When young, these children were typically given to the care of relatives, with the local Overseers of the Poor sometimes contributing to support the children. But many of these children were not orphans in our contemporary meaning: many had at least one living parent, almost always a mother, who was unable to provide for them. In the colonial period, the responsibility for children came to the public primarily when they were orphans. Until the early 20th century, provisions for needy children were primarily local and private. The notion of the “innocence” of children, as opposed to their caretakers, has worked to modify that harsh refusal. A distinction between the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor, and a fear that aid might encourage immorality, underlay the policies of both charity and local government relief programs. Recurrently, poverty has been diagnosed as a product of individual immoral character–even legitimated as a punishment for immorality–and thus removed from the arena of public policy. Indeed, sympathy for poor and neglected children was crucial in breaking through the strong free-market individualism that has been mobilized repeatedly to condemn public aid to needy children. ![]() In: Child Welfare/Child Labor, Programs Child Welfare: A Brief Historyīy Linda Gordon, Ph.D., New York University, New York, NYĬhildren have been central to the development of welfare programs in the United States.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |