Throughout the years, social work practice has been concerned with promoting social reform and social justice to advance the well-being of people. Some of the first writings associated with the profession of social work provide insight into the importance of affecting larger structural issues in the lives of consumers. As a student of social work, take some time to acquaint yourself with some of the influential writers in the field—the “ghosts” of social work past. Take time to review the contributions of historic social workers such as Jane Addams, Mary Ellen Richmond, Frances Perkins, Dorothy Height, and George Haynes. There is no substitute for reading the original words and impressions of these great authors and innovators.
Be forewarned that the following historical overview emphasizes social determinism. There is an underlying assumption about the importance of social forces (such as historical occurrences, political climate, and economic circumstances) in affecting people’s desire and ability to engage in large-scale social change. Such an outlook is useful for ascertaining the various factors involved in helping to shape and better understanding the methods and forms of macro social work practice over the past century.
The Progressive Era: Mary Richmond
Mary Richmond (1861–1928) is often described as one of the eminent founders of social work. In Social Diagnosis (1917), Richmond describes social work as consisting of a common body of knowledge based on collecting and understanding information, especially social evidence. Richmond was one of the first social workers to advocate for a more comprehensive method of inquiry and intervention, including a “wider view of self” (p. 368). Such an approach embraced an analysis of various forms of human relations, consideration of the social situation and surroundings, inquiries concerning social agencies, and an appreciation of economic conditions and neighborhood improvement (pp. 369–370).
While acknowledging that a majority of social workers at the turn of the 20th century engaged in casework, aimed at “the betterment of individuals and families,” Richmond clearly recognized the need for “betterment of the mass” (p. 25). But what is meant by betterment? The term implies strengthening, improving—making “better off.” At a very early stage in the development of our profession, Richmond acknowledges, “Mass betterment and individual betterment are interdependent,” with the need for “social reform and social case work of necessity progressing together” (p. 25).
For Richmond, the movement from a focus on the individual to an emphasis on social concerns was directly attributable to the influence of the charity organizations. New methods emphasizing “social” diagnosis or the problems and issues associated with life conditions and living circumstances were born from campaigns by a number of social activists working to improve housing, promote child labor reform, and prevent the spread of diseases like tuberculosis. Richmond notes that in charity organizations, “some of [the] earliest leaders had grasped the idea of the sympathetic study of the individual in his [or her] social environment” (p. 32). Undoubtedly, as social activists worked to strengthen opportunities and economic means for their consumers of services, casework “had at its command more varied resources, adaptable to individual situations.” As a consequence, “the diagnosis of those situations assumed [a] fresh [and broader] importance” (p. 32).
Mary Richmond is one of the best-known leaders of the Charity Organization Society (COS) movement, which was grounded in convictions derived from England. Leaders of the COS often “believed that many poor people were unworthy, so that applicants for aid should be carefully investigated. Records were to be kept about each case, and a central registry was developed to ensure that no person received aid from more than one source” (Suppes & Wells, 2003, p. 87). These written records eventually became important sources of documentation for use in advocating for social change and reform. Many would argue that these early efforts to advocate for reform on the basis of documented human need constituted the beginning of community welfare planning in the United States and eventually gave rise to what we now know as the community-based United Way system.
Photo 1.2 Recognition is given to Mary Richmond for her contribution to the social work profession.
Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.print
The relationship between human need, casework, and social reform is an interesting and profound theme when we consider the emergence of macro social work practice. Richmond was astute in advancing the argument that necessity, as evidenced by human struggle, was a driving force for social reform and ultimately responsible for reshaping casework into “social” casework. If Richmond’s perceptions are correct, then the movement of social work practice toward a more structural, macro orientation is directly related to consumer plight and not merely a philosophical position fashioned by progressive professionals.
Characterized by intense industrialization and massive immigration, the era from 1900 to 1920 was a decisive period for rethinking and reconstituting social services in the United States. As Mary Richmond was redefining casework, Jane Addams’s Hull House became a model for the settlement movement in large urban areas across the nation. In addition to providing a wide array of goods and services in the poorest neighborhoods, settlement houses and the settlement movement “concentrated on the totality of problems in a single geographical area … the central focus was on the experiences, thinking, and actions of local populations that could affect broad social and economic reform” (Haynes & Holmes, 1994, p. 65).
Settlement houses were neighborhood houses or community centers. In addition to addressing the everyday needs of local residents, they often provided recreational, instructional, and community programs (Federico, 1973, p. 170). From a macro perspective, settlement houses established a place for people to meet, express ideas, share concerns, and pool their strengths. From this new, informal setting emerged leadership in identifying, specifying, and organizing to meet the issues of the day.
Indeed, the very origins of group work are often traced to the settlement movement. Today, many people simply see group work as synonymous with group therapy. For settlement workers, however, group meetings were not merely a medium to educate and treat people but also a forum for exploring community-based needs. In other social work classes, you will learn more about the multiple functions and purposes of group work. Here, it is important to make a mental note that group work is a valuable method for promoting larger scale change and an important means of promoting collective action.
It is noteworthy that although charity workers and volunteers had been hearing the struggles and misfortunes of individuals for some time, the formation of settlement houses was instrumental in identifying and advancing a united voice from consumers. At settlement houses, social workers could listen and learn directly from the mouths of people living in turmoil. This resulted in new, often group-determined ways of identifying opportunities and contemplating social change.
Given this context, it is not surprising that charity workers began to think of help as something more than face-to-face assistance to the poor for the purpose of addressing basic, everyday needs. What emerged was a pencha...