Education for social work

Preface

The unusual demand for social workers during the past few years, together with the increasing recognition of the importance of professional standards in social work, has directed attention to the necessity for more widely extended training facilities, that would be easily accessible to workers in all sections of the country. The need for workers during the war was met by the establishment of emergency training courses usually under the auspices of departments of sociology in colleges and universities. In a number of instances these brief training courses have developed into a more extended program of training for social work, which is gradually taking its place as a permanent feature of the university curriculum.

This new development in the field of training for social work inevitably called into question the adequacy of prevailing standards and methods of training and at the same time aroused serious doubts as to the advisability of bringing professional training under the control of university leadership. The fundamental question at issue was whether professional education is a professional or educational matter. Other professions have faced this same issue and their attitude toward it has largely determined their degree of success in attaining adequate standards of training. It is to throw light on this problem in the field of social work that this study was undertaken. And however inadequate the discussion may be from other points of view, its main purpose will have been achieved if it helps to bring about a growing recognition of the scientific basis upon which the structure of social work must be built.

This study was undertaken by the writer during his period of employment by the American Red Cross as National Director of Educational Service. In connection with his duties in that position fefli vi PREFACE

unusual opportunities were presented for studying at first hand the work of the different training schools, as well as the varied nature of the positions the trained social worker would be called upon to fill. Acknowledgment is here made of the many courtesies extended and help given to the writer both by his colleagues in the Red Cross and by the leaders in training for social work in the universities and professional schools throughout the country.

J. F. Steiner Chapel Hill, North Carolina April, 192 1

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I. The Nature of Social Work i

II. How Preparation for Social Work Has Been Secured . 6

Chapter I The Nature Of Social Work

The term social work which has come to be the accepted designation for a large group of specialized activities in the field of social betterment was not in general use at the opening of the present century. Two or three decades ago such terms as philanthropy, charity, correction, outdoor reUef, care of dependents, defectives, and deHnquents, were commonly employed by those at work in these fields. This is at once evident in the names of leading organizations estabhshed during those early years — the Charity Organization Society, Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, National Conference of Charities and Correction. When Miss Mary E. Richmond, in 1897, made her plea for professional training she urged the establishment of a "Training School in Applied Philanthropy." The training class which was organized in New York the following year developed later into the New York School of Philanthropy, and this name persisted until very recently when it was changed to the New York School of Social Work.

This early terminology is significant, for it indicates clearly the nature of the field from which modern social work has developed. The social workers of a generation ago were frankly engaged in the work of charity or philanthropy. Their efforts were concentrated upon the disadvantaged and handicapped and represented a growing attempt to understand their problems and solve them through the application of scientific methods. Just because their work was permeated with the scientific spirit it was inevitable that their attention should be increasingly directed to the forces that were dragging men down and making the work of relief such a difficult task.

Thus there developed very naturally a keen interest in what is frequently called the preventive side of social work. Those whose work was commonly thought of as being in the field of relief began to interest themselves in social legislation and in the improvement of social and industrial conditions. From the ranks of philanthropic workers there arose those who took up the fight against the adverse conditions of life instead of in behalf of the unfortunate who were disabled by those conditions. Investigations of the standards of living and housing conditions, social surveys of various kinds, promotion of recreational activities, organization of communities for the purposes of social betterment, arousing public sentiment against the evils of child labor, and organized efforts to give the general public a social point of view — all these and many other activities of a similar nature became a recognized part of the field of social work.

This change of emphasis in social work from remedial measures to those that strike at the root of social problems caused the whole field under consideration to lose its early definiteness of boundary lines. As long as social work was regarded as the adjustment of the dependent and handicapped to their environment, its activities could be grouped together in a field that was peculiar to itself. Just as soon, however, as it attempted to accompUsh its purpose by bringing about modifications of the environment, it allied itself with forward looking movements in many lines of work. In this sense, social work may be regarded as almost identical with the promotion of common welfare and the social worker is the individual of any occupation or profession whose life is actuated by a definite social purpose. Devine's Spirit of Social Work is dedicated

to social workers, that is to say, to every man and woman, who, in any relation of life, professional, industrial, political, educational or domestic; whether on salary or as a volunteer; whether on his own individual account or as part of an organized movement, is working consciously, according to his light intelligently, and according to his strength persistently, for the promotion of the common welfare — the common welfare as distinct from that of a party or a class or a sect or a business interest or a particular institution or a family or an individual.

It is at once evident that while such a broad conception of social work may be logical, it leads us far beyond its distinctively technical aspects. An analogy may be found in education which has both its popular and its professional sides. In one sense a large part of our activities may be looked upon as educational, but nevertheless it is well understood that there is a very clearly defined field for those w^ho have to do with formal education. Social work, because it touches life in so many intimate ways and includes activities that are commonplace and informal in nature, must have its popular side that can be participated in by people of every vocation. This is in fact the purpose of that part of social work which lays emphasis upon the spread of sociahzed intelligence. The more intelligent people become about social duties and problems, the more active will they be in the promotion of the common welfare. One of the most hopeful signs of the times is the active interest of such agencies and institutions as the school, the church, chambers of commerce, farmers' organizations, etc., in social programs designed to bring about a solution of social problems.

But, however legitimate it may be to speak of social work in this broad sense as merging into many different fields, there is without doubt a point beyond which popular effort cannot go and maintain a high efficiency. It is evident, for instance, that social investigation involves processes for which is required a technique of its own. It is even more clear that technical equipment is needed to deal with the situations that arise in connection with the care of the dependent and handicapped. No one can doubt that the adjustment of the social forces of communities requires the sure touch of a hand trained for its task. These and other similar activities in the general field of social welfare stand out in a well-defined group, not primarily because of what they attempt to do, but because they can be carried on successfully only by those who possess the proper technical training and experience. The social worker may be working hand in hand with many people interested in the same general problems but he is distinguished from them because he is qualified through special training to accomphsh well certain tasks that only incidentally come to the attention of those in other fields. Social work defined in this way loses something of the indefiniteness that comes from its close relation to efforts to improve the common welfare. While its results are accomplished through the aid of many allies, it has its distinctively technical aspects which, taken together, form a group of highly specialized activities that may very well be regarded as the beginning of a new profession.

But the confusion in regard to the proper limits of the field of social work has not resulted entirely from its far-reaching tendencies. Complications also arise from the domination of certain types of social work which more or less consciously regard themselves as occupying a fundamental position in the field of social welfare. This is especially true of the Charity Organization Society movement which must be recognized as the beginning of scientific social work in this country and which has maintained its place of leadership ever since its establishment more than a generation ago. Within this movement has been developed the technique of family case-work which was one of the first examples of the application of scientific methods to social work. The family welfare group has long been prominent in state and national conferences of social workers, and has made very significant contributions to the literature dealing with social problems. It is not surprising, therefore, that family case-work should sometimes be used as synonymous with social work, and that there should be a tendency in some quarters to judge the standing of social workers by training and skill in this particular field.

The natural confusion that results from this point of view can be easily seen. Social work is frequently identified with social pathology in spite of the efforts, led in many instances by family caseworkers themselves, in the wider fields of social investigation and community work. There is no clear recognition that social work has progressed to the point where remedial work represents only a part of its field. Instead of placing family case- work in its » legitimate position as one of the most important of the special activities of social work, there is a tendency to continue to regard it as the center from which all phases of social work naturally develop.

A scientific interpretation of social work, upon which can be based an adequate plan for professional education, must place in the right perspective the activities that make up its technical field. Unquestionably its remedial and amehorative activities come first in importance. The problem of dealing with the subnormal and \ handicapped presses upon us from all sides. Many generations of social neglect, of toleration of indecent conditions of Hfe, of wilful choice of the things that degrade, have produced their evil results. The proper care of dependent families, of orphaned and neglected children, of anti-social and subnormal individuals, requires skill, and no social worker, whatever his specialized form of work, dare be ignorant of the technique needed in this field.

On the other hand due importance must be given to methods of social investigation, analysis of community life, construction of community programs, the technique of organized recreation, and problems of social work administration. These are aspects of social work that are now demanding many skilled leaders, and unfortunately there is no general agreement as to the technique involved or as to the way workers in these fields should be prepared. No system of education for social work can be regarded as adequate until the methods of training in social investigation and social organization are as carefully worked out as is the technique of instruction for the remedial side of social work.

Chapter II How Preparation For Social Work Has Been Secured

It is a matter of common knowledge that the professional schools of law, medicine, teaching, and engineering began as a supplement to the apprenticeship system which was the original method of preparation for technical tasks. The difficulties these schools experienced in establishing themselves in competition with what were regarded as more practical methods of training can be understood without detailed reference to the past, for in some of these fields, at least, the apprenticeship system is still an active competitor and exerts a restraining influence upon efforts to raise standards of professional education.

A study of the methods of preparation for social work shows no exception to this experience of the well-established professions. The only difference worthy of mention is that social work is a more recent development, and therefore the apprenticeship system is still in vogue to an extent that would hardly be permitted today in other professions.

The apprentice method as it has been developed in the social-work field has been simply a means employed by organizations to train their new workers. The employee in training sometimes receives formal instruction from his superior through assigned readings and conferences, but the training consists chiefly of practical work carried on under supervision. Such an apprenticeship therefore cannot be called training for social work for it gives the worker no well-rounded view of the whole field but prepares him merely for specific tasks within a single organization.

The organization that conducts the training often safeguards its own interests by requiring the new worker to remain in its employ for a stated period of time. In 1898 the Boston Associated

Charities requested its agents in training to agree in advance to remain for three years in the service of that Society. The United Charities of Chicago in 1915 demanded a two-year period of service of those whom it undertook to train. This rule, which was quite generally followed, makes it clear that the well-estabhshed social work organizations in the larger cities have not desired to accept responsibility for the training of workers not in their employ. In a report read at the National Conference of Charities and Correction at Topeka, Kansas, in 1900, it was stated that

there is but one Society which is making a special effort to train agents and secretaries for positions in newly organized societies and so spreading the gospel of organized charities in other cities. This has no reference to the New York Society which is conducting an excellent six weeks' mid-summer course for those who wish to take advanced work.

Eight years later Mrs. John M. Glenn discussed this same subject in a paper read at the National Conference of Charities and Correction in Richmond, and quoted a field secretary as follows:

I do not know whether large societies feel a responsibility toward small societies or not. The engagement of a field secretary for Charities and the Commons would seem to be an indirect evidence that they do. I don't think we are ready to train workers sent us from other cities, expecting them to go back to work in other cities.

An apprenticeship system that was limited to the large organizations of a few cities, and admitted to training only a number sufl&cient to take care of their labor turnover, could never meet the demand for trained workers in a line of work that was constantly expanding. The first public evidence of recognition of this fact in this country was a paper read by Miss Anna Dawes, in 1893, at the International Congress of Charities in Chicago. In this paper, which had as its subject "The Need of Training Schools for a New Profession," Miss Dawes pointed out the desperate situation in which the Charity Organization Society found itself because new societies were springing up more rapidly than trained workers could be supplied. As a result of this lack of skilled leadership an undue proportion of these organizations were either failing utterly or were carrying on their work in a feeble and inefficient manner. In commenting on this situation, Miss Dawes said:

I am convinced that it is not so much lack of willing individuals as entire lack of opportunity for training that is the real trouble. For no matter how much a man may wish to go into this work there is no place where he can learn

its duties What is needed, it seems to me, is some course of study where

an inteUigent young person can add to an ordinary education such branches as may be necessary for this purpose, with a general view of those special studies in political and social science which are most closely connected with the problem of poverty, and where both he and his associate already learned in the study of books can be taught what is now the alphabet of charitable science — some knowledge of its underlying ideas, its tried and trusted methods, and some acquaintance with the various devices employed for the upbuilding of the needy, so that no philanthropic undertaking, from a model tenement house to a kindergarten or a sand heap, will be altogether strange to his mind. .... It seems to me that the time has come when either through a course in some established institution or in an institution by itself, or by the oldfashioned method never yet improved upon for actual development — the method of experimental training as the personal assistant of some skilled worker — it ought to be possible for those who would take up this work to find some place for studying it as a profession ^

This appeal for a training school did not lead to immediate action. However clearly a few leaders might see the need of trained workers, there was very little recognition of this need on the part of the pubHc. The ninety-two charity organization societies in existence at that time represented an important and growing movement, but they were supported by a limited clientele, and their methods were not fully understood or approved. Even when we add to this Hst of charity organization societies the organizations that were springing up in related kinds of social work, the field was still too Hmited in scope to offer many inducements to trained workers. It must not be forgotten also that the public did not regard philanthropic work as a technical activity that required

1 Charities Review, III, 49-51.

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL WORK g

Special skill and so quite readily employed as workers in this field those who lacked proper training and experience. This was brought out very strikingly by Miss Mary E. Richmond in an address made at Philadelphia, in 1897, in the course of which she cited the following incidents:

"You ask me," wrote a clergyman, "what qualifications Miss has

for the position of agent in the Charity Organization Society. She is a most estimable lady and the sole support of a widowed mother. It would be a real charity to give her the place." Another applicant for the same position when asked whether she had any experience in charity work, replied that she had had a good deal — she had sold tickets for church fairs. Though those particular ladies were not employed, is it not still a very common thing to find charity agents who have been engaged for no better reason? — like the one who was employed to distribute relief because he had failed in the grocery business.'

The National Conference of Charities and Correction, which had been bringing together the leading social workers of the country in annual conference since 1873, gave its first extended consideration to the problem of professional training at its session in Toronto in 1897. At that meeting Miss Richmond read a paper on the subject ''The Need of a Training School in Applied Philanthropy," in which she stated her belief that professional standards could not be attained until a training school had been provided. With admir- i able clearness she pointed out the confusion that existed because I the different types of philanthropic workers were not famihar with j the common ground of knowledge that underHes all charitable work.f She says.

If an agent of a relief society has occasion to confer with the head of a foundling asylum, is it not likely that the ends they have in view, that the principles underlying their work, that the very meanings which they attach to our technical terms, will prove to be quite at variance? What an incalculable gain to humanity when those who are doctoring social diseases in many departments of charitable work shall have found a common ground of agreement and be forced to recognize certain established principles as underlying all effective service! Not immediately, of course, but strongly and steadily such a common ground could be established, I believe, by a training school for our professional workers.

lo, EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL WORK

Miss Richmond's plan for the school did not go into details, but included recommendations that it be located in a large city where students could have direct access to the work of pubKc and private charitable agencies, that its afhhation with an educational institution should not prevent the placing of emphasis upon practical work rather than upon academic requirements, and that a considerable part of the instruction be given by specialists in the different fields who could be engaged to give their lectures during the less busy months of the year.

At the same meeting another plan was brought forward by Miss Frances R. Morse, which contemplated the development of co-operative normal- training by the larger charity organization centers. In the opinion of Miss Morse, satisfactory training could be provided by setting up a responsible group of advisers who would assign students in training to different organizations for definite periods and exercise general supervision over the students* instruction so as to make sure that it would cover a wider field than that of a single agency. It was in fact a sort of centrally directed apprenticeship system whereby a new worker would be assigned at successive periods to different agencies, thus making it possible to secure a well-rounded experience.

Miss Morse's plan did not meet with general favor and the time did not seem ripe for the estabHshment of a training school. The following year, however, in the summer of 1898, the New York Charity Organization Society took the first steps in the direction of a professional school by holding a six weeks' training course. In a lengthy editorial on the subject, "A Training School in Charities and Correction," the Charities Review of May, 1898, gave the following description of the course to be held that summer:

The main feature of this course is that no tiiition is charged, but members of the course are expected to enter the service of the society for six weeks. District work, care of one or more families, investigation of special subjects with one major and one minor report of the results of such investigation are

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL WORK ii

to be required. There will be daily sessions for lectures and discussions. An attractive program has been arranged under the following general plan.

During the first week the subject of charity organization and general philanthropic work will be considered with visits to the offices in the charities building, industrial agencies of New York and Brooklyn, and other private charitable institutions. The second week will be devoted to the care of dependent and deUnquent children and the philanthropic side of mission enterprise. In the third week, study will be made of the pubHc charitable institutions with addresses from the several superintendents and from the President of the Board of Charities Commissioners. Attention will be given to the work of the state Charities Aid Association and the state Board of Charities. The fourth week will be devoted to the study of the care of the dependent sick. Visits will be made to various hospitals, dispensaries, etc. Consideration will be given to the care for the aged, and fresh air work. The fifth week will include some study of general sanitary improvements, the divisions of the health departments and visits to the improved tenements in New York and Brooklyn. The first part of the sixth week will be given to the care of delinquents with visits to the workhouse and penitentiary; the second half to a review of the work of the class, with further study into the functions of charity organization societies in developing the several branches of philanthropic and reform work into unity and precision.

It is not expected that a thorough training will be imparted in this period. No diploma or degrees are to be conferred and no promises made concerning future employment of those who avail themselves of the opportunity offered. As an experimental contribution toward the end in view, the results of the present training class will be watched with interest.

Dr. Philip W. Ayres was placed in charge of the training class which was attended by twenty-seven students representing fourteen colleges and universities and.eleven states. According to the report of the New York Charity Organization Society for 1897-98, this course was carried on along the lines indicated in a highly satisfactory manner. The report says :

The inunediate results of this experimental course are all that was anticipated. Permanent positions have been secured by some, others have gained valuable material for the university class room, while still others have entered upon special lines of inquiry which will be prosecuted in the future. It is hoped that from this beginning a plan of professional training in applied philanthropy may be developed which will raise the standards of qualifications and of usefulness throughout the entire field of charitable work.

^ This Summer School in Philanthropic Work, as it was called, filled such a real need that it became for a period of seven years a regular feature of the work of the New York Charity Organization Society. Until the year 1903, this summer course represented practically the only organized effort to provide systematic training in the philanthropic field. As its purpose was primarily to increase the efficiency of active workers, its attendance was largely Hmited to those who had at least one year's experience in social work. New workers were supposed to serve a period of apprenticeship with a social agency before becoming eligible to register for the course. The desire for training was so great that it was not difficult to secure students of high grade. Two hundred and fifteen students were enrolled during the period 1898-1904, an average of thirty for each session, which was as large a class as their limited facihties at that time made practicable. Among those who took this six weeks' course are many well-known teachers and specialists in the social-work field. The list of graduates includes: Dr. U. G. Weatherly, professor of sociology. University of Indiana; C. C. Carstens, general secretary, Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; Kate H. Claghorn, instructor in social research. New York School of Social Work; Dr. Carl Kelsey, professor of sociology, University of Pennsylvania; Dr. E. W. Capen, professor of sociology, Hartford Theological Seminary; Eugene T. Lies, formerly general superintendent. United Charities of Chicago; W. Frank Persons, vice-chairman in charge of Domestic Operations, American Red Cross; 'Alexander M. Wilson, formerly director, CiviHan Relief, Atlantic Division, American Red Cross; Lillian Brandt, formerly statistician. New York Charity Organization Society; Mrs. Alice Higgins Lothrop, formerly director, CiviUan Relief, New England Division, American Red Cross; Paul U. Kellogg, editor of Survey; Frances A. Keller, well-known writer and authority on unemployment; Porter R. Lee, director, New York School of Social Work; and Howard S. Braucher, general secretary of Community Service, Incorporated.

In 1903 the training program of the New York Charity Organization Society was extended to include a six months' winter session which provided weekly lectures at a late afternoon hour so that the course would be available for social workers employed in the city. One hundred and forty-seven registered for this course, but the attendance was irregular on account of the heavy work of the charitable societies caused by an unusually severe winter.

The following year these experimental training classes developed into the New York School of Philanthropy under the direction of the Committee on Philanthropic Education of the New York Charity Organization Society. The first director of the school was Dr. Edward T. Devine, who served in this capacity in connection with his duties as general secretary of the New York Charity Organization Society. A full year's course of training was estabHshed which was planned primarily for students without experience in social work. The first year fifty-seven students registered, twelve of whom completed the year's work and received the certificate of the school.

In the fall of the same year, 1904, a similar school was established in Boston under the title "School for Social Workers, Maintained by Simmons College and Harvard University." Its first published announcement stated that it was

a school for the study of charity, correction, neighborhood upUft, and kindred forms of social service, whether under private management or public administration. Its purpose is to give opportunities to men and women to study social problems by practical methods, particularly to those who would become oflficials of institutions and agencies or would prepare themselves for service as volunteers in this field of work.

The school opened with one classroom and a small ofiice in Hamilton Place, Boston, with an enrolment of twenty-six students.

Dr. Jeffrey R. Brackett, the President of the Department of Charities and Correction of Baltimore, was appointed director and remained in active charge of the school for a period of sixteen years.