关于公共管理外文翻译.docx

“to give or not to give:” interactions between rural relief clients and social workers during the emergency relief period of the great depression, 1933 to 1935 by courtney kisat b.a., southern illinois university, 1999 m.a., southern illinois university, 2002 a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the doctor of philosophy degree department of history in the graduate school southern illinois university carbondale may, 2013all rights reservedinformation to all usersthe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.in the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. also, if material had to be removed,a note will indicate the deletion.microform edition proquest llc.all rights reserved. this work is protected againstunauthorized copying under title 17, united states codeproquest llc.789 east eisenhower parkwayp.o. box 1346ann arbor, mi 48106 - 1346umi 3588003published by proquest llc (2013). copyright in the dissertation held by the author.umi number: 3588003 copyright by courtney kisat all rights reserved dissertation approval “to give or not to give:” interactions between rural relief clients and social workers during the emergency relief period of the great depression, 1933 to 1935 by courtney l. kisat a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctorate of philosophy in the field of history approved by: kay j. carr, chair jonathan bean peter a. argersinger hale yilmaz dona reese graduate school southern illinois university carbondale april 12, 2013 i an abstract of the dissertation of courtney l. kisat, for the doctor of philosophy degree in history, presented on october 22, 2012, at southern illinois university carbondale. title: “to give or not to give:” interactions between rural relief clients and social workers during the emergency relief period of the great depression, 1933 to 1935 major professor: dr. kay j. carr during the great depression of the 1930s, millions of americans suffered from long term unemployment and subsistence poverty while the federal governments new deal attempted to address their problems. but the rural poor, even before the depression and particularly after it began in 1929, were affected by a kind of chronic poverty that would prove more difficult to address with government-run relief efforts. because traditional methods of relief from poverty were embedded in the socioeconomic culture of rural america, it was not always possible to apply the same federal relief methods in the countryside as in the urban areas of the nation. of course, the rural poor stood to benefit from modern social relief services and, for a brief period, it seemed as if those services would become available for their benefit. however, economic conservatism hindered the potential effectiveness of the twoyear federal emergency relief program. from 1933 to 1935, the united states federal government ii backed the unprecedented expenditure of billions of dollars in direct emergency relief. abiding the advice of prominent social workers, the government created an emergency relief program to address the alarming needs of impoverished americans. these programs affected those who suffered the effects of long term unemployment and those trapped in rural poverty. the federal government created social welfare policies that had the power to ease the misery of those forced to subsist at the bottom. government benefits and impoverished beneficiaries met through social work. for a brief span of time, the new deal emergency relief period of early 1933 to mid-1935 offered an opportunity for social workers to promote a nationalized system of social welfare. this is an understudied aspect of american history, and is the focus of this dissertation. iii dedication this dissertation is dedicated to my three wonderful sons, noah, nathan, and collin, and to jay, my strongest source of support. thank you for sharing me with this project and for being proud of me when i finally finished it! iv acknowledgements so many people have gone beyond standard academic expectations to help me construct, revise, and polish this dissertation. thank you to dr. kay carr, whose patience with me knew no bounds. i would like to extend my deepest gratitude as well to dr. jonathan bean, who holds the record for quickest turn-around with essential feedback, and who pushed me to develop sound arguments and present them clearly. dr. dona reese helped me learn about social work policy and practice, and gave freely of her time, even to a graduate student outside her own college. sincerest gratitude to dr. jerry hostetler, who believed that i could do this, ensured my funding throughout the process, and allowed me unlimited time to work on my dissertation. the archival staff members at the social welfare history archives of the university of minnesota were incredibly friendly and helpful, and the elmer andersen research grant from that institution enabled me to travel to the archives for valuable research. thank you to dr. elizabeth eames for the scholarship from womens studies; i hope my work furthers scholarship about women in a way that is constructive. finally, although the members of the new deal/social work v coalition have been gone from this earth for some time, thank you for caring about impoverished americans, fighting tirelessly for federalized social welfare policies, and keeping good records of all of it. may we build upon, rather than disregard, your important work in the hopes that future citizens will not needlessly suffer from poverty. vi table of contents chapter page abstracti dedicationiii acknowledgementsiv chapters chapter 1 federal emergency relief and the rural poor.1 chapter 2 social workers and the rural poor92 chapter 3 federal emergency relief and the africanamerican experience143 chapter 4 rural southern illinois, 1933 to 1935.172 chapter 5 the emergency relief period: a lost opportunity210 bibliography226 appendices appendix a.257 appendix b.258 vita259 1 chapter 1 federal emergency relief and the rural poor the spring of 1933 was a time when unemployed americans had reason to feel cautiously hopeful. as the may sunshine warmed those who had suffered a fourth winter of economic depression, newspaper headlines offered optimistic news from the roosevelt administration. the federal emergency relief act was approved by congress on may 12. correspondents reported from st. paul that the farmers strike had been suspended, while readers of the newyork times learned that the president was working through the night to review sweeping recovery legislation.1 the federal government and congress finally seemed unified and determined to tackle the economic problems plaguing the nation. these reports confirmed what the president had told the american people in a radio address of may 7; “the members of the congress realized that the methods of normal times had to be replaced in the emergency with measures that were suited to the serious and pressing requirements of the moment.”2 enthusiasm was high as people waited to see how these federal actions would affect1 “farmers strike is suspended: holiday group to await relief results actionhalted after statement by president roosevelt but dairymens leader saystrike is on. daily boston globe, may 13, 1933: 1; “recovery measure beforeroosevelt in night council: he will study proposal, including re-employmenttax, on potomac trip today.” new york times, may 14, 1933: 1.2franklin d. roosevelt, “the presidents address,” new york times, may 8,1933: 1. 2 their everyday lives. less than two years later, however, bitter disillusionment was the prevalent theme. periodically in society there come brief spans of time when social, political, and economic circumstances align and present opportunity for fundamental, unprecedented change. the new deal emergency relief period of early 1933 to mid-1935 was one such time. while millions of americans suffered from long term unemployment and subsistence poverty, the federal governments new deal attempted to address their problems. but urban and rural americans experienced poverty differently, and the rural poor were affected by a kind of chronic poverty that would prove difficult to address with government-run relief efforts. of course, the rural poor stood to benefit from modern social relief services and, for the brief emergency relief period, it seemed as if those services would become available for their benefit. however, rural economic conservatism hindered the effectiveness of the two-year federal emergency relief program and is the topic of this dissertation. abiding the advice of prominent social workers, the federal government created an emergency relief program in 1933. this program was designed to help not only those who suffered the effects of long term unemployment, but also those trapped in rural poverty. government benefits and impoverished beneficiaries met through social work, and it is this 3 understudied relationship that provides the framework of this dissertation. the federal emergency relief administration (fera) was created by president franklin d. roosevelt in may of 1933. president roosevelt assigned the administration of fera to harry hopkins, an experienced social worker from new york. hopkins in turn mandated that emergency relief procedures be grounded in modern social work method. in this dissertation, i argue that in many cases, rural people resisted government-mandated social work, which thwarted the efforts of relief workers. my argument is sustained by three areas of support; first, i present evidence that traditional conservatism made rural people wary of the expanded role of government under the new deal. second, i show that social workers were in a position to advocate for the rural impoverished because of the increased professionalism of their field, but their personalities, rather than their education, became the most decisive factor in building positive community rapport. third, i emphasize that in states and localities where rural people were unwilling to adapt to modern social work practice, the federal governments emergency grants made little or no impact. therefore, the emergency relief period of 1933 to 1935 was an incredibly busy and exciting time, but too brief to adequately address deeply rooted problems of rural poverty. it deserves this analysis for the window of opportunity 4 social workers used to plant americas first rural social work programs. in this dissertation, i expand upon several angles important to the field of social welfare history. first, i emphasize the critical link between the professionalization of social work and the new deal emergency relief program. without the evolution of case work methodology in accredited social work colleges, the federal program would have lacked a standard method upon which to rely. next, i suggest that new deal academics contributed to a deeper understanding of rural poverty and brought the “plight of the sharecropper” to national attention.3 rural sociologists, anthropologists, social workers, and politicians strove to devise ways to help impoverished rural americans, the first time any such national effort was undertaken. this opened doors for the development of rural social work. finally, i analyze rural poverty of the 1930s and confirm the well-known fact that sharecroppers lived in abject conditions and their poverty was both cyclical and chronic. i further assert, however, that women of the landless farm labor groups could not partake in community bonding experiences as did women of the landed class, an idea that challenges earlier scholarship on rural women.3norman thomas, the plight of the sharecropper (new york: league forindustrial democracy, 1934). 5 when rural families applied for relief in the 1930s, they encountered a number of obstacles. in this dissertation, i will discuss the social stigma that accompanied government aid and the ways people reflected their humiliation in interviews with relief officials. local resistance to government mandated relief in townships, counties, and states throughout the united states created road blocks for rural social work. on the other hand, local leaders who embraced the national recovery program launched initiatives on local levels, which helped social workers minimize obstacles for the needy to receive aid. in this dissertation, i assert that because of their economic conservatism, americans desired to work for their sustenance and generally did not want to apply for aid. as fera employee lorena hickok noted in 1934, “if it were all direct relief, with no work, thousands would never apply.4 although assistance became available for those who suffered during the great depression, political and moral controversy surrounded both the administration of relief money and those that took it. people commonly believed that relief would pauperize relief clients, or destroy their morale and work ethic so badly they would never recover to self-sufficiency. fera director harry hopkins lamented in late 1934, “we found in the course of our experience with relief that thousands of people will not go to4hickok, one third of a nation, 358. 6 the relief office and apply for relief because there is grown up in this country a profound prejudice against relief.”5 this american ethos of conservatism was the biggest obstacle to liberalized relief policy. overview the great depression of the 1930s resides in national memory as a time of extreme hardship for the american people. new deal legislation marked a shift in the relationship between government and society. in addressing the economic catastrophe, the federal government after 1933 embarked upon a more extensive role in the personal lives of americans. this was led by a marked effort by president franklin d. roosevelt, his cabinet, and new deal academics to publicize and understand the plight of the nations poor, actions that have been well documented by historians.6 i argue that the point of contact between relief clients and the federal government rested with social workers and that, by studying these interactions, we can gain a clearer picture of both the roots of modern social work and the state of rural america in the early 1930s. i conclude that by 1935 conservative factions overpowered the wishes of social workers5harry hopkins, testimony before house committee on deficiency appropriations(hearings, h.r. 7527, 1934).6for example, see arthur schlesinger, jr., the rise of modern america, 18651951 (new york: macmillan, 1951); t.h. watkins, the hungry years: a narrativehistory of the great depression in america (new york: henry holt andco.1999); robert mcelvaine, the great depression: america, 19291941 (newyork: times books), 1984. 7 and effectively ended federally backed direct relief. the dismay of social workers was obvious. work relief, social security, and returning states and counties to their own devices were not the outcomes social workers hoped to see in 1935. sources from the new deal period have dictated the geography of this study. my sources come mainly from the broad southern and midwestern regions of the u.s., along with a special focus on southern illinois. universities in the south, especially the university of north carolina, sponsored thriving rural sociology programs in the 1930s. furthermore, researchers hired by the new deals works progress administration (wpa) and farm security administration (fsa) analyzed rural poverty in historically impoverished places such as the deep south. it is outside the scope of this dissertation to consider every rural unit, although focused regional studies would add to the rich and growing array of literature on the effects of new deal emergency relief in rural america. the economic emergency called upon social workers at a crucial time in the professions history. only in the thirty years before the great depression had social workers begun training in college programs rather than church-sponsored charities. by the early years of the twentieth century, young peoplemore women than mengraduated from vigorous college social work programs ready to rehabilitate the poor into 8 productive citizens. unfortunately, these enthusiastic young graduates encountered popular notions of social work as a lowstatus “female” profession.7 professionalization of the field was designed by its leaders to cast off negative associations so that trained social workers could be taken seriously. in the early 1930s, social work method rested on the implementation of social casework as advocated by mary richmond, a leader in the field.8 investigation was an important aspect of casework. social workers visited homes, verified addresses and references, and investigated resources available to relief applicants. during the great depression, certain aspects of the investigation process, such as the home visit and signed affidavits of poverty, became hated facets of the relief procedure. in this dissertation, i discuss how social workers dealt with attitudes of resistance and the high expectations placed on them by the professional cohort of social work. in november of 1932, franklin roosevelt was elected president by a landslide vote with promises to actively address the unemployment crisis. he was also worried about revolutionary fervor among the