealing to one's conscious self of significant developmental experiences of the past, as the basis of change of attitude and feeling toward present relationships and experiences. It is partly for this reason, I think, that many of these social caseworkers have found themselves unable to trust their own unique process of helping in the present, immediate reality situation sufficiently to be willing to differentiate it clearly from forms of so-called "deep therapy," or to devote themselves confidently and comfortably to the development and refinement of their own specific and limited functions. THE

SCIENTIFIC B A S E — F A C T OR PROCESS

There is one other generic principle of functional casework which differentiates it from that which governs the nonfunctional type of service. I have affirmed, at the beginning of this discussion, the dependence of professional practice and its development upon at least a potentially scientific base. W h a t is the nature of that scientific base of so-called "functional" casework? Since it is the process of helping, not the ultimate outcome, for which, from this point of view, the worker carries responsibility, it is the nature of that process, rather than absolute knowledge about people, either in the mass or in specific situations, that must be the principal subject of scientific analysis and generalization, as the founda-

257

Generic Principles

tion of professional competence. T h i s process, as M i s s T a f t has well said, can be put under control and can be subjected to scientific "observation and generalization as any other living process, when the social w o r k e r is as ready to accept the conditions inherent in his role as is the laboratory scientist in b i o l o g y . " * One of the essential controls f o r scientific analysis and generalization is in agency function, the fixed known focus of service, in relation to which the variables of individual practice and the diversities of specific problems can be examined and compared. W i t h o u t such a stable center, f r o m which the process itself emanates and by which it is limited and defined, there is no possibility of a truly scientific evaluaton of that process, which is, f r o m this point of view, the heart and core of professional competence. So long as the individual worker is not bound by any functional limits, no generalization about professional p r a c t i c e — a s to scope, direction, quality, or m e t h o d — i s possible. In contrast with this interpretation of the scientific core of social casework, as residing in a systematic comprehension of the " l a w of the process" of helping, is that which sees the advancement of knowledge about people and their social relations, the discovery of definitive and absolute causal relations, as the scientific base of professional development. T h i s point of view is implicit in such a statement as that, for instance, which appears in a distinguished paper read at the N a t i o n a l Conference of Social W o r k in 1 9 4 1 . In speaking of the same specific difference in social casework philosophy or practice which I am considering today, it was said that there can only be "schools of thought b e f o r e conclusive scientific data are secured. A s k n o w l e d g e advances in a given area, speculation diminishes." t In its context, this statement carries t w o significant implications. First, there is something • Jessie T a f t , Introduction to A Functional Afproach University of Pennsylvania Press, 1944, p. 5. t Gordon Hamilton, op. cit., p. »39 ; also p. 140.

to Family

Casework,

258

Final Statement

absolute and final about the scientific truth which is to be sought as the basis of professional performance. Second, there will and should come a time, therefore, when scientific truth will be available by which to predict what an individual will do in response to a particular stimulus—if enough can be known about the causal factors that have operated in his l i f e — a n d that, therefore, it will be possible f o r the professional person to know "what not and how not to treat, as well as what and how to treat." * T h i s is obviously related to the concept that places control of the outcome of helping, as well as the process itself, in the hands of the professional worker and attributes to the worker's special knowledge and skill, exercising specific control, the potent dynamic f r o m which progress and achievement in the helping relationship must result. It also obviously places social scientific facts in the same relation to daily practice in social work as the sciences of anatomy, physiology, bacteriology, and chemistry may be said to have in relation to medicine, and f o r the same purpose, namely, to sharpen and strengthen the control of the practitioner over the objects to which his professional responsibility is addressed, that is, in social work, human beings in social relationships. But to me, this purpose of control not only specifically contravenes the basic philosophy on which social casework rests. It also assumes, in human behavior and social relations, the same sort of mechanistic and deterministic causal relations as science has devoted itself to discovering in the physical universe. I affirm, on the contrary, that to be productively and truly scientific in spirit and method, social casework does not need—indeed, has no proper right—to apply slavishly the concepts derived either f r o m this absolutistic natural science or f r o m any other area of professional practice. It can and must make its own scientific contributions, by paying attention to its own unique subject matter, the helping process * Gordon Hamilton, op. cit., p. 241 ; also p. 1 4 1 .

Generic Principles

259

itself, and by observing in its own practice the essential controls and methods that can validate its own generalizations f r o m its own experience in the use of that process. THE

FUNCTIONAL

APPROACH—SUMMARY

These, then, I should say, in summary, are the generic principles underlying the practice of social casework as I conceive it, in this year 1 9 4 7 : It is a helping process in the offering of a service, whose use and whose outcome are under the control of the recipient of help, not of the professional worker. T h e source of healing and helping power is in the individual recipient's own self—in his innate power to grow and change and selectively use experience to his own ends by exercise of his own will. T h e fundamental dynamic in the helping process in social casework—and its most characteristic differentiating factor—is in the social agency the worker represents, in its definition and limitation of function and policy, by which the client is offered a new experience in yielding himself to a fixed social reality, while retaining his own integrity. T h e worker's skill is applied in the creative use of agency function, within a controlled relationship, with sensitive and flexible awareness of what the client is experiencing in the process and of the worker's own contribution to that experience. T h e scientific base of social casework is in the systematic understanding of the controlled and limited helping process itself, f r o m which, in the light of analyzed and verified exprience, valid generalizations emerge as to the likenesses and differences of process in the use of different functions. Finally, the philosophic base of social casework, permeating all these concepts, is the consistent, validated faith in the dynamic, creative power of individual human beings and their inherent, inalienable responsibility to choose and achieve their own destiny within the f r a m e w o r k of a stable democratic society.

260

Final Statement

I h a v e said earlier t h a t t h e r e is a substantial a r e a of agreem e n t in social casework, with respect not only to certain venerable f u n d a m e n t a l s but also to some of the specific concepts t h a t emerge f r o m time to time in the creative and imaginative use and extension of basic ideas. I h a v e affirmed, too, t h a t the emergence of even vital differences is n o t dangerous but r a t h e r distinctly promising f o r the f u t u r e of professional social w o r k . I must close, however, with a note of warning. I t is not, and cannot be, a m a t t e r of indifference either to the individual or to the profession, w h a t choice is m a d e a m o n g these alternatives, any m o r e t h a n it is a m a t t e r of no consequence t o an individual client how he deals with the fixed f a c t o r s affecting his own use of agency service a n d the conditions on which it is offered. E i t h e r choice, any choice, of basic concepts of professional practice involves giving up s o m e t h i n g of oneself, of one's own accustomed and comf o r t a b l e p a t t e r n s of t h o u g h t and feeling and action. Especially, p e r h a p s — I am f r e e to a d m i t — d o e s the functional point of view d e m a n d this kind of change. F o r the individual, the old p e r s o n a l f r e e d o m of professional p u r p o s e a n d perf o r m a n c e — t h e old sense of individual power and achievem e n t — m u s t yield to the limits of a defined a n d controlled function a n d to the realization t h a t the determination of the outcome is within the power of a n o t h e r . T h i s is not easy to accept a n d m a k e truly one's own. I t involves a discipline of the self which is probably unique a m o n g all professions, in its d e m a n d s upon the w o r k e r , b o t h in training and in later p r o f e s s i o n a l practice. F o r t h e profession, it involves a yielding of a b r o a d , vague, but thrilling responsibility f o r a t t e m p t i n g to conquer all the social ills t h a t may beset any h u m a n creature. I t means, r a t h e r , the acceptance of the obligation to acquire and demo n s t r a t e steadily advancing competence in a limited, defined a r e a of service, f o r which it can be held continually account-

Generic Principles

261

able. It means that this profession is not only content but determined to be a part—only a part but a clearly distinguishable, responsible, and accountable part—in the great integral whole that is modern society, moving steadfastly f o r w a r d to the fuller realization of a pervasive, dynamic, democratic life.

Some Essentials of a Community Correctional Program An address presented to the Missouri Association for Social Welfare, April 1947 (Not Previously Published)

T H E problem of crime—crime prevention, crime detection, crime treatment—is one of those hardy perennials among community anxieties that seem to flourish in every social soil and climate with a persistence that is as baffling as it is distressing. M o s t people—including unfortunately social workers and social-minded citizens—are inclined to take crime f o r granted with a mixture of complacency and hopelessness. But f r o m time to time it surges to the f o r e f r o n t of consciousness with a frightening urgency. When we are aroused, we react in all sorts of strange ways. A t one moment we may demand vengeance against an individual offender f o r a particular kind of offense. Nothing less than vindictive justice can satisfy our fears and our detestation of the sex fiend, f o r instance, or of the underworld gangster and feudist. A t another point in the endless cycle of our feelings about crime, we may curb our primitive f e a r s temporarily, may give calm reason a chance to function, and may turn our energies earnestly to prevention. T h e n something startling happens — t h e front pages of the newspapers are filled with the lurid details of a repulsive offense against law and morals—and we gasp in horror as we demand more police, bigger and stronger prisons, faster and sterner justice in the courts. When baseball or labor legislation or international diplomacy temporarily crowds crime out of the headlines, we settle back 262

A Correctional

Program

263

again with a sort of irresponsible relief until someone sounds another terrifying alarm. T h e whole subject is clothed with such mystery as to its source and cause, and of futility as to its control, that consistency of feeling or thought or action is the rarest of our virtues in dealing with it. Periods of resignation alternate with periods of excitement with monotonous regularity, and, to use a colloquialism of the day, we seem to "get nowhere f a s t " in our quest f o r effective, decisive answers to the problem. Yet here is a problem that goes to the very heart of our social life. Crime is a threat against that peace and order which are the essential basis not only of all social progress but of the very existence of a stable civil society. Surely there is no problem that m o r e clearly and insistently demands constant, intelligent, courageous, and concerted planning and action on the p a r t of all citizens, especially of those who have an abiding interest in the attainment of the highest social goals. In a few minutes we have together today, I want to suggest a few of the basic considerations that must determine our choice of objectives and of means and methods of dealing with crime consistently and with some hope of success. CRIME

AN

EVIDENCE

OF

SOCIAL

MALADJUSTMENT

W e have to recognize t h a t crime is not a specific, peculiar f o r m of behavior in itself, which is characteristic of particular kinds or classes of people. It cannot be defined or described in terms of specific conduct. It is, in fact, impossible to name any particular act—even in cold-blooded killing—which is, in and of itself, always and everywhere a crime, as we can clearly see when we realize t h a t we have just come through a period when killing, f r a u d , deceit, stealing, wanton destruction of property, on a wholesale scale, made heroes of men because society not only did not f r o w n upon such acts, but demanded them f o r its own preservation.

264

Final

Statement

Crime, then, is a form of conduct that is prohibited, under penalty of the law, at a given time and place because it violates standards that are deemed wise and necessary by the dominant group at that time and place. The criminal, socalled, is a member of the community who has been unable or unwilling to live within those standards, whatever they happen to be. Instead of accepting the limits imposed by the community as a condition of that degree of social cooperation which is necessary for the common good, he has followed his own impulses. H e has become a criminal because he has lost somewhere along the way of life experience, or has never gained, the habit of social cooperation, the acceptance of certain social limitations, as the framework within which his own individual satisfactions can be realized. Somewhere—in the home and family, in the neighborhood, at school, at work, at play, or in some conflict—he has learned to overstep those limits and has found greater satisfaction from doing so than from accepting his normal responsibility as a member of a social group. T h a t is the heart and core of criminality. It is merely one evidence, one kind, of social maladjustment. T h e significance of these facts in relation to our earnest hope of preventing crime cannot be covered in the short period of time allowed us today. Suffice it to say now that the only certain and permanent means of crime prevention, from this point of view, involves two things : First, that every aspect of our social life and social institutions shall be organized and operated on a pattern that enlists as completely as possible the loyalty and cooperation of the members of society, by affording to each of them the opportunity and incentive to achieve his own individual satisfactions and successes within rather than outside sound social limits. This means, of course, that those social limits must be reasonable, not arbitrary; just, not discriminatory. They must be related to the kind of respect that members of society have for themselves as individuals, which creates respect for others.

A Correctional

Program

265

In the second place, those institutions must provide the means by which people, when they face difficult choices, when they meet obstacles to realizing their ambitions, can find the sort of individual understanding and help that will guide them to decent and satisfying social adjustment. T h e basic social services of the community—those affecting the health, the economic sufficiency, the stability of the family; the growth and welfare of children; the relations of group to group in the neighborhood and in the larger community—must be adequate in scope and in quality, to serve the infinitely various needs of all those affected by them. H o w e v e r difficult and costly the procedure may be, it is the only basis f o r a positive, preventive attack upon the causes of crime, as well as all the other manifestations of social maladjustment in our society. T h e r e is no short cut to that end. INDIVIDUALIZED T R E A T M E N T OF T H E

OFFENDER

T h e relation of this concept of crime and the criminal, to the problem of dealing with those who have committed crime calls f o r special emphasis. F o r we have criminals in our midst, and we have to do something with and about them. W e cannot wait till society achieves or approaches perfection in all its institutions. T h e bitter, depressing, negative fact confronts us that society must protect itself now against these nonconformists and rebels. W h e r e do we s t a r t ? W h a t can we d o ? If our basic premise is sound, two conclusions are inevitable. T h e first is that we are dealing with individuals, not with classes or masses of people who are just alike and who will necessarily respond in the same way to the same course of treatment or experience. T h e experience which has brought each of these so-called criminals into his present difficulty is an individual experience, different f r o m every other. I t has shaped the growth of a complex network of ideas and feelings and attitudes and wants and needs, which come to expression

266

Final Statement

in characteristic patterns o f b e h a v i o r . T h e circumstances o f each case w e r e different; the choices w e r e d i f f e r e n t ; the motiv a t i o n s w e r e different; the outcomes, n o t only in action, but in personality d e v e l o p m e n t and c h a r a c t e r f o r m a t i o n , w e r e d i f f e r e n t . I f the offender is to become reconciled w i t h society, if he is to learn to abide by its necessary l i m i t s — a n d that is w h a t w e must hope f o r and w o r k f o r — i t is g o i n g to be so because he has been influenced in a w a y that has l e f t its m a r k upon him as an individual. T h e second conclusion is that automatic, undiscriminating punishment f o r its o w n sake, r e g a r d l e s s of w h a t it means to the individual offender, is futile and f o o l i s h . I f punishment is to h a v e any effect at all, it must h a v e some relation to the feeling and attitude of the person w h o is affected by it. It is obvious, then, f r o m this point o f v i e w , that if w e a r e really g o i n g to help the offender to change, our o w n t r e a t m e n t o f him must be genuinely i n d i v i d u a l i z e d ; it must take constantly into account the particular kind of p e r s o n he h a s become. I t must be directed to reaching his o w n true, inner s e l f . T o record the substantial p r o g r e s s t h a t has a l r e a d y been m a d e in this direction in recent y e a r s is interesting and g r a t i f y i n g . T h i s principle o f i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n o f

correctional

t r e a t m e n t is no l o n g e r a r e v o l u t i o n a r y o r Utopian idea. N o t l o n g a g o the w h o l e idea w a s not only not accepted nor planfully applied, but w a s deliberately denied and r e p u d i a t e d . T h e r e w a s but one m e t h o d of d e a l i n g w i t h the convicted o f f e n d e r . H e w a s sent to p r i s o n — t h e same prison, f o r all. Its purpose w a s punishment, the same kind f o r all. N o t m e r e l y w a s imprisonment itself dire punishment, but to this w e r e a d d e d o t h e r punishments. T h e w h o l e prison experience w a s m a d e as disagreeable and humiliating as possible. T h e prisoner lost his personal identity when he entered the d o o r . H e became a number, instead o f a p e r s o n . H i s u n i f o r m m a d e him one item in a mass, instead of an individual. H e Iockstepped to w o r k and back to his cell. H e w a s cut off by specific rules o f

A Correctional Program

267

silence and segregation f r o m all associations, either past o r present, t h a t could have any meaning f o r him.

PROBATION

AS F I R S T

STEP

IN

INDIVIDUALIZATION

W e have moved f a r f r o m t h a t primitive e r a of mass t r e a t ment and automatic punishment. But we still have f a r to go, to fulfill the real purpose and significance of individualization as a corrective influence in the control of crime. I t is t o some of these f u r t h e r possibilities—indeed, the imperative necessities—of individualized t r e a t m e n t t h a t I w a n t to direct your attention today. W e have, f o r instance, instituted a so-called probation system, as a first step in individualization. I n the use of p r o b a tion, the court faces, f r o m the m o m e n t of the offender's conviction, this basic question: W h a t kind of person is this? W h a t is his o u t l o o k ? Is there a possibility, a real hope, t h a t with constant supervision and help, this person may find the strength and desire to carry his responsibilities as a citizen, t o learn the value and satisfaction of c o o p e r a t i n g with society, instead of fighting against it? Is it safe, a n d would it be economical and effective, f r o m the community's point of view, t o give this person a chance to continue to sustain himself and his family in the community, r a t h e r than become a total dependent of the state behind prison b a r s ? A r e t h e r e p e r h a p s family and f r i e n d s whose influence, if mobilized, m i g h t be useful in reshaping his interests and ideas t o w a r d self-respecting, independent, responsible citizenship? T h a t kind of discriminating effort t o find the best answer to a specific person's problem of social a d j u s t m e n t is obviously a long f o r w a r d step t o w a r d true individualization. But its real usefulness and effectiveness depend upon t w o f a c t o r s : First, the decision of the court, as to w h e t h e r to g r a n t probation, cannot rest upon p u r e guesswork a n d hunches. I t must be based upon a systematic, t h o u g h t f u l effort to u n d e r s t a n d

268

Final Statement

this particular person and circumstances t h a t surround him, t h r o u g h sound use of every available scientific and professional resource. Some sort of suitable and adequate machinery f o r giving t o the court this objective evaluation of the possibilities and probabilities of the case—in the shape of a competent clinical service and advice—is an indispensable f a c t o r in sound decision. In the second place, everything depends upon the kind of p r o b a t i o n a r y service and supervision which is m a d e available. T h e r e can be nothing p e r f u n c t o r y about it. T h e r e can be no dependence upon f o r m a l , periodic r e p o r t s only, or upon the strictly negative enforcement of rules, with the object of obtaining conformity to the bare bones of p r o b a t i o n . T h e r e can be nothing like irresponsible f r e e d o m f o r any offender during this probation experience. N o r can there be irresponsible conf o r m i t y to rule. T h e individual offender is expected to m e e t the test not only of being able to keep out of trouble, but of actually rebuilding his own life and purpose, of putting his own will to w o r k positively, to achieve the right to increasing independence and f r e e d o m , to find the power t o become responsible f o r his own conduct within the limits set by society. N o r is probation merely an expression of leniency. T h e firm f r a m e w o r k of law and policy must be constantly sustained by a w a t c h f u l , alert, resolute officer, w h o is r e a d y and able t o help when help is needed, who u n d e r s t a n d s the struggle the p r o b a t i o n e r must make, but w h o is equally r e a d y and able to exact consistent compliance with the real p u r p o s e and conditions of p r o b a t i o n , which include steady g r o w t h in t h e individual's capacity and desire to find his place within the limits of o r g a n i z e d society. T h i s d e m a n d s knowledge and skill of a high o r d e r , a disciplined professional capacity to help t h e individual and serve society at the same time. Personnel recruited on the basis of political p a t r o n a g e do not possess those qualifications. Only a career service, which recognizes the value and importance of

A Correctional

Program

269

true professional equipment, and which is governed by high standards, can possibly meet the requirements. I have regretfully to report that in this state and in many others that goal is still f a r f r o m being reached. MODERN

REHABILITATIVE

SERVICES

But suppose the court finds that this particular individual cannot yet be trusted with even conditional freedom in society; suppose informed judgment determines that he must be put under the restraint of confinement f o r a time at least. W h a t happens, then? In this area of policy and performance progress has also been made. W e have different kinds of institutions f o r different kinds of offenders—young and old, serious offenders and accidental offenders, men and women, and so on. Within the institutions, and among them, we have classification programs, which seek to determine the kind of custody, the kind of work, the kind of associations, which will prove most helpful in the individual case in stimulating change of attitude and behavior. F u r t h e r m o r e , we have instituted a wide range of so-called rehabilitative services—custodial, educational, vocational, religious instruction and counsel, medical, psychiatric and psychological service, recreation, occasionally even social study and service. Rehabilitation, rather than simple punishment, has become the ostensible object of practically all prison treatment and administration. And, more and more, in connection with classification p r o g r a m s and otherwise, these so-called rehabilitative services have been specifically directed to widening and deepening the opportunities available to individuals to develop and use their individual capacities, both f o r their own sakes and to prepare them for group and social living.

270

Final THE

FALLACY

Statement IN T H E S E

SERVICES

W e have a right to be deeply gratified by this vast modern development. But there is one common element in all these programs, of which we have to be alertly aware, and which we must fundamentally change if proper individualization of treatment is to be achieved. The fact is that these programs are recent outgrowths of a very old and slowly changing penal system, the whole tradition and philosophy of which are based upon the assumption that its task is to apply external pressures to these nonconforming individuals, in order to make of them law-abiding citizens. In the old days these pressures were more crude and sometimes brutal. The so-called new rehabilitative services avoid these extremes. They genuinely accept the point of view that a person who has lost his self-respect can hardly be expected to respect anybody else. But they rest in large part upon an exaggerated and distorted sense of the place of external pressures and forces, as such, in the causation and control of human attitudes and behavior. They are permeated too often by the assumption that it is the function of the prison to make over the prisoner from outside himself, so to speak, and that it can do this job by the organization of programs and facilities around him. I venture to affirm that this is all based upon a fallacy, both in its philosophy and in its presumed scientific foundations. For it leaves out of account a scientific law which no amount of effort can possibly repeal or nullify—that the vital and decisive dynamic effective in changing human attitude and behavior is inside the individual. It is his own will and wish to change in order to satisfy his wants and needs as he sees them. In the last analysis, the individual will behave as he wants to behave, and there is nothing we can do about it. While he is in prison he can, of course, within broad limits, be compelled to behave. Partly by physical compulsion, by fear of punishment, by hope of reward, and partly, doubtless, by friendly

A Correctional

Program

271

interest and helpful suggestion, he can be forced or induced to be a "good prisoner." And some p a r t of t h a t p a t t e r n of conformity, obedience, and social cooperation may stick with him a f t e r he leaves confinement. If it does, it is not because the prison administration wanted him to behave in a certain way ; it is because he has found some reason in himself to want to behave t h a t way. And it is just as likely that when he leaves the institution he will use his new f r e e d o m to resume the antisocial patterns that formerly satisfied him, unless he has actually, by his own will, taken into himself the standards of social adjustment he has experienced while in confinement, or has taken on socially acceptable standards of his own making. T h e essential point is this—that unless the individual takes responsibility f o r himself, puts into his institutional experience his own real purpose to change, he will not and cannot change. Somehow there must be introduced into that prison experience a relationship that gets under his skin; t h a t gives him opportunity and incentive to take this kind of individual responsibility, to face the alternatives that are open to him, to work through all his conflicts of feeling about them, to find the basis f o r a responsible choice among them, and to act on and accept the consequences of that choice. In other words, the basic consideration is that the institution shall accept consistently the fact t h a t change and rehabilitation are going to come about because of the prisoner's own will and power to achieve independence and f r e e d o m . Every step in administration and service, however slight, which invites and demands the prisoner's initiative, decision, and acceptance of responsibility contributes to his development as a person and as a citizen capable of living and finding a respectable place in a free community. Every step that relieves him of t h a t right and opportunity, by doing something f o r him that he can do for himself, weakens him. In this connection, one must, of course, recognize and accept the fact that in emphasizing the necessity f o r the exer-

272

Final

Statement

cise of freedom and responsibility, one is not negating the equally imperative necessity, of sustaining the essential limits and conditions within which these free, responsible choices must be made. T h e prisoner is not absolutely free, but neither is any one of us. H e is a member of a society which must, f o r its own safety, unity, and progress, institute certain rules and standards. T h e y are facts of life, which all of us have to learn to accept and live by if we are to achieve even our own most selfish and individual satisfactions. T h e prisoner has to learn that lesson while he is under the prison's care, if he is to adjust to community life on his return to it. F i r m administrative rules and policies of the prison community are necessary and right, as are the rules outside. These are a p a r t of the realities the prisoner faces in coming to terms with life, in finding his own acceptable and comfortable place in this society. So f a r as they are reasonable rules, forming merely the firm framework of necessary social cooperation; so f a r as they are not arbitrary, irrational, capricious; and so f a r as within them there is still room f o r responsible freedom of choice and action, they are important and valuable bulwarks in the experience which is available to the inmate, f r o m which he can build a responsible free self. If, with these rules, justly enforced, he finds also understanding, helpfulness, interest in and respect f o r him as a person, he may f o r the first time in his life learn how to be a p a r t of something bigger than himself. You may be disappointed that I have not dealt with some of the more tangible essentials of a sound correctional syst e m — t h e kind of buildings and the kind of administrative setup that such a system requires. I have not done so because I am profoundly convinced that bricks and m o r t a r , administrative organization and smooth operation—while they are obviously necessary and important—never can make a truly effective correctional system. T h e heart of that system is in its personnel, and in the spirit and purpose and the achievement which a competent, professional personnel can inject into

A Correctional

Program

273

the relationship they can set up with the human beings under their care. This, like a truly individualized and effective probation service, is a difficult and costly end to achieve. But it is the one indispensable element in a sound correctional system. Unless the convicted offender, wherever he meets the community's authority, can gain a sense of a free, responsible self, worth using as a respected member of society, instead of as a hunted rebel against it, there is no hope f o r him or f o r us in dealing with him. N o t h i n g in any correctional p r o g r a m can awaken this sense, unless there is throughout its administration the clear, honest, unequivocal recognition of the fact that even the criminal is and must remain the master of his own destiny, the captain of his own soul.

W h e n Is Community Organization Social Work Practice? Address delivered at a meeting of Section VII of the National Conference of Social Work, April 1947, and published in Community O r g a n i z a t i o n : Its N a t u r e and Setting, edited by Donald S. Howard, American Association of Social Workers, IÇ47

THIS paper touches issues f a r broader and deeper than the technical nature and content of community organization. I t questions and reexamines some of the most venerable and universal assumptions underlying social w o r k . In the accumulated professional lore and literature of the last twentyfive years, all social work, like all of ancient Gaul, has by general consent been divided into three p a r t s — t h r e e basic areas o r types of practice : social casework, social group w o r k , and community organization. Practitioners in all three of these basic areas, are presumed to be members of a single inclusive profession of social w o r k — a profession united by certain common responsibilities; by a common concern f o r the treatment of certain defined needs and p r o b l e m s ; by a common body of special knowledge applicable to these problems; by certain common specific and defined objectives in relation to them ; by a common core of basic processes, methods, and skills appropriate to the attainment of these objectives; and by a common philosophy binding all these professional ingredients together into a single consistent w h o l e . T h e question b e f o r e us really asks not merely when, but whether, community organization practice is integrally re274

Community

275

Organization

lated to the common content of problem, philosophy, knowledge, objective, and method, which characterizes social work practice as a generic whole. T h e answer to that question clearly depends upon what we mean by generic social work practice, in the first place, and by community organization, practice, in the second. Since there is no generally accepted definition of either social work or community organization, despite all the ardent and able efforts, past and present, that have gone into the search f o r such definitions, I am under the painful necessity of formulating at the beginning the concepts upon which my own discussion will be based. I am keenly aware that this is a m a t t e r of strictly personal choice, and that my own definitions can claim only such validity as readers in their individual judgments choose to accord to them on their merits. But we must start somewhere.

ESSENTIALS OF G E N E R I C SOCIAL

WORK

W h a t , then, are the essentials of social work practice as a generic whole? W h a t are the kinds of problems with which it deals? W h a t are the specific objectives it seeks? W h a t are its basic methods and skills? W h a t is the philosophy on which it operates? One of the difficulties we face in defining the area of general social work practice, in terms of the kinds of problems with which it deals, is our use of the very broad and general term "social" as the only qualifying adjective to designate our specific area of service. T h e word "social" has none of the precision of such words as "medical" or "legal," f o r instance, by which other areas of professional practice are defined. I t is obviously not enough to say that social work treats "social" problems. F o r virtually every life problem of every individual in this modern world is, in reality, a "social" problem in one sense or another. Practically every organized undertaking in the world is a "social" enterprise, in the sense

276

Final

Statement

t h a t it involves a n d affects t h e social l i f e a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p s of p e o p l e . I t is clear t h a t n o t all of t h e s e " s o c i a l " i n t e r e s t s a n d i n v o l v e m e n t s of h u m a n b e i n g s can lie w i t h i n t h e p r o v i n c e of a single p r o f e s s i o n . N o r does t h e a d d i t i o n of t h e w o r d " w e l f a r e " t o t h e w o r d " s o c i a l " d o m u c h t o c l a r i f y o r t o b o u n d t h e a r e a of o u r p r o f e s s i o n a l e f f o r t . F o r , in t h e o r d i n a r y a n d logical use of lang u a g e , t h e t e r m " w e l f a r e " in this connection d e n o t e s only a g e n e r a l p u r p o s e of action, which w e as a p r o f e s s i o n s h a r e w i t h m a n y o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n s a n d g r o u p s in t h e c o m m u n i t y , b u t which we c e r t a i n l y d o n o t m o n o p o l i z e . W h e n e v e r in t h e c o u r s e of daily living, p e o p l e f e e l t h e n e e d a n d t h e impulse t o a p p l y s o m e s o r t of d e l i b e r a t e d i r e c t i o n t o o t h e r w i s e intuitive social d e v e l o p m e n t s , w i t h t h e conscious p u r p o s e of m a k i n g t h e m s e r v e m o r e f u l l y o r m o r e directly t h e n e e d s of h u m a n b e i n g s in t h e i r social r e l a t i o n s h i p s , " s o c i a l w e l f a r e " e n t e r p r i s e s c o m e into b e i n g . T h e y m a y t a k e any f o r m ; t h e y m a y b e c o n c e r n e d w i t h any aspect of social experience ; t h e y m a y seek t o d e a l w i t h any o n e o r m a n y of t h e social p r o b l e m s p e o p l e f a c e . By this r e a s o n a b l e test t h e church, t h e school, t h e c o u r t , t h e h o s p i t a l , t h e l a b o r union, a n d even i n d u s t r y i t s e l f — w h e n m o t i v a t e d a n d m a n a g e d w i t h a view t o t h e f u l l e r s a t i s f a c t i o n of h u m a n social i n t e r e s t s — a r e "social w e l f a r e " e n t e r p r i s e s . B u t t h e y a r e n o t in t h e m s e l v e s " s o c i a l w o r k " e n t e r p r i s e s . Social w o r k can a n d d o e s a p p e a r , h o w e v e r , in any of t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s o r in any o t h e r p a r t of t h e social s e t t i n g , a n d t h i s is t h e c r u x of t h e f o l l o w i n g definition w h i c h I p r o p o s e : social w o r k is t h e e f f o r t specifically a n d d i r e c t l y a p p l i e d , in p u r s u i t of a " s o c i a l w e l f a r e " p u r p o s e , t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e process b y w h i c h p e o p l e a r e a s s i s t e d a n d e n a b l e d t o use t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s ( o r a n y o t h e r social r e l a t i o n s o p e n t o t h e m ) f o r t h e m o r e effectual f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e i r o w n social well-being, w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k of a s t a b l e society. T h e p r o b l e m s w i t h which social w o r k d e a l s a r e n o t p r o b l e m s of social s t r u c t u r e , as such, n o r of i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n a l i t y ,

Community

Organization

277

as such. T h e y are not definable in terms of particular sets of circumstances or of particular forces or qualities, either in the social environment or in people themselves, that may obstruct or f r u s t r a t e satisfying and f r u i t f u l social living. T h e y are the problems which people find in the actual process of adjustment to each other or to any p a r t or aspect of their social environment. T h a t is to say, they are problems of relationships. If this definition is accepted, the central objective of social work practice is to facilitate the process of social adjustment of individual people through the development and constructive use of social relationships within which they can find their own fulfillment and can discharge adequately their social responsibilities. T h i s objective may be sought through helping individuals and groups of individuals to find satisfying and f r u i t f u l relations with and within the social realties in which they are at the time involved. On the other hand, it may be sought through facilitating the adaptation and modification of the larger environmental arrangement and relationships upon which satisfying social adjustment of all human beings depends. Commonly, both these avenues to the ultimate objective may be used at one and the same time. In any case, the objective always remains the same, not in any particular product or f o r m of adjustment, but in the process of adjustment itself. T h e objective is not to make over either the environment or the people involved in it, but rather to introduce and sustain a process of dealing with the problems of social relationships and social adjustment, which will enable and assist those involved in the problems to find solutions satisfying to themselves and acceptable to the society of which they are a p a r t . T h e philosophy of social work shines f o r t h in these objectives. It rests upon a p r o f o u n d faith in human beings, in their inherent and inviolable right to choose and to achieve their own destiny through social relations of their own making, within the essential f r a m e w o r k of a stable and progressive

278

Final

Statement

society. I t rests upon a deep appreciation of the validity and the value to society as a whole of these individual differences in human beings. It conceives of social unity and progress as the outcome of the integration, not the suppression or conquest, of these differences. Accordingly, it tests all social arrangements and institutions by their impact upon individual lives, by their capacity to utilize f o r the common good the unique potentialities of individual human beings, through relationships t h a t enlist their active and productive participation. I t is, in short, a genuinely and consistently democratic philosophy. Social work methods and skills exemplify this philosophy in action. Always and everywhere social work is a helping, not a controlling, function. It applies the methods of cooperation, not of manipulation. I t offers a service, to be used by others if they need and want to use it; it does not use others, or treat others, f o r the attainment of its own ends. Because its objectives are always focused upon the creation and maintenance of constructive relationships, its own methods and skills are focused upon its own capacity f o r and use of a cooperative and helping relationship. Because its service is concerned with a process of adjustment, rather than in the attainment of a specific product or end, its methods and skills and disciplines are directed t o w a r d the management of the processes by which social work is p e r f o r m e d . Primary to this management is a sensitive awareness of what is happening to everybody affected in the process in question and of how the social worker's participation is affecting the feeling, interest, and participation of all other persons concerned. Because of the democratic philosophy on which social work rests, the social worker must be aware that responsibility f o r the outcome rests with others, not with himself. H i s method and skill must consistently be addressed to enlisting the honest and voluntary contribution of understanding, experience, and purpose of each and every person involved in a given re-

Community

Organization

279

lationship. T h e social worker's method must include, too, the honest, objective, appreciative use of these contributions made by others to this process of integration. A l w a y s mindful of the decisive responsibility of others f o r ultimate choice and decision, the social worker nevertheless makes a specific contribution. T h i s he does through professional help in the clarification of alternatives and their potential consequences, in the analysis of factors that enter into the choice, and in the evaluation of those elements in relation to the ultimate objective, in terms of available resources, and in the light of a broader specialized experience in dealing with similar problems. T h e core of these processes, methods, and skills of generic social work practice is obviously in the disciplined use of oneself in direct relations with people, both individually and in groups. A l l else is secondary and incidental and assumes significance only as it results in the more effective performance of the worker in that direct relationship. One factor which profoundly affects the social worker's use of himself in the helping relationships that he is the representative of a social agency which determines, by its own choice of purpose and service and policy, the limits within which the worker serves. T h e agency, in relation to our present subject, has two vital effects upon method and process. In the first place, it introduces into the development of individual and group relationships and purposes the stake of the larger community in the outcome, the basic social structure within which these lesser relationships must find their place if they are to avail themselves of its help. In the second place, the social agency sustains and protects the worker in the helpful, noncontrolling use of himself in relation to others. It exacts f r o m the worker disciplined restraint upon the undue exercise of his own will and power and upon the undue expression of his own interest, judgment, and purpose in the choice of ends or means. Thus, the agency con-

280

Final

Statement

serves the basic democratic quality of the helping relationship and at the same time sustains the essential f r a m e w o r k of a stable democratic society. This, then, is generic social work practice as I conceive it. In summary : it deals with problems not of the social environment as such, nor of human personalities as such, but with the problems of relationship between them. Its objective is not in changes of social structure or of personality but in improvement and facilitation of the process by which people are enabled to find, sustain, and use constructive social relationships. Its methods and skills are encompassed in a disciplined capacity to initiate, sustain, and use a direct helping relationship with people, based upon a sensitive, alert awareness of the meaning and effect of feeling, thoughts, and actions, in the development of the cooperative process ; and based also upon a clear acceptance of the limits of the worker's own role and responsibility, as determined by the function of the agency he represents. Finally, social work is guided and enlivened by a democratic philosophy which recognizes the right and the responsibility of individuals to manage their own lives, but always within the f r a m e w o r k of a democratically organized and democratically controlled social whole. COMMUNITY

ORGANIZATION

AND

SOCIAL

WORK

Now, what is the relation of community organization practice to generic social w o r k as here defined? D o the problems, the objectives, the methods and skills, the dominating philosophy of community organization fall within the boundaries described? Community organization in its broadest sense has been defined as all "deliberately directed effort to assist groups in attaining unity of purpose and action . . . in behalf of either general or specific objectives." * If this definition is accepted, • Wayne McMillen, "Community Organization in Social W o r k , " Work Year Book, 194.7, Ρ·

Social

Community Organization

281

it is clear that a substantial p a r t of community organization f a l l s even outside the b r o a d e r field of social w e l f a r e , of which the whole of social w o r k is an integral part. Y e t it is also clear t h a t another substantial p a r t of the community organization process, described in a recent report as the creation and maintenance of " a progressively m o r e effective adjustment between social-welfare resources and social-welfare needs," * certainly belongs within the social w e l f a r e field. But, does this practice of community organization f o r a social w e l f a r e purpose conform to our criteria of generic social w o r k practice? S o f a r as its scope has been defined in terms of problems with which its practice is concerned, it seems clear that there is a steadily advancing agreement among community organization practitioners and leaders that those problems, like the basic subject matter of social w o r k as a whole, center definitely in social relationships as such. T h e y are not primarily concerned with any particular set of circumstances or any particular forces or sources of difficulty, either in the social environment or in the human personality. One cannot conceive of " s o c i a l needs" without thinking of people in social relationships; one cannot conceive of " a d j u s t i n g social resources to social n e e d s " without recognizing that the basic problem with which one is dealing is that of relationships between people. If one chooses to accept W i l b e r N e w s t e t t e r ' s original conception of community organization as "inter-group w o r k , " the case f o r identifying its basic problems with those of generic social w o r k is even more convincing. But what are the specific objectives of community organization? Is community organization practice concerned specifically with facilitating the process of social adjustment, or is it directed to the attainment of more tangible and specific ends? • Robert P. Lane, "The Field of Community Organization," Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, 1939, p. 500. (Report of Drafting Committee on Project for Discussion of Community Organization.)

282

Final Statement

W e approach more debatable ground when we face these questions. Despite the growth of articulated theory which identifies the objective of community organization with the characteristic objectives we have ascribed to generic social work, there remain two obstacles to the realization of this theory in actual practice. In the first place, community organization is often dissociated f r o m actual service of specific individuals or groups. Needs to which it is addressed are frequently outside the immediate experience or sphere of responsibility of those who are involved in the community-organizing process and relationship. It is easy, therefore, f o r both promoters and participants in the process to find their satisfaction and sense of achievement in the creation of a well-articulated, symmetrical, deftly organized structure and mechanism rather than in the process of helping individual people fulfill their own social needs. T h e r e is nothing discreditable in this kind of satisfaction. W e all share it in some measure. Y e t it dissociates the activity which it dominates f r o m what we have here called the province of social work. Social work, if we are right about it, is expressly and exclusively concerned with helping people find satisfying social adjustment to and through their social institutions and relationships. Its true objective is in facilitating this process of adjustment. Its only concern with social organization, as such, is to introduce and sustain through that organization the relationships and processes which facilitate that adjustment. T h e second source of possible doubt about the identification of the specific objectives of community organization with those of generic social work lies in the fact that the process of organization often follows, rather than precedes, the choice of goals. In the planning stage, before the community organization process really begins, the problem is already likely to be identified and defined and a diagram of the specific out-

Community

Organization

283

come to be achieved is likely to emerge. Achievement of this outcome, then, easily becomes the criterion of the success of the whole undertaking. F r o m this point f o r w a r d organization is likely to concent r a t e upon obtaining acceptance and realization of the particular plan proposed r a t h e r than upon the process of helping the community to identify and appreciate the need, to choose a suitable means of filling the need, and to muster its strength to achieve this self-determined goal. In this respect community organization faces precisely the same h a z a r d s which f r o m the beginning have beset social casework and social group work, and which have only recently and only partially been mastered. T h e old formula of "investigation, diagnosis, and t r e a t m e n t " so long revered in social casework as the basis of a presumably scientific and systematic professional process, carries with it the same t h r e a t to make the fulfillment of a preconceived plan the criterion of success. T h i s plan is chosen, it is true, prayerfully and sincerely, out of professional vision and understanding, but this is a f a r cry f r o m the freeing and helping of the client to choose and achieve his own end. T h e same threat pursues the social group worker, whose effort can easily be diverted f r o m facilitating the process of group development and growth, to the operation of a particular p r o g r a m of group activity which seems to the professional leader to be the most suitable and satisfying f o r a particular group in a particular setting. Community organizers, if they are to achieve the fruits of their service within the f r a m e w o r k of social work, have to guard themselves against the insidious temptation to choose f o r the community a plan which the organizers then proceed to carry through. H e r e , as elsewhere in social work, the choice of objectives reflects the acceptance of a basic philosophy, which in turn comes to expression in process, method, and skill. T h e philosophy underlying social work practice, we have declared, is

284

Final

Statement

definitely and wholly a democratic philosophy. On t h a t principle it cannot compromise. I t may grope and fumble in its quest f o r insight and strength to realize all its implications. A n d it always faces the basic problem of democratic l i f e — t h e integration of the knowledge and skill of the expert with the broad and varied experience of the mass of men. Yet social work holds firmly to the fundamental concept that in the making of such decisions the expert, as described in a phrase o f t e n used to describe the British civil service, "must always be on tap, never—almost never—on top." T h e community organizer, whose primary client is the whole community, faces this problem in more acute and potent f o r m than most other social workers, f o r he is dealing with powerful, discordant forces that take even a longer time to become integrated than do those in individuals and in faceto-face groups. H e has to believe and to remember t h a t the community is the master of its own destiny; that it has the right to make its own mistakes; that it also has within itself a reservoir of infinitely varied insights and strengths of all its members, which must find outlet in the formulation and achievement of its own purpose if the genius of democracy and its special values are to be conserved and fulfilled. I t is when we turn to the methods and processes of community organization and the skills it requires that its relationship with generic social w o r k becomes most difficult to appraise. T h i s is not surprising in view of the relatively brief time within which these problems have been subjected to systematic study. H o w e v e r , there is undoubtedly developing an ever-widening acceptance of a basic concept of method and skill in this area of practice which identifies it positively with that which dominates other areas of social work, namely, the worker's capacity to initiate and sustain a direct helping relationship with individual people and groups of people. T h e use of such method and skill is obviously modified and complicated by the fact that the individuals and groups with which

Community

Organization

285

the Community organizer works are often representatives of other groups whom he may not directly or regularly meet, but of whose interests and feelings and purposes he must be alertly aware. T h e r e is, however, at least one historical and contemporary manifestation of a contrary concept of what contributes the basic process, method, and skill in community organization, which tends to separate and distinguish it f r o m what we have described as generic "social w o r k " practice. T h a t is the concept which places heavy emphasis upon the methods and skills necessarily involved in research, administration, planning, and interpretation, as factors in the professional equipment of the community organizer. T h e r e is little doubt that all of these processes, in their best estate, involve not a little of the same self-awareness and sensitivity to others which we have described as the dominant attributes of sound method and skill in all social work. Hence there is nothing inherently incompatible between these skills and the basic skill of social work. H o w e v e r , in relation to the question here under discussion the danger signal must be hoisted because of the way in which, in the literature as well as in the practice of community organization, these methods and skills are apparently separated and dissociated one f r o m another. Research, administration, planning, and interpretation are frequently assumed to be concerned only with things, with facts, with ideas, rather than with people ; they are made to appear as products of some sort of occult, private operation, apart f r o m any process that goes on in relationship with others. Sometimes they are made to assume such importance in the total equipment and activity of the community organizer as to overshadow the primary social work process, method, and skill of using oneself in direct personal and group relations. T h e y are even thought to require an utterly different kind of person, subject to a different kind of discipline.

286

Final

Statement

Indeed, one writer has recently suggested that the primary skill of developing and using constructive individual and g r o u p relationships is so imperfectly understood and is so largely dependent upon inherent personal quality, rather than professional discipline, that what we have called the secondary skills and responsibilities of research, administration, planning, and interpretation must continue to constitute the m a j o r equipment of the community organizer. Yet the same writer remarks that the development of the professional process of community organization in social work has placed increasing emphasis "not upon the attainment of immediate objectives, but upon methods of strengthening the intergroup process." * H o w , one might ask, is that intergroup process going to be strengthened through professional intervention except by the disciplined command of one's professional self in direct relationships with individuals and groups?

CONCLUSION

In conclusion I wish to say that, in my opinion, community organization practice is social work practice, that its practitioners can share in the development of a single profession of social work, on three conditions: first, if their primary concerns and objectives relate always to the development and guidance of the process by which people find satisfying and f r u i t f u l social relationships, and not to the attainment of specific, preconceived products or forms of relationship; second, if these objectives are sought consistently through the realization of a democratic philosophy and faith which respects the right and the responsibility of communities, as of individuals, to create their own satisfying relationships, and to use those relationships to their own chosen ends ; and finally, if the basic processes, methods, and skills that are demanded and employed in practice are those that inhere in the worker's ca• McMillen, op. cit., p. n o .

Community

Organization

287

p a r i t y to initiate and sustain a helping, not a controlling, relationship with individuals and g r o u p s . All of this demands e x t r a o r d i n a r y f a i t h — f a i t h in people, in their capacity, individually and in the mass, to discover and to fulfill their own needs. Above all, it requires f a i t h in the helping process itself as a medium t h r o u g h which people individually, in groups, in i n t e r g r o u p relationships, and in the mass, can, if they will, discover their own purposes and powers, face and appraise the consequences of alternatives b e f o r e them, and m u s t e r their resources t o choose and achieve their own a p p r o p r i a t e ends. I t requires the kind of faith and the kind of feeling t h a t finds its highest satisfaction in facilitating the achievement of o t h e r s r a t h e r than in the exercise of personal p o w e r . I t also d e m a n d s f a i t h t h a t p r o g ress in a democratic society must have democratic roots, as well as democratic t r u n k and branches. T h i s is the faith on which social w o r k as an integral whole is f o u n d e d , and which it has justified by w o r k s of unquestioned validity and significance in our society. If community organization actually d e m a n d s and expresses t h a t same f a i t h in its daily operations, it is indeed a p a r t — a vital, constructive p a r t — o f social w o r k practice.

A Philosophy of Change In the Community of Social Work A paper prepared for the Massachusetts Conference Social Work, October 1947, and read by Malcolm Nichols (Not Previously Published)

of S.

A S O M E W H A T facetious present-day philosopher is said to have remarked that the most conspicuous aim and function of modern philosophy seems to be to discover acceptable reasons f o r yielding to the inevitable. I w a s forcibly reminded of that rather cynical dictum as I undertook to w o r k out a philosophy of change in the community of social w o r k in the y e a r 1 9 4 7 . F o r nothing could seem more clearly inevitable at this juncture of human a f f a i r s — i n social w o r k , as in everything else that concerns human b e i n g s — t h a n this v e r y f a c t o f change. Indeed, this universal current of ceaseless change is about the only certainty in an extremely uncertain w o r l d at a f a t e f u l moment in its life. I suppose, as our anonymous philosopher suggested, there may be real value in finding a valid reason f o r abandoning all blind and futile attempts to sweep back with our little brooms these oceanic tides o f change that roll in upon us. B u t I am sure that in this group, whose efforts are primarily dedicated to the conscious and deliberate advancement o f human welfare, no such purely negative and passive approach to this problem of change can be s a t i s f y i n g o r even tolerable. O u r philosophy must yield us sound reasons and consistent guidance, not f o r becoming merely irresponsible passengers upon an uncharted journey to an unknown social destination, but 288

A Philosophy

of Change

289

r a t h e r f o r taking an active, responsible, purposeful p a r t at every stage of t h a t long and h a z a r d o u s voyage. i t is peculiarly fitting that the profession of social work should be called upon to enunciate a philosophy of change, for the facts and the problems of change are no strangers to social w o r k — t h e y are, indeed, the very core and essence of every problem with which social work has dealt throughout the long years of its development and achievement. In both its external and internal relationships—in meeting the needs of those who ask help, and in its own search f o r professional competence and s t r e n g t h — t h e central, typical problem of social work has always been to find its own adjustment, and to help the adjustment of others to the inescapable reality of change. T h o s e who seek social work service need help primarily because of changes in the circumstances of their lives—because accustomed relationships have been weakened or broken; because new responsibilities have been thrust upon them or old, familiar responsibilities have been taken f r o m them, leaving f e a r , confusion, or conflict in the wake of change; or because of changes in their own feelings and attitudes or in those of others with whom they have had meaningful relationships. It has been the primary responsibility of social workers to help these people to face the changes t h a t inevitably beset their separate and common paths, so t h a t they may realize their highest possibilities as individuals and as members of the community. In the short span of its life as a professional service, change in the scope and content and method of social work itself has been the order of the day. W i t h i n a single generation, f o r example, the profession of social work has had to accommodate itself to the lessons of its own experience and to the swiftly changing public attitudes, understandings, and purposes occasioned by two world wars and by an economic depression of unprecedented b r e a d t h and intensity. I t has had to assimilate

290

Final Statement

a n d a d a p t t o its own use the outcomes of extraordinarily r a p i d a n d f a r - r e a c h i n g developments in m o d e r n psychology, social psychiatry, psychoanalysis, along with equally import a n t advances in medicine and in o t h e r socially significant a r t s a n d sciences. I t has had to relate its responsibilities, methods, and processes t o the sudden and e n o r m o u s expansion of welf a r e services under g o v e r n m e n t a l auspices, on the one hand, a n d to the development of centralized financing of so-called p r i v a t e social work, on the o t h e r , and then to the organization of systematic community wide planning and cooperation of b o t h public and private social w o r k . U n d e r the influence of these forces e m a n a t i n g p a r t l y f r o m outside itself, and also because of its own internal g r o w t h and movement, social w o r k has, within this same s h o r t span of time, faced and accepted p e r h a p s the most difficult change of all—its w o r k e r s h a v e h a d to learn to subject themselves and their m e t h o d s and processes and achievements to the critical and discrimin a t i n g a p p r a i s a l of their peers, t h r o u g h professional organization and professional education. T h e y have h a d to yield their old almost t o t a l personal a u t o n o m y to a new p r o f e s sional discipline and g r o u p responsibility.

E S S E N T I A L E L E M E N T S OF T H E PHILOSOPHY OF C H A N G E

Surely we have distilled f r o m all of this experience with change, a philosophy which can have significance and value as a stabilizing a n d clarifying principle, b o t h f o r social w o r k itself a n d f o r the communities in which it operates, especially in these p r e c a r i o u s and t r o u b l e d times of vastly accelerated social transition. I feel sure t h a t most of us, individually, have w o r k e d out such a philosophy, t h o u g h we may n o t have articulated it clearly. P r o b a b l y n o t all of us would a g r e e upon its precise t e r m s . I shall accept responsibility, t h e r e f o r e , f o r articulating a n d i n t e r p r e t i n g a philosophy of change which seems t o me sound a n d serviceable. I t cannot p r e t e n d t o be an

A Philosophy of Change

291

authoritative statement of the social work philosophy of change ; it is only a philosophy, submitted for your consideration and for whatever acceptance it commends on its merits. Y e t I propose to state it bluntly and dogmatically in order to sharpen its essential outlines. This philosophy rests, first of all, upon the demonstrable scientific fact that all real and permanent changes in the form and structure of human relationships are the outgrowth of inner change, of change in the attitudes and feelings, the motives and purposes of the human beings involved in those relationships. Such a philosophy accepts not only the truth and the transcendent importance of this basic fact of life; it accepts the rightness, the positive value of this fact, from the point of view not only of the individual but of society as a whole, and of society's stake in its own unity and progress. I t embodies a profound faith in human beings and in the inviolable integrity and creative power of individual personality. W e not only submit to this inescapable law of human nature ; we welcome, embrace, and use it by deliberate, determined choice. Accordingly, we affirm the value of individual differences as the essential dynamic of social progress. W e affirm that the validity of the democratic social order lies specifically in its capacity to use, for the enrichment and progress of the common life, all the unique values of all the different members of society, and in its reliance upon a process of constructive integration of these differences, rather than the denial, suppression, or disparagement of them. T h e objective of any conscious and deliberate effort, as of social work, to facilitate social adjustment and social progress, must always be the liberation and integration of the creative and cooperative forces in the individuals and groups involved in change, whose will must be the ultimate determinant of the direction and outcome of social change. This means that the primary function of those who seek to plan or to help

292

Final

Statement

social change must be to introduce and to sustain a process of planning and helping, calculated to enable and assist people to face decisive facts clearly and realistically. T h e basic objective of constructive help in adjustment to social change can never be the attainment of any particular preconceived goal of achievement or pattern of relationships. T h e process by which change is enabled to come to pass, or by which adjustment to change is facilitated, is always more decisive as the criterion of achievement, than is the ultimate product of change or adjustment. For upon that process—upon what happens to people in that process—depends the use that will be made of the product, the degree to which it will really enlist and embody the consistent will and the persistent purpose of those who must live with it and make it work. W e can confidently trust the product of a process through which participants in change can see and appraise decisive facts and available alternatives clearly, in relation to their own real wants and needs ; through which real differences of feeling and purpose can be explored with due respect for each other; and through which, finally, choices can be made that use and integrate, as largely as possible, the full values of all the interests and elements that have a real stake in the enterprise. In extolling the significance and value of individual difference as the predominant dynamic in social progress, this philosophy does not exalt anarchy as the principle of social life. On the contrary, it affirms that the discovery and release of the innermost needs and wants of the individuals and groups that compose society inevitably require some limiting structure within which and against which individual wants and capacities can be tested and defined. In a democratic society as a whole, law and government express some of the selfimposed and accepted limitations within which the members of society are enabled and required to pursue both their common and their individual social purposes. Groups impose

A Philosophy

of Change

293

upon themselves or accept other limitations and sanctions as through religious organization, f o r instance, or through the f o r m a l or informal recognition of established customs and standards t h a t have practically the force of law. Within the n a r r o w e r field of social work, the social agency — c r e a t e d out of a sense of need f o r service felt by a few, or by many, or all the members of society—expresses, in its definition of function and policy, additional limits within which people find help in discovering and fulfilling their own needs. In the larger community of social work, the Council, composed of many social agencies, affords a structure within which the differences of many individuals and groups can be integrated in behalf of a larger community good, as well as f o r the fuller realization of their specific individual and group purposes. T h r o u g h all these structures authority and responsibility are established, defined, and channeled in order to facilitate the process of liberating and using the unique contributions of all who share certain basic defined aims. T h e essential characteristic of these limiting and defining social structures is that they emerge out of deep common needs, and they are set up in advance or they are created and accepted as the process of cooperative action advances. Individuals and groups know and accept these limits f r o m the beginning; within these firm limits they t h e r e f o r e remain free to pursue and to realize their own aims, to retain their own integrity, and to develop their own individuality. T h e r e is nothing arbitrary, capricious, uncertain, or intermittent about the boundaries of their f r e e d o m and of their own creative effort. These, then, are the essential elements of the philosophy of change which I submit f o r your consideration. T h e r e can be no denying, I am sure, that such a philosophy of change, and of social work's role and responsibility in change, presents enormous difficulties in practical operation. It involves all the difficulties of any democratic philosophy. I t demands a

294

Final Statement

degree of faith, of patience, of self-restraint, and of self-discipline that goes f a r beyond the innate quality of most of us. It seems to run counter to the need and the impulse which we all feel, to project our personal strength toward the control of our own environment to ends that satisfy our own wants; most of all it runs afoul of our native tendency to rationalize this feeling and to defend it in strictly intellectual terms. It is obviously f a r easier to seek to know what ought to be done, according to fixed standards of our own choosing, and then to apply all our power to the attainment of that presumed good, than it is to be only a part of a larger whole, to be one contributor to a process of cooperative effort, which is not designed or expected to achieve a specific desired goal at any instant in time. Rather is the effort directed to promoting consistent progress toward a goal which does not express our own ideals alone, but which affords the largest possible measure of satisfaction and achievement to all those who have or feel a stake in its values and benefits. Despite these difficulties in helping particular people and groups of people to face and master the hazards of change in their own lives, social work has steadily moved to the conscious acceptance and the consistent, skillful, productive use of this basic philosophy, and it has proved the validity of the democratic principle as the dependable basis of real social adjustment and true social progress. It is no longer chiefly concerned with achieving its own intellectual grasp of all the infinitely varied and complicated factors, historical and contemporary, that have converged to create the particular person and the particular problem f o r which its help is asked. It is no longer chiefly concerned with determining f o r itself, on the basis of this intellectual understanding and in the light of its own special experience, just what must happen or just what must be done, to change this person or to solve this problem, according to our own fixed standards. It is concerned, rather, with the sensitive and skillful use of a helping process by

A Philosophy

of Change

295

which all who ask its help are enabled to make the fullest possible use of their own powers, within the limits of a stable democratic society, in clarifying and facing their own problems and in discovering and measuring the available alternatives and their consequences, so that they can choose with integrity their own way of attaining their own ends. W e do not take over people's problems; we do not try to make people over. W e help people to carry their own responsibilities and to change themselves, if they must and will and can, sufficiently to achieve and sustain social relationships that are satisfying to themselves and acceptable to the society of which they are a p a r t . O u r next great task, therefore, is to learn to apply ourselves, in precisely the same spirit, with precisely the same basic understandings and skills and disciplines, to the broader tasks of organizing and administering the social agencies through which our service is made available, and of helping the community as a whole to accept and facilitate constructive social change—in that area of its life that involves the identification and definition of changing social needs that require the use of changing social services, and also in the still broader sphere in which the community acts to enrich and advance the quality and effectiveness of its fundamental social institutions. Now I would like to take up some of the implications of this philosophy in relation to practical problems that now loom large before us in three closely related areas of activity and responsibility : our own development as a profession ; the agencies with which we are associated; and the community in which we and those agencies operate.

296

Final Statement I M P O R T A N T A S P E C T S OF T H E OF SOCIAL W O R K AS A

DEVELOPMENT PROFESSION

I t is entirely n a t u r a l f o r a y o u t h f u l profession like social w o r k to w a n t v e r y much and as quickly as possible to achieve a n d sustain unity, solidarity, and security t h r o u g h the establishment of a common body of tested knowledge and of accepted principles, s t a n d a r d s , and m e t h o d s . A g r e e m e n t and complete likeness seem to symbolize the self-confident comm a n d of o u r resources a n d grasp of our problems which represent t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l m a t u r i t y t o w a r d which we are striving. Difference seems t o imply weakness or incomplete mastery. I suggest, on the o t h e r h a n d — i n d e e d , I i n s i s t — t h a t the h a l l m a r k of real professional maturity is the kind of humility a n d readiness to change which not only tolerates but earnestly welcomes difference in its own ranks, because it seeks to u n d e r s t a n d and use and test difference f o r the enrichment of its own vision and capacity f o r service. As social w o r k e r s we h a v e an obligation to discover, to affirm, to sustain, and to cultivate our own specific professional difference—a difference in the a r e a of our responsibility, of our objectives, or the content a n d m e t h o d of our service—which enables us to make a distinctive contribution to the a t t a i n m e n t of sound social a d j u s t m e n t and sound social progress, a contribution f o r which we a r e willing and able to accept complete accountability t o our clients and to our communities. L e t us believe, then, in o u r own difference, and let us use it to the full in p r o m o t i n g a truly c o o p e r a t i v e and dynamic process of social change. I t is also n o r m a l and highly useful f o r a g r o w i n g p r o f e s sion to t a k e a d v a n t a g e of the findings of older and m o r e firmly established professions, which are concerned with some aspects of t h e same problems with which we are engaged. I h a v e a l r e a d y suggested t h a t we have vastly enriched our own service t h r o u g h the assimilation and application of some of t h e outcomes of recent medical, psychological, a n d psychiat-

A Philosophy

of Change

297

rie advances. W e must remain alert to f u r t h e r contributions f r o m these and other sources, and continue to use such changes as these introduce into our own professional equipment. Finally, it is also entirely valid f o r a young profession like ours to become absorbed in the effort to comprehend and to refine the technical processes involved in the p r i m a r y service to which we address ourselves. It is peculiarly easy f o r social workers to give themselves utterly to the mastery of these technical problems, for their professional service is focused on the fascinating complexities of intimate, delicate, and extremely varied relationships of human beings. T h e r e is no limit to the breadth and depth of understanding and skill which they can and should use in helping people to deal effectively with the problems imbedded in these relationships. It seems to me clear, however, that full professional maturity of vision and performance demands something more than this technical proficiency. W i t h o u t abating by one jot or tittle our effort to acquire the most refined technical professional equipment f o r direct service, we must also recognize and accept our inherent responsibility for helping to develop and maintain those b r o a d e r social conditions and institutions which enable our own professional service to find its mark in human lives. W e have, as members of a profession, both an individual and a collective responsibility to participate in those processes of social planning, social legislation, social administration, and positive social action, which deeply affect the lives of people in our communities. If here, in this outer circle of our responsibility, we consistently act upon the same philosophy which guides us in the innermost core of our service of people, there is no conflict between the two tasks; they are complementary and reciprocally helpful. If we are willing to play a helping, and not a controlling, role in that process; if we are determined to be a part, and not the whole; if we act within the

298

Final

Statement

limits of our own professional knowledge and experience and function; if we are concerned with making the process of action sound and serviceable, assuring the full consideration and participation of every element and interest in the community t h a t has a real stake in the outcome; if, in our own process of participation, we truly feel and constantly show the same respect f o r the different experiences and contributions of others that we seek to win for our own—the problem and the responsibility of social action need hold no t e r r o r s f o r an adult, m a t u r e profession of social work. LEADERSHIP

OF T H E

INDIVIDUAL

SOCIAL

AGENCY

A n d now may we turn f o r a moment to some of the implications of this philosophy as it comes to expression in the leadership and management of the individual social agency, which is the characteristic instrument and carrier of social work service. T h e agency is committed to service—to the offering of an appropriate, competent, adequate helping service to people who face social problems with which they feel unable to cope alone. T h a t is the agency's sole reason f o r being. T h e agency faces three basic questions in discharging this responsibility: First, w h a t are the particular needs of people to which this particular agency shall address its effort? Second, under w h a t conditions, within w h a t limits, shall it make this service available? T h i r d , what resources are required and how shall they be applied to meet these needs effectively? In answering all these questions, it is obvious t h a t an agency must act upon some consistent basic piholosphy—a philosophy of change, if you will. A social agency which accepts the philosophy which I have commended to your attention will, in the first place, gear its whole structure and operation t o the fact of change, it will welcome change and not f e a r it or fight it; it will be alert to recognize change in the social circumstances out of which emerge the needs of the people to

A Philosophy

of Change

299

w h o m it ministers ; it will be quick to change itself, if need be, in order to relate its service more effectively to these changed needs, f o r which it accepts responsibility. But in this ready response to the fact and the need of change, in the agency itself, and in the problems to which it addresses itself, it will be guided by two fundamental principles. I t will concern itself, first and foremost, with the process of change. It will assure itself that every element in its own organization is drawn into that process of change and is enabled to make its own contribution in determining the direction of that change—the members of the Board, with their direct contacts and identification with community interests and feelings and purposes; the members of the administration, with their responsible experience in the coordination and leadership of all parts of the agency; and the members of the operating and service staff, with their direct and responsible application of agency resources and policy to the p e r f o r m a n c e of the agency's function in direct service of people. Unless that process of integration of all these significant differences in point of view and in experience in the agency itself is continuously cultivated and used, the change that emerges will certainly miss its highest goal. If that process is constantly protected and developed, the outcome of change, whatever it proves to be, can be anticipated with confidence and sustained with conviction. T h e second consideration that will guide agency action in the face of change will be a sense of responsibility f o r developing and sustaining its own specific difference—its own clear functional responsibility, and its own clear policy and method of service. T h i s is, in a sense, both the basis and the outcome of that process of examination, interpretation, and integration of its total experience, to which I have already r e f e r r e d . It is the basis of that process, because unless there are reasonably clear boundaries of need and service within which an agency operates, it cannot determine what are its own needs

300

Final

Statement

of resources, in both facilities and competence, with which to discharge its responsibilities. T h e definition of difference in the agency is the outcome of t h a t integrative process, f o r it is the ultimate expression of its experience in meeting the specific needs of particular people, under specific known circumstances. T h i s means, of course, t h a t the agency will feel a sense of responsibility f o r being a part of a communitywide social service undertaking, and not, in fact or in feeling, the whole of it. I t will want to contribute its own special program, its own special quality, its own specific difference, to the dynamic cooperative process, by which the community as a whole, in behalf of all its people, seeks to promote those social opportunities and relationships that are productive of individual achievement and satisfaction, on the one hand, and social unity, order and progress, on the other.

COMMUNITYWIDE

PLANNING

OF T H E SOCIAL

AND

ORGANIZATION

SERVICES

And that brings us to the third and most inclusive of those problem areas in which social work operates, the area of communitywide planning and organization of the social services. H o w does the philosophy I have presented apply to these difficult and important problems? It is obvious that we approach these problems with a clear recognition of the fact t h a t neither the profession of social work, nor the agencies in which social workers operate can determine f o r the community w h a t it should do in this field of organization or any o t h e r ; moreover, they would not want to do so, even if they could. T h e community is larger than any of its p a r t s ; it has the right and the duty to organize its own life to fulfill its own purposes in its own chosen ways. I t has the power and the right to determine f o r itself, as an integral whole, what needs of its people shall be set by organ-

A Philosophy

of Change

301

ized collective action, how and to w h a t extent these needs shall be met, and by whom. Community life grows and changes f r o m within, by reason of its own experience and of its own interpretation of t h a t experience, just as individual life grows and changes through the exercise of its own will and its own power. T h e process of organized effort and help toward change, in the complex modern society, as in the relations between individuals and face-to-face groups, must be a cooperative process, engaging the purpose and interest and will of all its parts, if change is to be enduring and progressive. T h e profession of social work, and the social agencies that use these professional services, are p a r t s of the community, but only p a r t s ; they have a specific contribution to make to the broader community's recognition and understanding and treatment of some of its own problems. T h e y have a responsibility to add their specific experience and their interpretation of that experience, in judgment, to the community's pool of knowledge and purpose with respect to social problems and relationships, and to participate actively in the cooperative process of distilling f r o m this collective knowledge and purpose the specific plans f o r the fulfillment of the community's needs and wants. One contribution which this profession and these agencies will be able to make to this cooperative process, is to validate and emphasize the supreme significance of the process itself, as compared with any immediate or specific outcome of change, based upon strictly intellectual and factual standards. T h e community is not a strictly intellectual and rational entity. It is permeated with feeling—which is just as real and effectual a factor in its life and purpose as are the rational facts which its members are facing and with which they are dealing. Unless these real feelings, these actual differences of experience and interests and aims, are given outlet and recognition and respect in the process of common planning

302

Final

Statement

and action, they can in the end nullify the whole undertaking, however logical and rational the outcome of planning may be. Another contribution which social workers and social agencies can make to this same process, f r o m this point of view, is to validate the essential value of real and honest and vital difference, as the dynamic of progress. T h e y will act upon the belief that there is no single, final, absolute answer to any human problem, and no perfect pattern of social organization. T h e y will express their appreciation of the contributions made to community life by individuals and groups who are capable of responsible, courageous, imaginative experimentation and exploration, both in the scope and method of social service. A n d they will seek to integrate in any community plan the values of reasonable and necessary standardization, in the interest of common action, with the values of individual freedom to cultivate and perpetuate constructive individual differences. Finally, I believe, the profession of social work and the responsible social agencies of the community will recognize and express in constant action, their clear and persistent obligation to maintain and use a communitywide democratically controlled structure of social work planning and organization, within which they will work out their common purpose and seek to attain their individual goals. I t is only by the recognition and acceptance of these firm community limits, this obligation to accept accountability f o r fitting individual p r o g r a m s and objectives into this integral community whole, this opportunity and obligation to test individual experience and purpose against community experience and need, that even the highest of individual aims can really be achieved. I close, as I began, with a reaffirmation of a basic philosophy of change in the social w o r k community in these troubled times. Change is here ; it is a fact of life ; our hopes are bound up in social change. Change can only come f r o m within; it

A Philosophy

of Change

303

grows f r o m inner experience ; it cannot be compelled or imposed. W e cannot control—we cannot even predict—the specific outcomes of social change. Those immediate outcomes are, in any event, less important than the process by which change is helped to come to pass. W e in social work do know something about that process; we can and must participate in influencing that process, to the end that all the members of our democratic society, with all their infinite differences of experience and capacity, by the exercise of their own powers, by the examination and choice of their own alternatives, can move forward together, in this changing world, toward a fuller, richer, more creative and more fruitful life for all.

Kenneth Louis Moffatt Pray 1882-1Ç48 Family

Background

Bom in Whitewater, Wisconsin, September 27, 1882 Married in 1910 Eliza Bun Lamoreux, who died in June, 1913 Died in Philadelphia March 2, 1948 Father, Theron Brown Pray, Educator Mother, Ellen Frances Moffatt Daughter, Ellen Elizabeth (Mrs. Frederick L . Maytag 2d), born October 28, 1 9 1 1 Education Graduated from State Normal School, Wisconsin, 1901 A. B., University of Wisconsin, 1907 Social Studies in Europe, 1907-08 Professional Experience Before

IÇ22

Editorial Work, Chicago, 1904-07 Political and Legislative Correspondent, Philadelphia Record, 1909—13 Legislative Correspondent, The Survey and Pennsylvania Social Agencies, Harrisburg, 1915 Assistant Secretary, Public Charities Association of Pennsylvania, 1915-17 Secretary, Public Charities Association of Pennsylvania, 1 9 1 7 - 2 2 Relation to the Pennsylvania School Lecturer on Government and Social Work, 1 9 1 9 - 2 2 Director and Supervisor, Department of Community Organization, 1922-32 Dean, 1933-36 On leave of absence, 1936-37 Professor of Social Planning and Administration, 1937-42 Director, Pennsylvania School of Social Work, affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania, 1942-46 Dean, University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work, 1946-48 304

Biographical Courses Developed

and Taught

Statement

in the Pennsylvania

30S School

1 9 1 9 , Government and Social W o r k ; 1922, Community Organization ; 1927, Field of Social Work, Historical Backgrounds of Social Work, Public Social Administration, Social Legislation; 1932, Common Professional Problems; 1934, Penal Administration; 1935, Social W o r k and Social Philosophy, Professional Problems and Community Relationships; 1939, Political Trends in Relation to Social Work, Probation, Prison and Parole, Bases of Social Policy, Public Welfare Organization and Functions; 1940, Community Problems of Social Agencies; 1 9 4 1 , Administrative Practice Other Professional

Activities

and

Connections

Member, Executive Committee, Pennsylvania Prison Society, 1921—48 Trustee, State Industrial Home for Women, Muncy, Pennsylvania, 1923-27 Trustee, State Industrial School for Boys, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, 1932-39 Member, Social Service Advisory Committee, Municipal Court, Philadelphia Member, Board of Education, Narberth, Pennsylvania Member, American Association of Schools of Social W o r k Member, Central Council, American Association of Social Workers, from its inception, 1921—25 Vice-President and Chairman of special committee that worked on the plans for reorganization of the Association, 1940-42 Chairman, Special Committee of the National Council on Social W o r k Education, 1947 Secretary, Pennsylvania Committee on Public Assistance and Relief, 1936-37 President, National Conference of Social Work, 1946 Member, Executive Committee, National Conference of Social W o r k , 1943-47 Member, Editorial Committee, National Conference of Social Work, 1946-47 Member, Technical Social Work Consultants to the United Nations Secretariat of the Social Affairs Division, 1947 Member, Advisory Committee for the Social Work Year Book from its inception, 1929-47

Bibliography of Published Papers United Statet History. In collaboration with William Francis Rocheleau. 3 vols. Roach and Fowler, 1906, Kansas City, Missouri. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science

"Some Reasons for the Development of the Professional School," September 1925, pp. 1 6 9 - 7 1 . "Study of L a w in Schools of Social W o r k , " September 1929, pp. 121-24. The Compass

1

"Report of the Resolutions Committee, 1938 Delegate Conference," July-August 1938, pp. 7 - 1 0 . " T o A l l Members of the American Association of Social Workers," November 1 9 4 1 , face sheet. "Unquestioning Support," January 19+2, p. 7. "Analysis and Appraisal of Changes in Social W o r k Practice and Function During the W a r Years," March 1946, pp. 3 - 1 0 . W i t h discussion. " T h e Plan for a Study of Social W o r k Education," March 1947, pp. 1 0 - 1 3 . Under the Direction of the National Council on Social W o r k Education ; M r . Pray was Chairman of its Study Committee. Federal

Probation

"Social Work in the Prison Program," October-December 1943, pp. 3 - 7 . Modified from an address, " A Community Social Worker Looks at the Prison Casework Program" delivered at the American Prison Congress, Asheville, North Carolina, October 20, 1942. " T h e Principles of Social Casework as Applied to Probation and Parole, A p r i l - J u n e 1945, pp. 1 4 - 1 8 . Journal

of Social Work

Process

" N e w Emphases in Education for Public Social W o r k , " in Method and skilled in Public Assistance, vol. 2, 1938, pp. 8 8 - 1 0 0 . 1

Name changed in 1948 to Social Work 306

Journal.

Bibliography

of Published

Papers

307

"The Agency's Role in Service," in Training for Skill in Social Casework, vol. 4, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1942, pp. 1 1 7 - 2 6 . Also in pamphlet, Problems of Agency Organization and Administration, Child Welfare League of America, 1941. National Conference of Social tVori

Proceedings

"Government by Boards and Commissions in Its Relation to Social Work Progress," 1923, pp. 209-16. "Where in Social Work Can the Concept of Democracy Be Applied?" 1926, pp. 625-36. "Are There Reliable Distinguishing Characteristics of Competent Professional Social Work?" 1934, pp. 5 1 7 - 2 2 . "Relative Responsibilities of Public and Private Social Work," 1934. PP· 204-16. "Public Funds in Public Hands?" 1937, pp. 487-94. "Quantitative Measurement of the Community's Needs and Services," 1940, pp. 436-46. "Changing the Structure and Programs of Agencies: Summary of Discussion." In collaboration with Kathryn Farra. 1941, pp. 5 9 7 605. "Social Work and Social Action," 1945, pp. 348-59. "Social Work in a Revolutionary Age," 1946, pp. 3 - 1 7 . Presidential Address. Prison Journal "Report of Federal Bureau of Prisons," October 1 9 3 1 , pp. 23-24. "The Proposed Abandonment of Cherry Hill," April-July 1933, pp. 24-25. "Social Casework in Prisons," April-July 1934, pp. 3 1 - 3 4 . Book Review on Crime and Society by Nathaniel F . Cantor, J u l y October 1939, pp. 577-78. Book Review on Handbook of American Prisons and Reformatories, April 1943, p. 319. "A Community Social Worker Looks at the Prison Casework Program," July 1943, p. 323. "The Community's Stake in the Private Prisoners' Aid Society," October 1945, pp. 1 0 6 - 1 1 . "Casework Paves the Way in Preparation for Freedom," Proceedings of the American Prison Association, November 1945, pp. 132-38. Joint meeting of the Wardens' Association and the Committee on Education, American Prison Congress, New York City,

Bibliography of Published Papers

308

November 1945. Reprinted in the Prison Journal, April 1946, pp. 1 6 6 - 7 1 . "Function and Structure of Social Casework in an Institution for Delinquent Women," October 1947, pp. 3 2 5 - 3 1 . Social Work Year

Book

"Unemployment," 1935, pp. 5 0 9 - 1 5 . "Education for Social W o r k , " 1939, pp. 1 1 3 - 2 4 . The

Survey

"Glimpses of Social Spirit," September 13, 1 9 1 9 , pp. 8 5 4 - 5 5 . " A Plan for the Treatment of Unemployment," March 1 9 3 3 , pp. 135-44· " I n Search of a Yardstick," September 1940, pp. 2 5 6 - 5 9 . Other Published

Papers

" T h e Community's Role in Health Promotion," Public Health Nursing, J u l y 1940, pp. 4 2 8 - 3 3 . " T h e Role of Professional Social Work in the W o r l d T o d a y , " Jewish Social Service Quarterly, September 1942, pp. 67-79. " T h e Child Welfare Field: W h a t Is Expected in Today's Total Program?" Child Welfare League of America Bulletin, December 1944, pp. 1 - 4 , 1 2 - 1 3 . Address delivered at N e w England Regional Conference of the Child W e l f a r e League of America, Greenfield, Massachusetts, April 1944. "Parole in Relation to Classification and Casework in Prison," National Probation Association Yearbook, 1944, pp. 182—95. " T h e Place of Social Casework in the Treatment of Delinquency," Social Service Review, June 1945, pp. 2 3 5 - 4 8 . Address delivered at seminar of the Central Howard Association in Chicago, December 1944. " W h e n Is Community Organization Social W o r k Practice?" in Community Organization: Its Nature and Setting, American Association of Social Workers, 1947, pp. 3—9. Paper read in Section V I I of National Conference of Social Work, April 1947. " A Restatement of the Generic Principles of Social Casework Practice," Journal of Social Casework, October 1947, PP· 283-90. Paper read in Section I of National Conference of Social Work, April 1947.